Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive506

User:Shabushabu violates WP:OWN, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA

Resolved

 – Blocked again, this time for more than a day. Daniel Case (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Shabushabu has repeatedly stated that he alone should be working on a Singaporean Chinese TV drama article (The Little Nyonya), and that other people should not work on it ([1]). When I was editing the page in question to rewrite a section with awful grammar and English usage, I was attacked for having POV, and was accused of being a fan of the main actress of the series, even when the content or the context of the section was unchanged.

The user also sent me abusive messages, stating that it is "sickening" that I, as a user in Arizona who has never seen the series (wrong assumption on his part)([2]), have the galls to edit that article.

Truth is, thanks to internet technology, I was able to watch the series in question, and I have knowledge of the series in question.

Shabushabu, through edit warring and NPA violations, was banned for 3 hours yesterday ([3]). During the first hour of the block, he posted many unblock requests, stating that I abused my powers (what powers, as an editor in good standing?), and that I prevented him from editing ([4]).

The torrent of abuse from this user has exhausted the community's patience. I ask that an indefinite block be made to Shabushabu, who has already told us that he is unrepentant. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Have they been disruptive since the block has expired? — Satori Son 15:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb and say yes. Rgoodermote  15:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

In response to Santori Son, yes. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's give him a chance to work on the article he just started and cool off. But, if he resumes his previous behavior, let's give him a long block. Daniel Case (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbiteroftruth did not provide any source to the parts he wrote and the minute I removed it stating it is unrelated to the show, I got blocked. No explanation given on his part. I rewrote several sections and he just deleted it and edited to his liking although the whole idea of the article was totally distorted by him. I was translating based on the source which I provided and he just removed it to his liking, based on his own interpretation. Of course I am furious. Yes the show is based in Singapore, I have no idea why he is so enthusiastic about it when he couldn't even prove the need to make comparisons with another show. If you think I am unreasonable, for goodness sake, I am new. You don't give me a chance to learn the functions and you gave me warnings. This is a case of bullying on your part. I have edited the article several times and he is the only one giving me problems.

Read those articles before judging I am in the wrong. Shabushabu (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked Shabushabu for 28 hours (31 hours minus the three from the original block, which IMO should have been a full 24 hours) for resuming this behavior. Daniel Case (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

First unblock request declined. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to put a damper on your spirits, but now he's blanked the warnings on his page, and has replaced them with his version of the article, under the name: "How he stole my article". I think the block needs to be upgraded to he can't edit his own talk page. Elbutler (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Unable to report at AIV because of multiple edit conflicts

Resolved

 – Blocked. _Gb^T/c 20:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Phaseitem1011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vnadal only, racist, vandalised main page article, claims to be testing a bot. DuncanHill (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • And now he's impersonating Raul see [5]. DuncanHill (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks. _Gb^T/c 20:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikinews Importer Bot malfunctioning?

Is Wikinews Importer Bot (talk · contribs) malfunctioning? This diff suggests so, and the bot hasn't then corrected itself despite several hours in which it would notice the difference between the two pages if it were a one-off. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

An unblock request that actually might merit review

Resolved

 – User unblocked.

User_talk:Anywhere But Home#Circus.2FIf U Seek Amy contains an unblock request that may (emphasis on the "may") actually be worth reviewing. Fairly new editor, caught up in a situation where they were arguably correct, but wound up edit-warring. Seems properly contrite after a short discussion. I will point out that he made a few ineffective attempts (for example) to get someone to explain to him why a source he considered to be reliable was a problem.

I'm not going to argue strongly one way or the other, but it would be nice for someone to accept or reject the unblock request.—Kww(talk) 21:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

First step should be to drop a note for the blocking admin, he might be amenable to unblocking. –xeno (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right ... dropped a note there.—Kww(talk) 22:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm gonna vote for an unblock. There is no obvious sign the user realised what they were doing was against policy. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with sandman, give him another chance. This can be a confusing place to new people. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 22:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Endorse unblock, certainly seems the best way forward. — neuro^(talk) 22:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I blocked based on the edit warring, and reverting an admin in this edit: [6], not for whether the sources provided in certain edits are reliable or not. As for the issue at hand, I am willing to accept an unblock on the condition that the user agree to not edit war again and in the future and make use of talk pages. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverting an admin is now blockable? DuncanHill (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Not in and of itself, but coupled with the ongoing edit warring, edit warring with an admin is certainly not something one should do. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No, reverting an admin is not worse than reverting anyone else. I've not looked at the situation, but edit warring is bad no matter who with, and "edit warring with an admin" could imply that the admin was warring also and needs a block.  Sandstein  22:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I think the original block for edit warring was fully justified, which is why I told Anybody But Home "... you simply kept adding your change in, over and over, which is unacceptable." This just struck me as being one of those cases where a little bit of forgiveness in the unblock cycle might keep a new editor from going over to the dark side.—Kww(talk) 22:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Kww has the right nose for this(Good thing we didn't make him an admin....sigh). The justification for the original block was proper, but some lenience is appropriate. Hopefully any disruption has stopped and we have gained a productive user. Remember, only a small fraction of unblocks are outright repudiations of the original block. Protonk (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

MBK004 said he would accept the unblock if another admin performed it. I think there's enough support for an unblock here that you should go ahead, obviously making it clear to Anybody But Home that he will be watched like a hawk for a bit, and absolutely should not rush in and repeat the edit.—Kww(talk) 23:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, geez, I thought he was unblocked and this was the post-mortem. I'll unblock him now. Protonk (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked for reasons noted above. Protonk (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Urgent request for rangeblock

Resolved

 – Blocked as possible, deleted, oversight requested. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Is a range block hitting 88.108.87.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 88.108.112.101‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) feasible? A bit of harassment going on. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Note, see their deleted contributions. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Now hopped to User:88.108.47.88. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This would require a rangeblock on 88.108.0.0/17, which would cause a lot of collateral damage. WHOIS reports suggest that a /17 block may still be insufficient for this user (Tiscali DSL). Perhaps WP:ABUSE would be a better venue? caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 22:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This is indeed a long-term abuse issue, I've contacted the harassed user privately and he will report this directly to the ISP. I figured it would be far too broad a range. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Help with a speedy delete please

Could someone please review the speedy delete at Timur Okutman. The article's creator and an anonymouse IP keep on removing the tag before an administrator comes along to review it. The article is a copyright infringement of [7]. Thanks.Nrswanson (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've actually reverted back to a version that User:Shanel cleaned up a few weeks ago where the copyvio was removed. The article needs some serious help with regards to sourcing, still, but there seems to be some notability there. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted this as an A7 but will userfy for anyone who asks. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you made the right decision Gwen. I was just going to nominate it for deletion. I have access to several different opera magazines, journals, and other publications both in the U.S. and internationally. None of them have reviewed him. An extensive media and internet search has also yielded no sources. I don't think there is really anything out there to verify the article's content. Thanks for all your help.Nrswanson (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I saw some claims of notability, but didn't dig much. *shrugs* Tony Fox (arf!) 23:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If he isn't notable, I think he ought to be: this item provoked me to go to his web page, and it started playing music at me, and, well, what can I say? To say he has a voice like chalk squeaking on a blackboard is an understatement. Looie496 (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Learsi si natas's

76 05:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

 – and buh-byeKeeper

userpage is a rant in which he asserts that the Israelis are worse then Nazis. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And??? Brewcrewer removes sourced information from articles without discussing them first. What is more important? --Learsi si natas (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Is your username really backwards language for "Satan is israel". Seriously? You find that appropriate? Keeper | 76 04:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

lol you figured my name out. And to answer your question, oh yes I do!!! ---Learsi si natas (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC).

I'm going to block your account so that you can choose a new username. From what I've seen, you've got the wrong website. Fringe crap theories are thataway. Keeper | 76 04:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Blocked indefinitely, pending username change. Reviewing contribs... seicer | talk | contribs 04:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Detective Keeper: Good job noticing that. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, seems like we were all trying to push the "block" button all at the same time. seicer | talk | contribs 04:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I recognize satan everywhere :-) Someone beat me to the block as well. I'm sure he'll just go away quietly, if my experience has taught me anything. </sarc> Keeper | 76 04:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Unblock request already :) seicer | talk | contribs 04:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I was the one that managed to push the button first. Anyways, this is not the first username backwards that we have blocked. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Classic reply! seicer | talk | contribs 04:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I would endorse a full protect of the usertalk. It's not necessarily that it isn't going anywhere, it's just that it's already arrived at nowhere. Keeper | 76 04:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

.erehwon ta devirra ydaerla s'ti taht tsuj s'ti ,erehwyna gniog t'nsi ti taht ylirassecen ton s'tI .klatresu eht fo tcetorp lluf a esrodne dluow I seicer | talk | contribs 04:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You just missed out on full credit by failing to reverse your signature - had you gone the extra mile and signed "sbirtnoc | klat | recies" there'd have been a barnstar in it for you..._Gb^T/c 19:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"sbirtnoc klat recies" sounds so naughty! Like Russian for "Dirty little monkey" or something. Just sayin. No "reflection" on you at all Seicer. Unless you want it. All yours if you want it. Call me. Keeper | 76 02:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Professor Backwards lives! Ya know, I thought America was "the great satan". I wish they'd make up their minds. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

All jokes aside, I'd also suggest a Keeper76 inappropriate textstring addition to the auto-reporter for WP:SSP, given the eidtor's last comment about a proposed next name. ThuranX (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

So would that mean my new sock couldn't be User:67repeeK? I'm not too worried really, but do what you want. Keeper | 76 19:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(ɔʇn) 9002 ʎɹɐnuɐɾ 8 '60:02 ʇuǝɔsǝpıɹı – ¡ƃuoɹʍ ʇı ƃuıop llɐ ǝɹ,noʎ 'ou

Now that's going to bug me..._Gb^T/c 20:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ooooh, no it's not. Got it. _Gb^T/c 20:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ooh. Crick in my neck from reading that! The "2" wasn't turned upsidedown by the way, so no winner yet. How do you do this backwards and upside down text anyway? Or is that a WP:BEANS thing? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

See also: WP:ANI#Considering a block. seicer | talk | contribs 03:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Repeated insertion of nonsensical info into Bad Boys Blue page by a russian IP-hopper

Resolved

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

---

User continues to re-insert a phrase (in german) to wikipedias of all languages. It was already reverted twice on english wikipedia, but the nuisance will most likely persist. Please intervene or monitor the page. Thank you. Lionscitygl (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I want to point out that the edit says "Offizielle Website Herb McCoy" (no need to translate into English). Which is..actually very accurate however in German. Rgoodermote  22:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page for 2 weeks. This should solve the problem. caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 22:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Rgoodermote, that site is in English, so, there's no need to use German spelling. I mean, why not use Japanese instead, then? The Bad Boys Blue page follows a format which acknowledges all 3 current formations. It makes more sense to keep all 3 external likns to to a corresponding formation uniform, rather than all in unnecessary and arbitrarily different languages.

Caknuck - Thank you. Lionscitygl (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the fact that it was proper (because it really was the official site) "however in German". I also want to say..I do not like how you addressed my comment. I don't need an explanation on something I already know. It's kinda rude. Rgoodermote  00:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody asked you to translate something that I already identified myself what it was in my post at the top. But thank you for your thoughtful comments anyway. Lionscitygl (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I always comment/translate on these issues...probably don't need to..but I have been surprised. Anyways, nice meeting you. I wish you well here. I got one request, can you put something on your userpage? You don't have to, but..a red link causes misunderstandings. Man sieht sich! Closing Rgoodermote  02:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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

edit-warring at Horus

I've been slightly involved, can someone else take a look? The long rambles on the talk page might inform or confuse. :-) Thanks. dougweller (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Anybody else think a full-protect is in order? DARTH PANDA^duel 02:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

please speedy delete pages by indef-blocked vandal account

Created by Witticism (talk · contribs), I can't label the first one because it's their monobook.js page.

• User:Witticism/monobook.js
• User:Witticism/sandbox

(also, should I send his backlink-removal contribs to WP:OVERSIGHT, or would it be overkill?) --Enric Naval (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Why? Protonk (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Presumably Enric think the WMF is afraid of being bombed or something. --NE2 02:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh, I didn't see the contributions, just saw the two links. Sorry. Protonk (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Email sent to oversight. They can hide those revisions more simply than I can delete them. Protonk (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
      • You buy the paranoia? Shame on you. --NE2 03:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I don't, but many people do and the foundation has already said: we don't want our address on wikipedia. Rather than delete the mess myself, I'll just move it along to oversight. Protonk (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering a block

Resolved

Anybody else agree that perhaps this user Ssjgoku420 (talk · contribs) should be indef'd based on the very offensive talk page (deleted once already), the repeated attacks on User:Larsinio (deleted) and no decent edits except for a few minor ones last august--Jac16888 (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The user hasn't edited since he was warned for personal attacks, so I'm not so sure a full block would be in order. In the case that he continues, a block may be appropriate. DARTH PANDA^duel 02:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Upon further review, as seen in his visible contribs, a block actually may be in order. He has repeated incivility even after warnings. DARTH PANDA^duel 03:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that '420' may be a reference to 20 April - Hitler's birthday (it's sometimes used by neo-Nazis in a similar way to 14/88). Considering this user's comments about Jews, I'd consider it to be a definite red flag. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Yeah sorry should have said, this came to my attention because he created the User:Larsinio page earlier today, as an attack, although its his only edit since Dec. I'll also add that his now deleted userpage was a racist attack, albeit not a full-blown one--Jac16888 (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why not. This is a no-brainer. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Gee, Ssjgoku420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) reminds me a lot of Learsi si natas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who was just blocked. As a note, I've indef'ed his page, after he inserted in the sockpuppetry bit. See also: WP:ANI#User:Learsi si natas's. seicer | talk | contribs 03:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Any way to stop him from creating new accounts? If he starts socking, this could get really ugly. DARTH PANDA^duel 04:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Do we have any definitive reason to suspect Ssj and Si are one and the same? if so, I'll file an IP check and see if the CUs manage to ferret out anything more. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 04:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Editor censoring and vandalizing another’s posts

Resolved

 – Both editors given useful advice, life goes on.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And editor, User:Hex keeps on deleting my posts,[8] which are clearly not abusive personal attacks. Here is the post he deleted (in case he deletes it again). Please, this kind of behavior can’t continue. Greg L (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an absurd distortion of events. First, a torrent of abusive language, [9], which was partially removed by User:Ryoung122 and fully by me. Ryoung122 left Greg L a request on his talk page not to use such language, [10], which was summarily deleted by Greg L with the comment "grow up", [11]. Greg L restored a slightly less offensive but still inappropriate version of his comment, with the addition of a threat ("don't dare revert me again"), and accusing other editors of being childish, [12]. I removed it again and left a mild warning, [13]. Greg L restored his comment again, claiming it was not abusive, and accusing me of vandalism, [14].

The entire tone of Greg L's comments was rude, aggressive and totally inappropriate, and I stand by my removal of them. I was already on my way over to investigate filing a user RfC when I learnt of his comments here. — Hex (❝?!❞) 00:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Greg, while I'm not sure your posts are personal attacks (since they're not personally directed at anyone), they are....hold on I'm trying to think of the word....aggressive? Irascible? Certainly not civil. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the removal, but I grant that my opinions on talk page refactoring are slightly more liberal than the norm. Regardless of the merits of doing so in the first place, it's pretty clear that Hex isn't helping the situation (even if he is right), and it's probably better to just let the comments stand and the situation die, rather than be continually inflamed with an edit war.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Regardless of whether they are personal attacks or not, instead of deleting the comments, the correct response of Hex would be to simply file a WP:WQA and let a neutral third party decide instead of taking matters into your own hands. I am against any kind of removal of talk page comments, unless there is a consensus for removing the content (usually at WQA). Tavix (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Let’s be clear on the facts: what he deleted (here) was not a personal attack nor was it as he claimed: “abusive”. It was simply “aggressive” in tone. So what? If he felt that way, he can try to shame me by telling me so. As I advised Hex with my first edit summary, “the proper response to bad speech is better speech”. Not even an admin on a power trip can just start deleting posts he disagrees with unless they are an outrageous personal attack on someone. You step in to protect others who can’t defend themselves. You don’t act like you’re one of Red China’s Internet *thought police* Greg L (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not saying if it was a personal attack or not (I didn't read the whole thing, it's pretty lengthy). All I'm saying that if he thought it was a personal attack, he should have taken it to WQA to get a second opinion of what to do. Tavix (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to review this situation by Ryoung122 and I pretty much agree with Swatjester. Greg L, the debate is getting a little bit heated and, while I can completely understand why you would be upset, it's probably just best to learn from this... I might also recommend taking at least 5 minutes between writing your comments on the issue and hitting the show preview button... I myself have had many instances where I've hit that button and found myself regretting or justifying that decision in less than half an hour, even when I was 99.9% certain that that was what I wanted to say. I'm no prude, I swear like a sailor (to be cliche) in real life, but on Wikipedia, it's usually best to try and avoid it... it's likely to cause problems (since it's usually construed as (incivility), it rarely adds anything to the argument and it causes others to react poorly. Even if you are right, people may bypass that if it's phrased in a certain way. My advice to Hex would be that it was an act of wise discretion to not take any administrative action, but that the same policy should be applied to editorial action. I completely understand your rationale for removing the comment, but as someone so involved in the debate to begin with, it probably would have been best to alert someone else to remove it. It might remain there for a few extra minutes, but unless it's something that plainly violates WP:BLP (which is unlikely here), I'd say it's not worth it to remove it. If it's truly vile someone else will gladly deal with it... if it's questionable, it's best not to get your hands dirty with it.

Forgive me if I sound patronizing, but this WP:ANI, I'm the A and this is my advice. Neither user has committed any cardinal sins here, so I suggest taking a little advice, whether or not you hate me for it, and moving on while trying to abide by it. The issue at hand is complicated and emotional as it is... delays like this only make it worse. Cheers, CP 00:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• CP: That is all good, common-sense advise and I can’t argue with a bit of it. But there are three important principles I abide by that govern my worldview:

1. The proper response to bad speech is better speech.
2. Editors are wasting their time if they presume they can dictate to someone else—particularly me—how they may think and express their thoughts.
3. Everyone here on Wikipedia deserves to be free from personal attacks.

After I cleaned up my “potty mouth” (as Hex called it—something every 2nd grader has heard), he deleted my post again even though there was clearly no personal attacks on anyone. This is an extremely important principle that can not be whittled away by acquiescing to “let’s all just shake hands and be understanding on the playground next time.” There is not to be censorship on Wikipedia unless someone is really protecting someone from something. Hex is an admin. As Tavix pointed out, Hex could have simply filed a WP:WQA over my second post (as if that would have gone anywhere). It should come as no surprise to anyone here that if we have admins censoring (deleting) posts like Hex did, tensions are going to rise in a hurry. Greg L (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I was not involved in this discussion, but they appeared on my Watchlist page. These comments are little more than bullying and attempted intimidation. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater or "there's a bomb" on an airplane is not free speech. While your comments don't rise to the level of personal threats, they do appear to be both personal in nature and attacks upon another editor. Even forgetting the potty mouth, questioning another editor's courage and/or intelligence is simply going to inflame the situation, and is a personal attack, because it is not dealing with the issue, but attacking the person. Trying to put other people down and belittle them is attacking the person and therefore a personal attack. Lucky for you, GregL, that some of the commenters above didn't even want to read the entire post.Ryoung122 10:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ryoung, equating what I wrote to speech that causes a clear and present danger to public safety (Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater or "there's a bomb" on an airplane) is patently absurd. The issue, is not whether or not my post deserved a Pulitzer prize; it is whether or not an admin should have taken it upon himself to delete a post. Further, when I told him it was not appropriate, he wrote “bring it on”. Not only was he wrong to have deleted the post, he is juvenile. Finally, you wrote questioning another editor's courage and/or intelligence is simply going to inflame the situation. I did not do so in my post and for you to suggest as much is uncivil, as is outlined here in WP:CIVILITY, where it states that incivility includes Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors. Accordingly, since I consider your above post to be a personal attack, which belittles me, I’ve struck your post. I perceive no need to further refute your words or even start a Wikiquette alert over your post. I react to it with righteous indignation and will simply delete your thoughts because I think you stepped over a line and have decided you don’t get to have a voice. “Get it” now? Greg L (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Greg (whom I know well) might have been more restrained in his comments; however, regulars on the page know that this user's coarse references are not meant personally. I rather enjoy them in what is otherwise a staid environment (while not wanting to encourage them). Hex might have taken it all with a grain of salt. Hex might definitely have resisted the temptation to breach the talk page guidelines by removing Greg's comments: suggesting they be withdrawn or altered would have done the trick and avoided inflaming the situation. Can we all move on? Tony (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Nicely put, Tony. Hex's cut was ill-advised and on its face shows that he knew it was a bad idea for an admin, even though he did it without using admin tools. Greg's "The proper response to bad speech is better speech" is finely-tuned kettle-calling. His propensity for using foul language to trigger wikidrama is familiar to many of us, though I'm rather surprised that Hex took the bait. They both seem to be adults, let us simply encourage them to act that way. We all have our bad days.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Mooooooo! Oh, I'm sorry, you said "kettle-calling" not "cattle-calling". (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don’t think there is anything more I want to say on this matter. I much prefer “Greg, don’t be a dick” versus deleting my post and silencing my voice. That, at least, would give me the opportunity to reply “Hey, that’s Mr. Dick to you.” Thanks to all for taking the time to respond to this and smooth things over. Greg L (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Cool response. I see the 'resolved' tag placed by Goodmorningworld was struck. I hope the case can soon be closed? Ohconfucius (talk) 02:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Tim Allen, whose birth name is actually Timothy Allen Dick would appreciate that there's now a new (uninvited) member of the Dick family :-) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked user Shabushabu circumvents block

Resolved

 – lengthened my existing block. Daniel Case (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User Shabushabu, who was blocked by admin Daniel Case, circumvented his block by editing via the following IPs:

• 218.186.12.216
• 203.125.223.183
• 218.186.12.228

These IPs inserted essentially the same material that Shabushabu inserted in The Little Nyonya (diffs here), and also reverted my edits on Reunion Dinner without reason or explanation (diffs here). The user also accused me of stealing his article here.

Lately, 218.186.12.228 has resorted to vandalizing The Little Nyonya.

Violation of OWN notwithstanding, this user has severely, blatantly, and repeated violated NPA. This user is also disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, a violation of the rules as well. Also, what this user is saying is absolutely illogical. Yes, I am from Arizona, but is it a crime to edit other country's articles here, as long as I am doing it correctly, and according to the rules?

I am hereby suggesting an indefinite hard block on Shabushabu. This has got to be the last straw. Arbiteroftruth 04:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have lengthened his block to a full week. If he continues the sockpuppetry, it gets escalated and will reach indef soon enough

User creating account for defamatory vandalism

Resolved

 – Ghettoflava should be monitored for further unacceptable edits. User:Jake Wartenberg is active in the WP:ACC process and not responsible for the behaviour of the accounts he creates in this regard. –xeno (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I reverted a defamatory edit here [15] and warned the user here [16]. Noticed on the vandal's talk page that a user had sent them welcoming cookies. Then noticed on my watchlist that the vandal account had recently been created by User:Jake Wartenberg, who had then placed the welcome on the vandal's talk. Checked creation log, and Jake Wartenberg has created a number of new accounts in the past few weeks. Seems wrong to me, don't know if this is the right place to mention this, or what. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Not likely anything to do here. Jake Wartenberg is an account creator. The user's talk page would've been a better place to start. --Onorem♠Dil 14:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know there was such a thing as an account creator. That's why I asked here. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

An honest mistake. I've notified Jake of the discussion, but there's no further action needed except to keep an eye out for further unacceptable edits from Ghettoflava. –xeno (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Return of User:EverybodyHatesChris

Resolved

 – Blocks all around

EverybodyHatesChris has reappeared, this time as Cheers dude (as well as several IPs and accounts.) Unfortunately, he even managed to arrange mentoring for the "Cheers" account. I have just blocked Cheers dude, Coastme20, and the IPs 65.31.33.40 and 65.31.33.40. I'm short on time right now, so any help would be appreciated in monitoring the IP range and any new users that appear with a similar MO. I'll post more details when I have more time, as there also seems to be a connection with another, older banned account (User:ForestH2). --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The connection between the "Cheers dude" dude and IP 65.31.103.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) maybe should be reviewed also, as they share page interests and were both turned up in the Law Lord's RFC. One thing is the telling (and in-common and unwitting self-putdown) "goodbye" comment, probably just as they were being found out: "I've grown tiresome of users looking for trouble" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really much investigation needed on that one. See here. Can I also say I'm royally pissed to have been had by a sock? --Smashville^talk 02:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And I just now checked that one. I love it when they out themselves. Saves a lot of time. Like the KingsOfHearts/Rfu23/etc. situation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see that Ckatz already got him. Never mind! And socks can hide, but they usually "out" themselves in some way, as they keep returning to "the scene of the crime". Although their "retirement" just before being indef-blocked reminds me of Larry Miller's "pub crawl" comment: "We decided to leave, just after they threw us out." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As a note, we don't block IP addresses indefinite, as the block template states. The IP address was blocked for one year, so I amended the templates. And good riddens to Cheers Dude. seicer | talk | contribs 02:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

A year is a good stretch in the wiki-phantom-zone. And I've a hunch he's not so filled with cheer just now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, Cheers dude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) replied: [17] [18]. Protected his talk page. seicer | talk | contribs 06:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Good riddance. Funny, I was criticised for saying he was not a new user. Guy (Help!) 08:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• What a coincidence: I was coming over here just now to suggest that someone owes JzG an apology. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 09:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• JzG could safely quote Jim Carrey from Ace Ventura, Pet Detective: "I hate being right all the time!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool. That's one less user on my wtf list. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup - only 7,542 to go... unless your list is even longer than mine. :) MastCell ^Talk 17:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You might find the rant on 65.31.103.28's talk page amusing and/or useful. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

IP talk page wiped and blocked by an admin. Taking the liberty of marking this resolved. Revert if you disagree. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User:MacRusgail

Resolved

 – No administrator intervention required. Leithp 15:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I don't know if this is the right place to talk about a complaint I have about User:MacRusgail. He is reverting my edits Scottish Chilean [19], Welsh Chilean [20], and Basque Chilean [21]. Those three articles were filled with original research, it had no sources, and with Scottish Chilean and Welsh Chilean the population is small and the contributions to Chilean society is also small while the Basque Chilean population is unknown. I found it appropriate to merge and redirect Welsh Chilean and Scottish Chilean to British Chilean, and merge and redirect Basque Chilean with Spanish Chilean. MacRusgail undid my edits without any explanations. I have reverted them back, but he undue them again. I gave him a message on his talk page [22] on why he is undoing my redirects, and he responded [23] with nationalistic rhetoric. I don't want conflict, but I don't know what to about him reverting my edits. I would like a solution to this problem. Thank you for reading. Lehoiberri (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems a bit early for what appears to be a content dispute to be coming to AN/I. You were bold and redirected. No problem. MacRusgail disagreed and reverted. Still no problem. I think discussion should be given another attempt. --Onorem♠Dil 18:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Repeated unsourced additions

• Wikipersonwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Wikiziggyman12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Wikiwikimaneditor540 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

This editor (I assume all three are the same person) has been continually adding unsourced speculation into automotive articles. However, as far as I can tell the accounts haven't had any edits in overlapping time periods, so I'm not sure if I should report them to WP:SSP. This user has never responded to talk page warnings or discussions. All three accounts have edited Suzuki Kizashi, which was created by Wikipersonwiki (without any references, of course). Please help/advise! Thanks. swaq 21:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If none of the accounts have been on at the same time, that seems like it would make it more likely that they're the same person (unless someone's figured out a way to have multiple accounts online simultaneously); an SSP report is generally a decent idea if there's significant overlap in editing patterns, etc. GlassCobra 15:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User:24.129.100.84

This IP user has been editing extensively in the area of animated films. He has been removing notability tags, often accompanied by a snarky comment (see here and here. It would be okay (minus the snark) if the user would add information that actually establishes the notability of the film, as the template requests, but invariably leaves the article unimproved and thus as mystifying to subsequent readers and editors why the article is included in the encyclopedia. The editor is tendentious and sarcastic here and here and has received several warnings concerning removal of the notability tags. Here.

Ah - since I began writing up this summary the editor is now engaged in an edit war and distinctly uncivil behavior. See this history. A brief block might be in order. JohnInDC (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

With the escalation, I took this to WP:AIV. JohnInDC (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 2 weeks by an admin and talk page protected. He's been blocked several times now: [24] Just the edit summaries are a case: [25] He must be a nice girl, though, he called the blocking admin "honey". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

possible sockpuppetry on Talk:William Timmons; copyvios by User:Rtally3

I think this should be looked into. A user Hazeldell97202 (talk · contribs) has appeared and his first edit was to an obscure talk page Talk:William Timmons to argue on the side of Rtally3 (talk · contribs), who was previously blocked for sockpuppeteering on that very page. It could be just a bizarre coincidence but it seems strange that this user would appear just now when Rtally3's block expired and when he began forum shopping to continue deleting the sourced material on the page that he was previously using sockpuppets to delete. (for evidence of forum shopping see his posts here, here, and here, which are all about this same exact piece of information that he wants to delete).

On another note, the user Rtally3 has created two pages, The Merrimack Manufacturing Company and The 1819 Strikes, which contain verbatim text copied from the book What Every Amercian Should Know about American History: 200 Events, as a simple google search shows. These pages should be deleted and the user warned about the Wikipedia policy on copyright. csloat (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Update, the user has corrected the copyvio issue by changing the page and paraphrasing the one source he used; there are still major questions about notability, but the copyvio problem has been dealt with, I think. csloat (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for caring so much about me, csloat, but I'm afraid I'm not a sockpuppet. Just a bored academic at work, waiting out a snow storm. And I'm curious about why you two are so enthusiastic about this particular issue. Cheers, Hazeldell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazeldell97202 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well anyone who agrees with rtally3 is obviously a sockpuppet. What is referred to as "forum shopping" I think was really just using the noticeboards for what they were designed to to -- gather second opinions about an editing dispute and possible policy violations. I think the responses to those posts justify the concern, and use of the RfC's. Rtally3 (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

When supposedly "new" users know too much about how wikipedia works, and go to specific topics and dive into specific debates, it raises reasonable suspicions. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Aaaaand who are you? Not sure why you're monitoring this all of a sudden, but csloat has enjoyed accusing me of hiding my identity by using different accounts for several months (afterall, there can't be THIS many people that disagree with him!). Anyone interested in the proliferation of the rumors surrounding Timmons over the years might become interested in the development of his WP page as his name surfaces, and in my opinion don't deserve to be "bitten" [26] for giving their opinions -- especially when they aren't even making edits. If a new user appeared who happened to agree with csloat, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Rtally3 (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh come off it; I haven't "enjoyed accusing you for several months" -- I noticed you were using socks; a checkuser proved it, and you admitted it! You were blocked for it, quite appropriately, and you admitted having a meatpuppet as well. The minute you come back, this other user shows up, registers, and dives right into a heated debate on an obscure talk page, making essentially the same argument as you. It may be a coincidence, it may be a meatpuppet, it may be a sock puppet. If it's a coincidence, I apologize for any offense I may have created by voicing my suspicion, but my suspicion was far from unreasonable. Cheers, csloat (talk) 07:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Your points make it sound as if it's been proven that I've made attempts to hide my identity by using multiple accounts, which has never been the case. Just because other user(s) might have been blocked around D.C. does not prove that I was using those accounts. I was originally blocked for meatpuppetry, and then circumvented the enforcement of what I think is a ridiculous rule by posting twice under a new user name, but still signed under my old user name. While this is technically using a sock, I wasn't editing and it was clear who I was in those 2 posts. I wasn't hiding my identity -- which is the very reason that using a sock is a violation. Yes, a rule was broken, and I "served the time", but none of my actions belied the integrity of WP. Rtally3 (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It not only was proven by a checkuser; you admitted to it in the ensuing discussion. You just admitted to it again in the above comment after claiming that it hasn't been proven. I'm not sure what your point is here. csloat (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Simply untrue. The difference is that you are accusing me of hiding my identity to make it appear as if there is a consensus, which has never been the case. Every post I have ever made has been signed "rtally3". Rtally3 (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That is false; you had a few different identities at the time and you eventually copped to them being you, and then you created more after the block and signed them rtally2, but at first you tried to pass them off as different people precisely in order to create a false consensus. The second time it was to evade a block. It doesn't matter; using socks to break the rules is still breaking the rules whether you are "hiding your identity" or not. Anyway if you're not doing that I'm sure you have nothing to worry about anyway, and I apologize again for wasting your time. csloat (talk) 06:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What other identities are you accusing me of being? When did I not sign my post as rtally3? I'd like to see this. Rtally3 (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User:The Rogue Penguin

this user is being VERY rude, impatient, and is snapping towards me, and causing edit conflicts constantly on articles attempting to get worked on. example of him being rude: "No. You're not improving these pages. They are actually worse than the old versions. Stop using time as an excuse. You're not going to add anything worthwhile or you would have already"

please do something, this guy clearly needs to chill out Jeremie Belpois (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC

But, Jeremie, please note that you continue your previous flavour of edits that resulted in the 3RR. All I can see is that User:The Rouge Penguin is trying to point you towards discussing the new additions and articles you intend to create. prashanthns (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What he said. You're reverting without discussing. That is not allowed. You need to discuss. I'm tempted to mark this as {{resolved}}, but it may be worth an admin looking into your edits to see whether you need another block for editwarring. //roux   03:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As do you. I haven't seen anything uncivil from either of you here. However, you were, and are continuing to edit war on pages like Odd Della Robbia, Ulrich Stern, and Yumi Ishiyama. These pages have all been merged into Code Lyoko per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Code Lyoko characters and attempts to convince you of this, on Talk:Yumi Ishiyama, have all failed. These pages were merged by a common consensus and it is for that reason that The Rogue Penguin (talk · contribs) is trying to tell you to stop. His suggestion to put them in your userspace is a good one. DARTH PANDA^duel 03:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Please also note that you are required to notify someone if you are bringing up their actions here. The user has now been notified. //roux   03:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

what you guys are not understanding is how he's being highly rude and impatient, he needs to be dealt with Jeremie Belpois (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Rude? No. Impatient? Yes. And with good reason. You have had multiple people telling you that you have to stop reverting and start discussing. You don't do it. Instead, you were blocked. And as soon as your block was ended, you started reverting again. He was trying to explain to you what you need to do, and you wouldn't listen. So he got impatient. Not rude. You need to understand that you must discuss, not keep reverting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roux (talk • contribs)

He has not been rude, nor has he been impatient. There is nothing to wait for. If you wish to revert, you need to present your page, preferably from your userspace, and there needs to be discussion. You cannot just go ahead and revert continuously without discussion. DARTH PANDA^duel 03:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If any background information is good, Code Lyoko has been a frequent battleground for quite a while, of which no resolution is or has been in sight. bibliomaniac15 03:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well of course. References don't exist, but Code Lyoko is a very popular TV series and therefore, subject to much interest. I'd really prefer if new users were directed to policy, but I don't think this has been happening. DARTH PANDA^duel 03:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

To Jeremie, edit warring will get you nowhere besides another block. If you want to recreate the articles, then you must find sources on the characters that allow them to meet WP:NOTE. These sources have to be independent of the topic (can't be the source itself or something created by the publisher) and discuss the characters in a significant manner (beyond a name drop, a rehash of plot summary, or a throwaway statement). Then work, on the characters in your userspace and bring them forth for approval of the other editors that commonly edit the Code Lyoko articles. You will only move forward by following community consensus here and trying to change it in a method appropriate under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Continuing your current actions is simply going to get you blocked. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Rogue Penguin has done a pretty good job keeping Code Lyoko stuff "safe". Back in Sept, they had a run in with RhoLyokoWarrior who was essentially trying to do the same thing with characters, and was patient in keep WP encyclopedic, even in the hands of a WQA filing against him. I'll try and dig up the previous WQA, but you can see my comments to RP on their talk from Sep 28. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sidebar: Since when did edit conflicts become a basis for user complaints? --Smashville^talk 13:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I assumed they actually meant "editing dispute" rather than "edit conflict". Terminology is sooooooooooo precise these days :-) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, first: the complainant should have taken this as a discussion with the editor FIRST, and then to WQA SECOND. The last WQA report against Rogue Penguin that was related to Code Lyoko was here, which found no specific incivility against Penguin. Any concern by anyone else that Jeremie is a sock of the blocked-because-of-socks User:RhoLyokoWarrior ??? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup, that's User:Rikara alright, figured as much when I noticed what the subject matter was regarding. treelo _radda 21:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User:HeadMouse circumventing block

User:HeadMouse who is indefinitely blocked for disruption, then came back and had several blocked sockpuppets posted again here. In it, he attacks Wikipedia and myself, in particular, through lies mostly. I blocked the sock and removed the post per Wikipedia:Ban#Reincarnations. Kurtisnelson, has reverted to keep this post in saying we need consensus to remove that from his talk page instead of policy. Can I get some other eyes on this situation? The user is not community banned in the voting on sense, but he is banned in the "no admin in their right mind will unblock" sense. So any posts by him should be reverted, especially if they contain attacks again Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors. Thanks, either way (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the best solution is to leave the post but refactor the portion which is obviously a violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF... so that's what I've done. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks by SaltyBoatr

At Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (also check the archives thereof), SaltyBoatr continuously makes accusations against fellow editors and is generally rude. He has been repeatedly asked to assume good faith, but rarely does so. I request disciplinary action be taken against that editor. SMP0328. (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

On a quick skim (note the emphasis) SB seems to be patiently explaining a point of view and why he thinks it warrants a greater emphasis. I'm not (necessarily) disputing you, but can you point to any diffs of SB making accusations or being rude? Certainly nothing's jumping out at me. – iridescent 21:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with iridesecent that diffs are needed. While I do see him moving the goalposts some, and some odd discussion of how later decisions mean there's no need to cover earlier interpretations, which, by some of what I read in the back and forth there is POV pushing, most of what I see is a content dispute. I will say the question of footnote 67 and whether or not the source is legit seems ridiculous; we have editors requesting rare copies via InterLibrary loan and little good faith to wait and see, and the resistance to the continued inclusion hardly shows AGF about source or co-contributors. ThuranX (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Jimmi Hugh on Proprietary protocol

Re: repeated deletion of sourced material. [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. To me, it seems the user doesn't like the information in the source he is deleting. I have suggested supplying evidence to support his position on the talk page, but that hasn't happened yet so it seems like he's pushing WP:OR. Any advice appreciated. pgr94 (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverting edits controversially in a repeated manner is vandalism. Block Jimmi Hugh. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverting edits controversially is not vandalism: in Wikipedia vandalism is narrowly defined as changes that are made with the deliberate intent of making an article worse. Reverting edits controversially is edit warring—which is also against the rules. Looie496 (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Thank you Looie. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Either way, that's a pretty good edit war that Jimmi Hugh (talk · contribs) and Pgr94 (talk · contribs) have engaged there. Toddst1 (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Neither Jimmi nor Pgr94 is over 3RR yet. It would be good to have more than two people working on this article. Maybe they can use WP:3O to get an outside view. EdJohnston (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for the kind words. I always appreciate an editor who can take my perfectly valid reasoning, and instead of disagreeing with me head on, accuses me of vandalism and now of pushing a point of view, an accusation that hurts and irritates me to no end; despite the fact that I deleted the same section when it was pro-open standards and when it was pro-closed standards, because I'm simultaneously pushing both points of view. It all makes complete sense to me. My point of course being, my edits were perfectly valid (so far as conflicting edits go), whether you agree with them or not, and the reason I refused to waste my time on long discussions is that on the three previous occasions, you simply refuted me with the same incorrect points I'd argued before until you simply stopped upon realising you couldn't get your way. The second reason was due to the fact you accused me of vandalism, and I really don't want to argue with someone about policy, when they don't even know policy. So, on with the blocks, I assume it will be for both editors, and not simply the one who didn't go running to the admins first, and that Arbiteroftruth was joking, having actually bothered to check the edit history before making comment on blocking someone. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't but help notice that Jimmi Hugh is making many edits to the proprietary-technology articles. *Not one* of his contributions to these articles have been based on verifiable sources and worse still he has been deleting referenced material.

• proprietary protocol (attempted AfD, deletion of referenced material, deletion of referenced material)
• proprietary software (disruptive deletion, Trying to rename an article despite 149 scholarly articles)
• proprietary firmware (deletion of sourced material)
• proprietary hardware (adding nonsense), granted what was there before wasn't great either.
• and elsewhere (disruptive edit, disruptive edit).

I totally agree with EdJohnston that it would be good to have more than two editors. I am pretty worn out by all this unconstructive to-and-fro-ing on Proprietary protocol and would welcome more input from others. pgr94 (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Have just discovered Wikiproject computer networking and added Proprietary protocol in the hope this will get more people to read article. Also requested input from here. pgr94 (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Proprietary Software/Firmware and Proprietary Protocol/Hardware, are entirely separate topics. The word proprietary in the latter two, simply means to own. In the first, it is used for the negative connotations in actions taken within the role as the proprietor. Hence the removal of the edits, I don't need to source the deletion of information that has nothing todo with the topic, and I'd hate to accidently force a redefinition. I have attempted to explain this on numerous occasions, I really am sorry that I have become so irritated over the matter that I refuse to simply discuss each edit with you. I don't get much free time to edit Wikipedia though, and I'll only contribute to the bureaucracy when there is someone on the other end who is actually listening. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and after having looked at that "evidence" of my disruption, I really want to swear at you right now, and it's hard to consider how to form a rational argument against someone who doesn't listen, or understand. Half of those edits were perfectly valid, and remain in the article because they made perfect sense. If you have issues with specific edits, I'd be happy to explain to you why I made them, despite my edit comments explaining it perfectly. You've now made at least 4 completely absurd accusations of bad faith against me, and your behaviour even outstretches my own in terms of negativety and anti-policy. I would really like you to retract each and every claim that my edits were disruptive, nonsense, or that taking an article to AfD with reason is in anyway an issue beyond the actual AfD discussion. More importantly, your inability read and consider arguments without making up the opposing stance is not an issue for admins. I didn't make the move an issue despite scholarly reference, and I've never denied the validity of the title. I expect you to take these claims back, and not just by editing them out. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay so I just looked over the talk page for this article and weighed in with my two cents on this specific issue. Looking at the diffs, I seem to notice some pretty strong leanings away from WP:NPOV, specifically noting the edit comments. In addition, I think both parties may have some fault for breaking WP:NAM. :-D I think if both pgr94 and Jimmi Hugh were to re-evaluate their comments from a NPOV, they would find some serious fighting words that they used, perhaps a bit inappropriately. I don't think a ban is necessarially warranted in this situation but I would advise Jimmi Hugh to try and be a little more neutral and both sides to assume WP:GF. QuackCD (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was indeed extremely inappropriate in the language used. However, once again, can you provide a single case in which I didn't show a neutral point of view? I've made edits that both open or closed standard advocates will dislike, because this article is *not* about open standards, it's about the word proprietary as in ownership. I removed information that has absolutely nothing todo with the term proprietary protocol, and the conflicting edits have been attempting to push a redefinition of "proprietary protocol" using the same meaning as in the term "proprietary software". - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI is not the place for you to continue a content dispute. If you and the other editor are deadlocked, follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. It is not up to admins to solve the problem for you. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not asking for resolution. I'm asking for evidence of slanderous accusation. My edits are entirely neutral, and the purpose of the ANI is to discuss accusations. I hate being accused of malicious intent, even when I've given valid (even if questioned) reasoning, and if I'm not allowed to respond to such accusations, what exactly is the purpose of this area other than as a place for people to make cruel and incorrect comments about me? The fact I've provided evidence that I was not only in good faith, but also correct, simply serves to help the editor retract his accusation. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User:pgr94 charged you with 'repeated deletion of sourced material.' I myself see no evidence of any vandalism in these deletions, and I believe it is more a question of what can be validly inferred from each source, and what relative weight should be assigned. Admins do not rule on these matters, and a claim of 'deletion of sourced material' is not a slanderous accusation. It is just part of normal give and take in a content dispute. Nobody would regard User:pgr94 as being especially diplomatic here, but it's not a matter for us. Please pursue this elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. I thought it was obvious, given that you replied to my comments aimed at QuackCD that my claim of slander was against his accusations that I edit with anything but a completely neutral stance, not the original allegations by pgr94. Sorry for the confusion, I had thought the location of the text would make it easy to work out. However, I have since made such statements against pgr94, which I assume the admins will take seriously. Especially considering he has accused 100% valid (unreverted, perfectly reasoned, and correct edits) of being "disruptive" and "nonsense" with absolutely no reasoning or evidence to his position. Such claims are obviously beyond questioning my good faith, and make it very hard for me to want to continue contributing, when I get threatened with blocks because I argue a case, and he is rewarded for making harsh comment against the contributions I make in my free time from a want to help the project, as opposed to pushing some agenda. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Jimmi, it seems like this whole issue boils down to your insistence that "Proprietary" means something other than that which can be found in the Oxford New English Dictionary. I agree with Pgr94 that "Proprietary" has been given connotation by conventional use and is therefore valid to use in contexts other than that which you feel it is most appropriate for. But most of all, I see that the edits in this conflict started out being really on par with what should be done, discussion in the talk page, etc. Then you both kind of went off in a weird direction. If you guys have issues with the content in the pages, make sure to discuss on talk pages and come to a consensus. If you need help, don't hesitate to invoke WP:3O. You can always rely on me to try to provide the most unbiased opinion on the topic at hand.

In a further note, I'd like to apologize to Jimmi if my comments made him feel that I was slandering his reputation. I meant no such umbrage. I think you are a great editor with much to offer the project, I just think you got too caught up in the heated nature of the debate at hand. Can we call it a truce and declare friends? I'd like to work with you on some projects in the future! QuackCD (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, certainly. Sorry, slander was a strong word, I've been touchy, and feeling perhaps I've messed up somewhere badly since this article [32], and I guess it made me a bit defensive. Ironically I was thinking I was the one on the side on the Oxford, but I'll definetly be prepare to discuss the meaning of the article before making further edits. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you QuackCD for looking into the issue and your input.

Jimmi, if you will agree to follow WP:V, and, before deleting referenced material you gain consensus through discussion on the talk pages, then I think we can put this issue behind us and move on.pgr94 (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I will agree to discuss absolutely every single edit I make to any page labelled proprietary, independent of definition, if you retract all the incredibly harsh and uncalled for comments made against previous valid edits. Thanks. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Ireland

Resolved

I posted at the bottom and it was removed by User:Vintagekits. I undid. He re-deleted. Please would someone sort it. Thank you. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to report you here infact. Do you know what talk pages are for?--Vintagekits (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits is right; the talkpage is for discussing that article; notification of related discussion should be done via Wikiproject talkpages (which has been done), or notify interested editors via a neutral message on their own talk. Black Kite 23:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Irish wikipedians board already notified, Ireland project notified and the Northern Ireland project all already notified!! And I managed to use neutral language - unlike others! ;) --Vintagekits (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User:My2sense2wikip Is At It Again

My2sense2wikip (talk · contribs) was blocked last month by Protonk for repeatedly adding such irrelevant and unreliably sourced material here as evidenced again here.

After his unblocking expired, he returned and is adding exactly the same material again, such as here and here

Worse still, now he's actually editing others (mine) comments on the Talk Page to the exact reverse of the posted text, such as here.

As a refresher, before, he continued to add the source John Judge at ratical.org, which espouses the extremist fringe theory that "Jonestown was an experiment, part of a 30-year program called MK-ULTRA, the CIA and military intelligence code name for mind control", in violation of WP:Reliable sources.

Despite explanations to him about Wikipedia policy on the matter, he before repeatedly added it several times, for example, here, here, here, here, and here.

He also promised to continue with this behavior, stating "These edits here won't end. I promise you." Which he has now done.

In addition, he has repeatedly engaged in uncivil dialoge, such as "stop being a liar" and "There was government complicity with Jonestown and you clearly have an agenda to discredit The Black Hole of Guyana by condemming it as fringe."

Finally, the user admits that the reason he keeps adding information about relatives of the author Deborah Layton to the article for the book Seductive Poison (information not relevant to the book, but perhaps notable to the author's life) is that he thinks that the redirect of the author's name to the book article is some kind plot to drive book sales:

"If someone had an entry article about Deborah Layton that didin't automically relocate to this article I would include these entries there and to this article . . . Someone who made that automatic re-direct probably had an agenda to plug this book and divert people away from her personal background."Mosedschurte (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 12 hours for edit warring right off the block again. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 23:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What would a 12 hour block do that his previous block didn't do? AnyPerson (talk) 04:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Tundrabuggy uncivil accusation of wikistaliking is last straw.

Someone please get him under control.

diff

For context Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Lead#Name_of_the_conflict

Accusation of wikistalking is probably related to Roof knocking, which is indisputably related to 2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict, so the accusation of wikistalking is false, uncivil and ill-willed.

I have tried multiple times to establish productive dialogue with Tundra, and he has actually at times agreed with me, but ever since he decided that 2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict was not about the topic it is about, he has gone the deep end in disruptness and filibustering. I didn't raise before because of overwhleming consensus opposing his views was enough, but his posting in my talk page is worrying and I wish to nip this kind of personal attacks at the bud. He must understand that an editing conflict is no reason for being uncivil and disruptive, regardless if his views are correct or not.

For your information, these articles are under discretionary sanctions from ArbCom. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 04:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I've had generally positive interactions with TBY. I think he tries to edit with a NPOV. The real problem here, imo, is User:Cerejota. After I disagreed with him at the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict talkpage he left me a condescending message on my talk page how he was "disappointed with me". At the same time, he nominated an article that I worked on for deletion. He then proceeded, sans any discussion, to move the article and change the articel's focus. Still not content, he proceeded to plaster the page with a whole bunch of irrelevant templates (Take the uncategorized template for example. The article is clearly categorized). He finally "exaplained" the reasons for the tags at the article's talk page. A perusal of the article and the comments by an experienced editor will reveal that the comments are really a bunch of nonsense. It is not a content dispute. The tags are really inapplicable and disruptive. I ripped some hair out in frustration and went on to greener pastures of Tim Redding. However, I am now forced to respond because Cerejota has tuned the tables around and accused another editor of the very disruptions he is guilty of.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict]I see now that roof knocking was an article that was referenced in the article 2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict. Thus the accusation that Cerejota was "following brewcrewer around" was indeed mistaken and not WP:AGF. I do apologize for that. I do, however, still feel that the numerous tags that he has added to the roof knocking article, as well as the AfD started on it, are not in good faith but reflect frustration over the Gaza conflict|article. It is hard enough trying to edit an article like this for NPOV, without slapping tags on or trying to delete, anything even remotely related to it. I admit to frustration with Cerejota as he has consistently reverted my (fairly few) attempts to edit the article for NPOV. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

I accept the apology, and appreciate you seeing how it was wrong. No need to pursue this matter of the "wikistalking" further.

As to the rest of the things you both raise, there is no misconduct on my part that I see, and this is not the place to resolve editing disputes. However, I must correct Brewcrewer's impression that I acted without discussion: There is an AfD and I acted onw hat I felt he was arguing for in the AfD. When I acted, he revrted me, and that was it. I did place additional tags with an explanation ont he talk page of the article, which he requested in my talk page. He is saying I was wrong for doing what he suggested!!! Further discussion on content should happen in the appropiate forums (ie talk pages of articles and people). Of course, if you have any concrete evidence of wrongdoing on my part, please present it and lets get it over with.--Cerejota (talk) 05:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Are UK Wikipedians being proxied again?

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action

As a FYI it appears Be Unlimited and 02 are proxying again as a result of WP:IWF. See: User talk:89.167.221.131 and here. Not sure whether another one of our pages has been blocked by the IWF.... but Be Unlimited and O2 are going through one IP it appears... D.M.N. (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think this proxying is IWF related? — neuro^(talk) 17:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be enough activity coming from that IP for all that traffic to be being proxied through the one IP. I suspect it's possible that the IP is just saying that to try and then claim that "it wasn't me" when they're blocked for vandalism (which they have just been)..._Gb^T/c 17:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Phoning Be now. — neuro^(talk) 18:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) A lot of edits from the past few hours, some good faith not good not, hence I think that multiple users are being proxied..... D.M.N. (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm that I'm coming through this proxy, a different one from the one I was coming through before as well. Brilliantine (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Proxying confirmed (they didn't say yes, they didn't say no, but from what I have heard from them and various people both on and off Wikipedia it is occurring), requested IWF comment on affiliation or lack thereof, apparently they will get back to me in office hours. — neuro^(talk) 18:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Pass the salt, then, my hat's just coming to the boil. _Gb^T/c 18:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Contacted 5 people I know to be using Be, all on that IP. Definite. — neuro^(talk) 18:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk Talk doesn't appear to be proxying at the moment (I've just checked) - don't know if it's a technical error with Be/O2 or whether a specific URL hasn't propagated to other ISPs systems. Nick (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Okey. Has anyone from the impacted ISPs checked virgin killer? Assumeing they are sticking with their no blocks widely disributed material locateing the targeted image could be tricky.Geni 19:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

appears virgin killer is visible. So this could be a problem.Geni 19:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Virgin Killer is indeed visible, both on Be, O2, and from what I can tell, nothing is wrong with me on BT. — neuro^(talk) 19:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

IP is still proxied on commons for Be customers. — neuro^(talk) 19:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the third comment in a row, but is appears that the proxying is active on most if not all WMF sites, but only WMF sites. — neuro^(talk) 19:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Four in a row -_-, secure servers are non-proxied. — neuro^(talk) 19:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Just chipping in to save Neuro from setting a world record in talking to himself, and also to confirm that BT isn't being proxied. Black Kite 19:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There have been no contributions as far as I can see from any of the other proxy IP addresses previously used. Brilliantine (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm on a Virgin Media connection, from within the UK. I just checkusered myself and I am not editing through a proxy; I've had the same IP since 5th December. For the record, the secure server was always a method of circumventing the IWF block, so it doesn't surprise me that it continues to be one now. --Deskana (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope you didn't checkuser yourself in public ;) ♪BMWΔ 19:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Not much we can do until we get more info. Only one ISP so could be a technical glitch but we shall see.Geni 20:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Two ISPs, unless I'm mistaken. I doubt it is a technical glitch. — neuro^(talk) 20:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

From what I recall those two use the same cleenfeed derived system and servers. Other ISPs use different servers.Geni 20:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Be is owned by o2 Telefonica. Brilliantine (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The blocked IP hasn't edited it's own talk since 18:10, which suggests to be that the proxying was temporary, and may have stopped? Can someone check? D.M.N. (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Negative, still operational. — neuro^(talk) 20:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Telewest not affected, yet anyways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to encourage the wp developers to get involved with this, adding code to detect this proxying and redirect all requests from IWF'd users through the secure server, including either installing a wildcard certificate on *.wikipedia.org or (if necessary, as I seem to remember there may have been a technical problem with using wildcards the obvious way) rewriting all outgoing wikipedia urls to use secure.wikimedia.org's mangled wikipedia url's. It's not just a censorship issue, it's also a privacy one since a creepy operation like that is likely to also be monitoring people's surfing habits. 208.120.235.110 (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

TalkTalk is OK for me. This has to be seen as a puzzle at the moment. It may be a technical problem unless evidence can be found that Wikipedia content is being blocked.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm this is still ongoing on the IP mentioned above as of a few minutes ago. I suppose it is possible that it may have been done in error. Brilliantine (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Remarkable as it may seem, UK users of Wikipedia may be being proxied again. TalkTalk has revived one of the proxies in the 62. range on 7 January 2009, see [33]. Hopefully our friends at the Internet Watch Foundation are not playing silly b***s again, but things are now looking worrying. I am going to contact Jimbo about this. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, this was how it happened last time - gradually. Maybe the WP:IWF page needs updating? At least only two of the previously used IPs are active so far. Brilliantine (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Due to WP:OR issues, there is a need for caution here. There is still a possibility of a technical problem, although things are more worrying than yesterday. I have e-mailed the IWF for a comment (although I am not expecting a reply). However, if they are proxying for any reason, they will not be able to keep the lid on it any more than they were over Virgin Killer.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I meant the informational page rather than the article. Brilliantine (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

They might be able to since this time we have no idea what is being filtered.Geni 19:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

TalkTalk is filtering Wikipedia again. It has been running like a dog today, and Special:Mytalk is showing one of their proxy IPs. Secure server is running fine though. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 19:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

hmm is there anyone who might tell us what is being hit? Doesn't appear to be any of the ususal suspects. so unless someone can do a complete autoscan not much we can do.Geni 19:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

In the past few minutes I have been able to try a Virgin Media cable connection, and it appears to be OK. TalkTalk was fine yesterday, but is apparently being proxied through just one IP address at 62.24.251.240 today. Jimbo has asked me to contact Mike Godwin. Can anyone else report in on other ISPs?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've sent an e-mail to our previous IWF contact asking them to confirm or deny whether we've been blacklisted again.MikeGodwin (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh good, my phone is going to melt again. I've emailed a link to this thread to the Open Rights Group list and wikimediauk-l, seeing who can confirm or deny this one - David Gerard (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Virgin Media fine at the moment. I'll update the WP:IWF page as necessary. D.M.N. (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone using Demon around? If so, are you being proxied? As I recall, Demon were the only ISP last time round that were honest about what they were doing (giving a message saying the page had been censored rather than a generic error message) so they may be a good source of information this time around as well. Trying lots of potentially questionable pages and seeing if any of them come up with the error message would be one approach, but simply phoning them may work better. --Tango (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If anyone is being proxied, please leave a comment here as before. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm on Demon and I'm not currently being proxied. Davorg (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, here's a question: if en.wikipedia.org is being proxied ... is upload.wikimedia.org? That was the IWF's stunning incompetence last time - they blocked text pages talking about the image, but ... didn't block the image itself - David Gerard (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

How would you tell, since it isn't a wiki and you can't use Special:Mytalk? ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 21:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That it's leading to serious performance problems on Talk Talk gives a clue - if upload.wikimedia.org is dazzlingly fast ... - David Gerard (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

In which case, no - it is working at normal speed. en.wp on the other hand... ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 21:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

My ISP has also been like treacle, and AAISP promise no filtering. I suspect this is unconnected. Secretlondon (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

For anyone who is unsure: Here is how to check if you are being proxied when visiting Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Not the IWF, apparently

Mike Godwin asked the IWF if Wikipedia was in any way being blacklisted, and the IWF representative responded by saying there is no Wikipedia entry on the IWF URL list.

Secretlondon notes above that A&A (who are vehemently anti-filtering) are seeing bad performance on Wikipedia. Secretlondon also noted on wikimediauk-l that the extreme porn law comes into force tomorrow ...

So what on earth is going on? - David Gerard (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There are any number of Wikipedia articles that could be causing the problem. Dnepropetrovsk maniacs caused a flap recently, but currently contains no shock site material. However, the plot thickens if the IWF has issued a denial and obvious proxying is occurring.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess our only option at the moment is to contact the affected ISPs and ask them. I think someone already tried and got pretty much nowhere, but it wouldn't hurt to try again. --Tango (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say technical fault if it was just one ISP and just for a short time. However, there are now at least two ISPs involved - one which has been proxied for a few days now... ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 22:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

How exactly was godwin's question phrased? Otherwise nothing suggests there is an issue at our end [34].Geni 22:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

So we have 4 options. 1)very odd glitch. 2)ISPs acting of their own accord. 3)Someone else can add stuff to the cleenfeed list 4)IWF is (deliberately or otherwise) giveing out false information. I think we have to ask the ISPs.Geni 22:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the site slowdown is just random internet issues. Yesterday an ATM switch broke cutting my net off all day, and twitter had 30 minutes of lag etc. Those two ISPs could be using the same Cleanfeed-like implementation - afaik they are all different rather than one opt-in system. It could just be a technical fault. It would be very interesting if there was another list they are subscribing to covering the new extreme pornography legislation. Who would run it? Secretlondon (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

IWF but 1) that shouldn't kick into the 26th and 2)unless applied verly liberaly that law shouldn't impact us.Geni 22:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Secretlondon, if it was an internet glitch, it wouldn't lead to all members of Be and all members of TalkTalk being forced through two transparent proxies... unless the same glitch has occurred on both ISPs (highly unlikely I think). ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 22:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

They could be buying in the same service from a third party. Secretlondon (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

62.24.251.241 is back active (TalkTalk) - I suggest we keep an eye on this list of IP's for any new activity. D.M.N. (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

For reference - the TalkTalk Members thread regarding WP filtering. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 22:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoever is doing this should bear in mind that Wikipedia has a HTTPS server capability. Using this facility makes proxying ineffective, as the Virgin Killer affair showed. Unfortunately, the TalkTalk proxying is now a racing certainty, so WTF is going on here?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

User:89.167.221.131 (O2) is active and was blocked for vandalism. I've unblocked but please revert. How do we manage these? Secretlondon (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't we usually soft-block and block account creation, with a warning that the whole ISP is being filtered? - David Gerard (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, here is an example. BTW, I'm still trying to work out what material Wikipedia could be hosting that is worth this type of filtering, which is sophisticated and reminiscent of Cleanfeed. Wikipedia's content is hosted under state of Florida law, and is not likely to break UK law either, as the Virgin Killer affair showed. Is someone looking for a knighthood here?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There are some strange things being "trialed", sometimes covertly, in the UK at the moment. One of them is the Phorm initiative. This involves ISPs letting Phorm monitor users' internet behaviour in order to target adverts to them. I know nothing of the technicalities of how this is done, but merely mention it because one way this could end up being done, might, it seems to me, have the effects noted here. TalkTalk have been associated with the Phorm initiative in the past. In other words, although it was an IWF connection before, it may not be in this case. As I said, I know little about this, but wonder if someone with more knowledge might do a quick scan of relevant documents to see if there could be a possible influence here. Some refs (may not be the best): [35] [36][37]  DDStretch  (talk) 10:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Someone, somewhere knows why this is being done. Personally, I doubt whether market research or advertising would require the setting up of a transparent proxy, as websites (including Wikipedia) already know who visited, and when, and which pages were visited. As the Virgin Killer row showed, the main effect of proxying the connection is to slow it down to a crawl or screw it up completely. The IP addresses involved have also been associated with the Cleanfeed system in the past. It's still early days, but this matter cannot be allowed to drop.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

On Be's forum (must be logged in as a Be member to view) a staff member says "We've had confirmation from the IWF that there is indeed nothing on wikipedia they are blocking. It seems to be a technical problem, which we are working to resolve asap." MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 13:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I can also confirm, from an e-mail from the IWF that Wikipedia is NOT on the IWF list or any list the IWF has. This is per Fred Langford Director of Technology and Content at the IWF. DragonFire1024 (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Again confirming. — neuro^(talk) 22:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Has Be/O2 fixed their proxy problem yet (considering non-Be members can't access the forum post)? Still no official word from TalkTalk regarding why they are filtering... ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 12:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Be/O2's proxying may have ended, since no new contributions have been recorded since 13:27 UTC on 8 January 2009.[38]. However, TalkTalk is still definitely proxying on 9 January 2009, leading to blocks for vandalism.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Can confirm it's unfiltered here on Be -93.96.212.203 (talk) 11:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Time for an indefinite block?

Since it doesn't seem to be going away, I have moved and updated {{UKBlock}} in order to make it vague enough to be used each time the ISPs start proxying again. I suggest we indef block the cleanfeed servers with it. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Considering that, in TalkTalk's case, Wikipedia was actually unusable, blocking the cleanfeed servers wouldn't cause that many problems. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 11:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)irs

First, some good news: TalkTalk seems to have stopped proxying. If this incident had been only Be/O2 for 24 hours or so, it would most likely have been written off as a technical glitch. However, when TalkTalk joined in, it was either a big technical glitch or a deliberate proxy for reasons that may never be known.

I also agree that Wikipedia should now give strong consideration to an indefinite block on all IP addresses known to be associated with the CleanFeed system (list here). As usual with proxy IPs, it is almost impossible to stop vandalism from them. UK Wikipedians also deserve better than having their traffic rerouted without their knowledge or consent. Thoughts? --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

An unprotected image is displayed on the main page

File:Geastrum fornicatum.jpg is currently displayed on the main page, and is not locally uploaded or protected at the Wikimedia Commons. Administrative assistance is requested in uploading the file locally (which cannot be effectuated by non-admins due to a conflict with the filename at the commons and cascading protection for the main page) or protecting the image at the commons. Thanks. John254 06:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

While (being that it is on the mainpage) it should have cascade protection, we seemed to have this issue the other day. So, I have protected it for now. Tiptoety ^talk 06:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible Sock, Definite Weirdness

Aunties Ants (talk · contribs) is a new user, but his entire evening has been spent undoing the edits of DWC LR (talk · contribs). Seems like somebody is a sock of somebody in this one, but I'm not familiar with either party and it seems like DWC LR isn't online right now to defend himself. Anyone have any ideas what's going on? Dayewalker (talk) 07:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Since an account used for the sole purpose of reversing good-faith edits by another user is blatantly disruptive, Aunties Ants (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should be blocked indefinitely. I highly doubt that DWC LR (talk · contribs) is employing a sockpuppet account to reverse his own edits -- rather, it appears that Aunties Ants is being used for the purpose of wikistalking DWC LR. John254 07:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef. No idea of the background to this - but the disruptive edits need to stop. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of rolling back Aunties Ants's edits. John254 07:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I was just about to do that... ;) I've left DWC LR a message on his talk page concerning this incident. Hopefully he can shed some light on what just happened here. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 07:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

A review of the page history for Nugzar Bagration-Gruzinsky shows that Aunties Ants is an apparent sockpuppet of a banned user. Note the edit by BlacklistPatrol, reversion by DWC LR, the subsequent block of BlacklistPatrol as an abusive sockpuppet account per checkuser results, then the reinstatement of BlacklistPatrol's edit by Aunties Ants. John254 07:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, [39] confirms that Aunties Ants is a sockpuppet of the banned user Tfoxworth. John254 07:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

User's main IP range is already softblocked; looks like this and a few other sleepers were created from elsewhere. Holding back on another big block for now, but I'd appreciate being kept up to speed if problems persist. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Operation Bagration

One user keeps reverting my edits to the German casualty list. As you can see it is sourced, he keeps saying it isn't. The citation is from Christer Bergstrom which I put there in August. Some bright spark modified it. I changed it back inline with the cited source and this guy is now reverting my restorations! I have told him I have the book, and that I put it there and cited it. Yet he insists that it s unsourced! I don't seem to be getting through to him. Dapi89 (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

For your convinience here is the content Dapi89 wants to insert into the article. This is what the users Nikitn (talk · contribs) and AlasdairGreen27 (talk · contribs) want to keep the page at. Both versions use the same source yet they have diffferent figures. Unfortunatly no preview is available on google books or amazon so we can't check who's right without buying the book. --Patton^t/c 13:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The article talk page may be a better forum than AN/I for this discussion but here we are. As I have already pointed out to Dapi89 at my talk page, it is not very helpful that the source is "Bergstrom 2008"; if he/she bothered to cite the source properly then there probably wouldn't be any problems. I suppose (though I'm unsure) that he/she is referring to Bergstrom, Christer; Bagration to Berlin: The Final Air Battles in the East 1944-1945; Ian Allen, 2008; ISBN 9781903223918. Although it is rather unclear, as the author also had published in 2008 a book on Kursk, one on Barbarossa and one on Stalingrad. I'm sure Dapi89 will make matters clear in the very near future. Either way, I shan't be reverting his additions again, so I dare say that no admin intervention is required. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

My initial edit was in August 2008. I put Bergstrom in (the one references is Bagration to Berlin, as it says so in the Bibliography. This is clear, plus it is the only book Bergstrom published in 2008, the rest were published in 2007) and listed the casualties as presented in the article currently. It was tampered with by a new user. I reinstated the original layout per Bergstrom. I was reverted by the above on the grounds of "unsourced" information. This not only infuriating because I have and do source everything, but my pointng this out is falling on deaf ears.

To some up the intial edit stays, as this is exactly what C.Bergstrom states. Everything else, i.e the later additions is the unsourced information. All one has to do is follow the "diff" sections; it isn't that difficult. Dapi89 (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

User Forsena - violation of editing restriction

Resolved

 – wrong forum--Patton^t/c 15:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Forsena appears to have violated User_talk:Forsena#Notice_of_editing_restrictions in that he called another editor vandal and extremist [[40]] Gerardw (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

He was warned for that. Besides, this is the wrong forum. Add to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patton123 (talk • contribs)

User:BlassFamily - Continually uploading unfree images with insufficient FUR

BlassFamily Repeatedly uploads images that have to be deleted. The majority of the images he uploads are completely not needed and unsupported by his fair use claim. These are usually "Special edition" album covers (even when they look identical to the standard version) and images of music video stills with insufficient fair use. He's already had one block but simply won't learn. He is becoming disruptive. — Realist² 22:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've notified BlassFamily about this discussion. Let's give him the chance to comment before we take action about them. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thus far BlassFamily has just blanked his talk page without acknowledgment. Maybe he will come around... :-/ — Realist² 18:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

He's creating redundant fair use images still, someone please stop him. — Realist² 20:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Re edits to Taiwo Atieno

On 9 January I noticed the article about footballer Taiwo Atieno had shrunk rather [41]. Turned out that User:Football567 had tidied the article, removing some rubbish but also removing clubs from the infobox and sourced content from the article and adding unsourced content relating to person's ethnic origin; no edit summaries. I restored sourceable content, added references and removed unsourced BLP stuff [42]. The user cut even more [43]. I restored the sourced version w/o BLP violations [44], and dropped a note to the user's talk page asking them to stop deleting sourced content and referring them to WP:BLP re the unsourced stuff. The user again removed some sourced content and reintroduced unsourced personal info [45]. An unsigned reply on their talk page suggested Mr Atieno thought "parts of the information inappropriate and uncreative" and said "if you persist in removing personal information about Mr Atieno, I and Mr Atieno will make a formal complaint. And will take such actions as impeachments of Atieno's privacy." I restored the sourced version again, and replied on the user's talk page. Then on 10 January a newly-created account reverted to the unsourced version of Taiwo Atieno, I reverted and added a {{uw-delete1}} to User talk:Jimunder, but they've now reverted again.

While looking for diffs for this report, I noticed that the unsigned reply on User talk:Football567 was added in two parts, once by the user and once by an anon. Obviously I can't tell if the anon was the user editing not-logged-in or whether it's a third party messing us both about for some reason.

Anyway, I'm out of my depth, so please could someone take a look. I've left a note on User talk:Football567 and User talk:Jimunder pointing them to this discussion. Thanks. Struway2 (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that there are any privacy issues here - the information in the article (I've restored your version, which had been reverted again) is all sourced and in the public domain. To be honest I'm not really sure what the other editors are objecting to. However, I've left a note on the talk pages of both accounts letting them know how they can raise any specific issues they have surrounding WP:BLP, the consequences of further unexplained disruption, and the implications of WP:LEGAL. Hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 18:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks, Struway2 (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No probs, I'll keep it watchlisted. It's massively important that we do no harm with BLP and take complaints seriously, but I just don't see it applying in this case. Incidentally, I thought you'd handled it well - I haven't really done anything you hadn't already done :P EyeSerene^talk 19:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Pilotguy

I'd really rather not make a fuss about this, but this talk page has inappropriately been deleted. Talk pages are specifically not covered in U1, and are almost always kept as some sort of record. Unless the user has a really good reason to delete it, it should be restored. I also don't consider someone with admin rights as someone who has "left". If he has really left, he would have handed them in. Majorly talk 18:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the log it was deleted by the account owner (his only contribution since August last year). I don't have a problem with him doing that - if it was ever needed again, it's easy enough to undelete - but as an indication that the user has indeed left, perhaps we can assume they have no further use for the admin tools either and these should be removed (without prejudice naturally). EyeSerene^talk 18:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

User:EEMIV

Resolved

 – What note does "Kum bay ya" start with? A happy one.

Hello, I would rather not have to report this but I think I am being unfairly treated by said user. I took objection to their perceived deletionist attitude to a number of articles and there is currently a discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Willy_Armitage Now you would think that would be the end of the matter but I have received a number of messages on my talk page [[46]], [[47]] and [[48]]. I made it clear I didn't want to discuss this on my talk page as I find the tone rather uncivil and slightly threatening. Normally that would be the end of things however my objection is to this addition on their user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:EEMIV&diff=prev&oldid=263204821 It did feel like stalking by the way and quite insulting. Is there anything you can do to help. Thanks Jdrewitt (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Some people are deletionists, some inclusionists, some in between, there's nothing bad about being a deletionist. You should definitely not have revoved the AfD template. And the messages on your talk page could be (and I do) interpreted as an attempt to be helpful. I see no evidence of 'stalking', please read WP:Hound which might help. You are adding sources which are basically self-published it seems, even IMDB apparently isn't a reliable source by our standards, which surprised me (see [49] and the BBC's h2g2 is certainly not, it's more or less a Wiki where anyone can contribute. Someone else is likely to remove the sources, you might want to think about doing it yourself. dougweller (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I did not remove the AfD template, I removed a citation needed template after I had added a reference. It is not an issue about who is wrong or right, my objection is to this and only this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:EEMIV&diff=prev&oldid=263204821 . I only added the other information as background information. Even if you think the messages are helpful, I personally found them to be threatening, I am an established user and don't usually feel like this when someone writes on my talkpage - I hoped that removing their posts would be enough but despite making it obvious I didn't want to enter into a discussion on my talk page they continued to post there. And now they're mocking me on their talk page :-( Jdrewitt (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

That diff shows a list of edits he thinks are funny ... unlike a "wall of shame", I don't see the issue. Perhaps you could explain? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 20:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't find it funny. I found their tone threatening and you might just argue that's just me being oversensitive but I simply don't find that funny and feel like I'm being mocked. Jdrewitt (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I added that to my list of favorite diffs because I find laughable your suggestion that I am "stalking" you. After all, pointing out that AfD is a last-resort measure, and asking you to engage in talk-page discussion and not to fall into counter-reverts; putting a finer focus on talk-page discussion when I inferred you instead focused on the irony of me asking for talk-page discussion when I was admittedly slow to initiate it about the articles in question; and asking you not to mark as minor clearly non-minor edits all seem appropriate. I give myself a pat on the back for restraint at your hyperbolic suggestion that I am stalking you. If you are insulted :-( that I find funny such a misinterpretation, that's unfortunate. "Threatening" (which you've claimed three times) -- puh-lease. Sorry, I can't do much more to diminish that impression other than to try to laugh it off. --EEMIV (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's an idea then ... you now know he doesn't like it... how about being nice/a team player and get rid of it? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 20:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, no kidding. Thanks for that. Already done. --EEMIV (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

e/c That I would appreciate and be the end of it. If I've been oversensitive then I'm sorry but please, I would like it to go. Jdrewitt (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You are a little :-) It doesn't say "the people below are idiots" so it's not really against WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL, it's now a matter of "does this editor play well with others". If it doesn't come off, don't worry about it, you have your answer. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 20:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, EEMIV reverted the edit for which I am grateful and so that is the issue resolved. Jdrewitt (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible sock-puppety

Resolved

no block requested by complaint. Elbutler is watching.

I'm not sure if this belongs here, but here goes. It started on the Space Buddies page where i noticed that an IP was adding a section. Intigued, i checked the other Buddies pages, where i discovered that the other pages were being edited by different IPs all in the same range (adding the same info). The first thing that popped to my mind was sockpuppetry, but since the IPs aren't editing disruptivley, it's not blockable. I suggest we keep an eye on them maybe? Elbutler (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

81.184.70.66

Resolved

The user has been blocked for a month. All clear.

This editor has been accused numerous times of being an IP sock of User:Korlzor or User:Wikitestor. This IP's sole contributions (with only one exception, where he blanked the IP sock tags on his talk page) have been reverting edits by User:Tennis expert. I will also file a WP:RFCU ASAP. Jonathan321 (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

User 67.169.4.255 and rs page

User 67.169.4.255 broke 3 revert rule on this page [50] --Čeha (razgovor) 00:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You should report this on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, not here. John Riemann Soong (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Did that now :) [51]. Thanks --Čeha (razgovor) 01:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

For your consideration... User:Another-anomaly

I noticed this editor when he removed the MfD tag for a page I'd nominated. Happened to check his contributions, and his conduct over the last few months hasn't been great. Perhaps mentorship by an admin, or a series of stern warnings and some closer scrutiny, is in order. See the following:

• User:Another-anomaly

• [52]
• [53]
• [54]
• [55]
• [56]
• [57]
• [58]
• With a dose of BLP violation, for fun
• Removes an MFD tag with edit summary "Pwahaha"
• [59]
• "Lifeless WP nazis"

Userspace page: User:Another-anomaly/uicclf, User:Another-anomaly/funny_temps

Avruch ^T 20:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think a final warning is in order, and it also looks like he and Soetermans and possibly Alistairward need to eb separated, what do you think? Guy (Help!) 21:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I concur doctor. (Couldn't resist) But seriously, I agree. Rgoodermote  21:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok if I contribute? Turd attitude? I did remind him that abuse put into that "invisible" code would still be available to view once saved. And this, telling other editors that Admins are on my back about my edits when they weren't.

Tracking down other editors I disagreed with to stir things up.

I've already been dragged here not just once but twice on the bizarre charge of "Article Manipulation" (which I thought all along was the idea of Wikipedia...) and found not guilty m'lud, just incase you're interested. Alastairward (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. I've worked with Alastairward on a few South Park articles - and I must say that Another-anomaly has been persistent in his discourteous and counter-productive attitude, despite attempts to guide him towards the basis of Wikipedia ≈ The Haunted Angel 03:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the consideration, and I have read, adhered, and removed the comments on my talk page from the users here regarding my heated comments. While I realize that my recent comments on Wikipedia have not been wholly WP:CIVIL, I would advise you to further investigate the source of the heated comments, User:Alastairward's edits. I would not make such comments if it weren't after having seen the edits made by the mentioned user that violate both WP:COMMON and WP:IGNORE, since guideline violations are the topic here.

I won't start a South Park discussion here as this thread is for my comments in response to the edits in question, but please consider it as (believe it or not) I'm really not the kind of person who would say such things without being either provoked, or challenged on a subject I feel fairly well-informed about (regarding South Park's unique format and in-jokes as opposed to most TV shows).

Please put yourself in my shoes if only for a moment and review the edits made by User:Alastairward after researching South Park's format (and cultural references). I am not saying I was wrong in my comments (I really went off the edge there as the discussion continued and crossed a few too many lines), I am merely asking for a view on my (and several other SP fans) perspectives on the subject, and a brief research and review of the edits I got so heated about. I would really appreciate this, and doing so with an actual conclusion that gives SP articles the respect they deserve here on WP would give me a new hope in the project.

I thank you for all of you have done here. Just as a notice, I am in the process of removing my real-world name from WP for more anonymity (hence the username change), and I have done so in the edit above, if you don't mind. I ask that you respect this decision, in addition to the request/plea I have made above. Thank you, Another-anomaly (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

On your userpage is a link to the website (currently inaccessible) that bears your name. Might want to delete that as well. Avruch ^T 03:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• I strongly suggest that the parties avoid each other, or, if they cannot do that, seek mediation. Hurling brickbats is simply going to end up with people being blocked. we have absolutely no shortage of people wanting to edit those articles, and a supersufficiency of disruption and brashness, so I think that a moderation of tone on all sides is definitely called for. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Already being practiced on my part, I haven't directly spoken to him (err, replied to his comments or his talk page) since the blowout in November; it is he who is still following me around to this day and watching my edits (look at his history). For the record I have never been blocked, and don't plan to be - that's why I have avoided him since the November thing, and trust me, I will follow your advice and continue to, no problem there whatsoever. Another-anomaly (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

72.11.83.22 has made repeated anti-semitic and racist comments

Hi,

72.11.83.22 is a repeat vandal. 72.11.83.22 has made numerous anti-semitic and racist comments of a particularly virulent nature. Also, every edit made by this user has been a vandalization attempt.

Such as this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jew%27s_harp&diff=prev&oldid=256302558

The last vandalization by this user may have been five days ago. However, I feel the anti-semitic and racist nature of this anon user's vandalism warrants action of some kind. Based on this anon user's history, I am sure they will be back for more of the same behaviour. Thank you. WacoJacko (talk) 04:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Extreme personal attacks, battlefield, uncviility? Yes, definitenely. But his postings are not vandalism as we view vandalism (ie he didn't disrupt the flow of the conversation, remove legit content, or was incoherent or posted nonsense). I am putting a warning tag because that diff you gave is really awful. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is one that you would probably consider vandalism as it is definite nonsense posted to an article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Touched_by_an_Angel&diff=prev&oldid=261799098

Thank you for your helpWacoJacko (talk)

Considering that it appears to be a static IP with nothing but a string of trolling and abusive edits to its name (number?), I'd personally have slapped a six month block on it. Just my two cents. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 05:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It hasn't edited since Sunday, so WP:AIV is not likely to do anything. Unless an admin stops by here and decides to issue a block anyway, you all will have to keep an eye on it and see if it edits that way again, and turn it in to WP:AIV quickly. Then you might get some action. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It just seems like some action should be taken, as it is a static IP that is used soley for attacks and vandalism. Also, the user has not edited since Sunday, but that follows the pattern of this vandal, he/she edits intermitently but regularly. I am sure that based on 72.11.83.22's history, he/she will be back. Thanks for the help and input.WacoJacko (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Cerejota. Th edit cited is definitely nonsensical relative to the subject of the article, unless you hold similar views. What was said about a user's genitalia, and the stereotypical miserliness of a group has no place on a page, and as such, is a disruptive edit in a manner identical to adding nonsense. ThuranX (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

All true. However, his last edit was on the 4th, and he got four warnings today, and has not edited, so arguably he is "complying" with the complaints. So it's unlikely they would block at WP:AIV, and while it's possible someone here would block, I wouldn't count on it. However, if he does it again, I think you've got him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The first warning today was from another admin who said that I needed to file a report here. Also, this user has received numerous warnings in the past and has ignored them all. He will be back in a matter of days or a week at the most, and will be doing the same thing.WacoJacko (talk) 05:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you try AIV at all? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I was told I needed to file the report here....WacoJacko (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably because he last edited on Sunday. The admins seem to be out to lunch at present, so it's hard telling when or if one of them will block. Until then, just keep an eye on it and see if it edits again. Then take it to WP:AIV ASAP. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to block this one, if problems continue. No complaint if someone else does in the meantime. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If he vandalizes again, I'll also happily block him. I'm not sure about blocking an IP address that hasn't been used for 6 days though. dougweller (talk) 11:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hang on, did Bugs actually say the admins are all "out to lunch"?? *snicker* (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was 2 a.m. central time, but it was lunchtime *somewhere*. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess I will just have to watch him/her. However, based on the patern of 72.11.83.22 's edits, I can see that the user usually waits a bit in between each vandalization attempt. However, the IP is used only for vandlism and attacks. Also, this has gone on for a long time. I was just trying to preempt his next vandalism with a block. I feel we are just postponing the inevitable. Either way, thanks for everyones input and assistance!WacoJacko (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Similar problems arise with other IP's, such as 75.186.104.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who keeps trying to post false information about Barack Obama, but who only edits intermittently, so we have to keep watching him, because, ironically, he won't engage in an edit war so we could zap him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are people here discussing "anti-semetic" comments? There is no such word as "semetic". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you could either fix it, or you could be like the restaurant patron who kept asking the waiter to taste his soup, and finally the waiter said, "OK ... where's the spoon?" and the patron said "A-HA!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There is: d:Semitic. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 17:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

He was griping about the misspelling. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, It was late at night and I was typing fast. Thanks to Cuddlyable3 for making such a huge deal about it and acting as the spelling patrol.WacoJacko (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Exopolitics

Resolved

Would an Admin be so kind as to remove the full page protection on this subject (currently a redirect). I would like to start a stub article on this notable topic. Gracias. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

PS do take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exopolitics (3rd nomination). Apparently the article as it existed previously was a mass of original research and a bit of a crank magnet. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh my. After the most recent deletion, I was harangued for months by the cranks associated with that topic. Good luck keeping a lid on this, whoever restored it - I'm taking it off my watchlist.  Sandstein  20:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Gulp. Well, the sources treat the subject of whether contact has actually occured more seriously than I would, I have to say. But I think the idea and implications of relations with otherworldly civilizations is an interesting topic, and there are certainly enough sources and coverage of it. If things go badly can I take it off my watchlist? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone needs to watch it. But since I (perhaps overly naively) unprotected it, I've watchlisted it too. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Questions re "the rules"

Re: JHFourJobsCC (talk · contribs)

Twice I have reverted this user adding an "article" about themselves to their own user talk page. My first question is, am I doing the right thing reverting these edits and warning the user even though a certain amount of self-promotion is ok on user pages, and my second question is, is there any way of actually stopping him from doing it? -- role^player 23:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC

The same user has been adding "articles" about his YouTube accounts to mainspace, so reverting his self-promotion is probably a net benefit to the project. However, you should probably leave him a message so he knows about our self-promotion policies. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC) Actually, I can see that you did leave a message and he kept at it, so never mind that bit. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Suspicious activity by an IP

121.98.130.163 blanked much of a SSPA in which he was found to be Aether22, in an obvious attempt to cover it up. Interestingly enough, Aether claimed that he "forgot to log in", yet the IP that was found to be him blanked the sspa. Could somebody look into this? Thanks. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 01:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what is so suspicious. He just tried to blank the page in his IP account. As simple as that. Now, if you are saying that someone else is controlling the IP, that may neeed an admin or Checkuser. ₰imon_K^S_K 01:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Erm, what he/she blanked is not an IP account, but the IP's WP:SPP report. As for the blanked IP talkpage, the block, SSP, and the WHOIS tag must not be deleted. E Wing (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

IP running unapproved bot

Resolved

 – IP will hopefully take advice re further large-scale edits. –xeno (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• moved in from WP:AIV. –xeno (talk) 04:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• 83.227.118.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This user hasn't been warned yet, but I feel they need to be brought to admin's attention right away. It seems they have run some automated program that has changed over 50 articles in error (or vandalism - I can't tell). All the related articles are airport articles. The program has added several "see also" links to "list of .... airports..." but most of them don't even apply to that airport. For example, I was watching Orlando International Airport and saw they added to the "see also" section Busiest airports in Europe by passenger traffic and List of the largest airports in the Nordic countries which don't even apply to this airport, since it is in the USA. Again, this has been done to over 50 articles incorrectly. I'm not sure if there is a way to revert all of their edits or if we have to revert them by hand. Either way, I just wanted to bring it the attention of an admin to see what we should do. --RightSideNov / talk / contribs 03:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Unapproved bot (?) if it becomes active again should be block-on-sight... –xeno (talk) 04:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Looking at the IP's contribs, should they all be rolled back? (some may be useful) –xeno (talk) 04:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

50 articles over the course of almost two hours would have to be the slowest bot I've ever seen - either it's being run on a pocket calculator or it's a live editor. But the additions do look spammy and non-constructive, so yes, if they are warned and keep it up, a block would be in order. -- Vary Talk 05:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

heh, tbh i didn't look at the timeline. they aren't all necessarily spammy/non-constructive, just the mistaken ones (airports in Asia being listed as Nordic). anyhow, perhaps it was hasty bringing it here. –xeno (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've gone through the edits the IP/Bot/Whatever made and reverted the incorrect ones. The early edits appeared to be generally correct. In the situations I wasn't completely sure, I erred on the side of reverting. Trusilver 05:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

User:DionysosProteus

This user has continued to add information to the lead of California Musical Theatre against consensus. Has accused me of vandalism for reverting his edit when the information was originaly placed in the article by myself with references in a complete section within the article. He has been warned by admin already and keeps reverting without gaining consensus, but more importantly he continues to accuse me of being the vandal in all his talk page contributions and edit summeries. According to Wikipedia definition of a Vandal he is the one conituing to add text over and over that goes against consensus. It appears he is editing with an agenda.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I reviewed this situation when Amadscientist reported DionysosProteus to AIV a while ago. Both editors have crossed the line of civility—not just DionysosProteus. Amadscientist broke the 3RR, but at this point, I've concluded that either both of them should be blocked or neither should be blocked, and I've opted for neither. I've protected the disputed article and offered an olive branch to both editors requesting that they seek dispute resolution. Any edit warring or too much incivility after the protection expires will probably will land one or both of them a block. As of now, I'm confident and hopeful that the best sides of these editors will come out. I consider this matter pretty much closed, at least in terms of what AN/I can do. Okiefromokla ^questions? 06:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Revert warring and disruptive editing on Hispanic and Latino Americans

Alright this has gotten to the point where I can't handle this on my own. User:M5891 is continuing to make unilateral edits without consensus on the article Hispanic and Latino Americans. Myself and another user (User:SamEV) have objected to some of the content placed in the article largely due to the POV tone of the content and the sources used (ex. Mexica Movement sources). Rather than try to work this issue out by discussion the user has continued to revert war in order to place this content on the article.[60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] He has also created what is essentially a POV fork article in order to try and place similar edits (see this edit). I am an administrator on Wikipedia so yes I know all about WP:DR. The issue to deal with now however is putting an end to this disruptive editing behavior. I would do it myself but seeing as I am directly involved in this dispute and I have been regularly editing that article myself I feel it would be inappropriate for me to take any direct administrative action. Thank you.--Jersey Devil (talk) 05:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Post-AfD pedantry

The article Stefan Molyneux has had at least two AfD's that I am aware of and needs someone familiar with the process to take a look and add the appropriate {{oldafdfull}} details to the talkpage. I'm not sure if this is controversial, but I recall the previously deleted versions of the article as being reasonably well-written – is there any chance, now that the subject has been deemed notable, that an admin could restore all deleted revisions to the article so that the useful content can be retrieved from the history? Thanks, Skomorokh 20:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Not really the kind of AFD I'd like to see a non-admin close given the previous BLP concerns but I can't really argue with the outcome. Given this, and since you are familiar with the history of the article, will undeleting these revisions mean we undelete some BLP vios? I simply can't bring myself to trawl through so many deleted revisions (its a real pain). Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The only deleted version that I am familiar with was deleted on the basis of non-notability and contained no negative info as far as I am aware. The BLP issues only arose since the article was recreated at Stefan molyneux after negative coverage of the subject in the news media. I doubt very much that there was anything worth worrying about in the deleted revisions, but only an admin can tell for sure. Thanks for the interest, Skomorokh 23:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

A quick look at the deleted revisions reveals some content that was removed on policy grounds. (It was basically soapboxing by critics of this person, not very well concealed beneath a veneer of citing chat rooms where everyone uses pseudonyms as sources.) The rest of the content that the new article doesn't already cover is an unsourced analysis of the themes of this person's publications, which readers had no way of checking the accuracy of, and which is better started from scratch working from actual published analyses of this person's writings; a short list of books written and (in at least one case) published by this person that can be easily re-created; and a 2-sentence list of the degrees that this person holds, sourced (it seems) solely to this person's autobiography and press releases, which can already be found in the prior versions of the new article in a longer form.

I think that you're better off continuing to write in the way that the new article is now written, working from sources, rather than retrieving content from the deleted revisions. Uncle G (talk) 08:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, if you're sure that there is not much of use in the deleted revisions, I am happy to take your word for it. Thanks for looking into the matter, Skomorokh 13:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Expert admin untangling assistance requested.

I have a puzzler here; either something beyond-weird is happening, or I have just AGF-ed myself into a corner. Yesterday, I blocked 90.220.37.70 for 55 hours due to a series of vandalism edits which was occurring at that moment (which was why I didn't go through all 4 warn levels, in case that's a question.) I left an admittedly-not-overly-polite message informing the user of the block; the edits were such that I concluded this wasn't a hapless edit-testing n00b, so I was maybe BITEy-er than I needed to be (I admit it). Shortly thereafter, the person behind the IP complained about the block, and my allegations, on my talk page, saying that the IP was a static IP accessible only to him. However, his post was made under a highly-inappropriate username, which was immediately blocked by another admin. The user later explained that the ID belonged to "a friend" of his, for whose username he could not be held responsible. All this was communicated via another IP--90.220.37.95--which he is using to discuss his objections to the block because (he says) the original IP is talkpage-blocked. I didn't block his talkpage, but I'm not really worried about the 2nd IP because it's not editing disruptively.

What I am worried about, though, is the fairly-byzantine string of explanations. If the facts are as the user says they are, I'm willing to reduce the block to "time served" for the original IP--BUT before I do, I want to make sure that I'm not being a total dupe. Just for a start, I don't understand how edits made over a "static IP"--which he says the original IP most definitely is--can belong to anyone other than the owner of that IP. There are a few other little questionmarks, too, but I'm reluctant to list them because I really want an objective look at what's going on here.

The conversation is spread among the following talkpages: User talk:90.220.37.70; User talk:Gladys_j_cortez; User talk:90.220.37.95;‎ User talk:Sarcasticidealist; User talk:GlassCobra; and ‎User talk:Ohnoitsjamie. I would appreciate someone with extensive admin experience and a superabundance of clue to tell me their take on this situation, start to finish. (And yes, I know--I can't believe it myself, that I'm making all this fuss about a 55-hour block--but I am still fairly-new to this admin thing, and in my RfA I promised to ASK if I wasn't 100% sure about something. When I made the block I was 100% sure; now I don't know if I am or not. So the help of my more-experienced colleagues would be appreciated greatly.) GJC 01:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

well, I'm certainly not an admin, nor do I impersonate one. But since Gladys' page happens to be on my watchlist, as is this, I figured I'd meddle in the affairs of wizards... But for starters, both of those IP address originate in England, so it is unlikely that those IP address have anything to do with Miami, as it is mentioned on Gladys' talk page. And the British spelling of programme kinda hints that. The questionable username was created on 13:14, November 9, 2008, so it's likely that part of story could be true, a CU might be in order for that. If I were an admin, I'd say someone was caught, the block justified, and now this is all smoke-and-mirrors. addendum: he could have an unsecured wireless router on his system at home, which would make it easy for someone to vandalize under the IP address without him knowing about it. Yngvarr (t) (c) 01:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

There was some implication that the first IP--the "static" one--was a "home" IP and he knew it because he accessed that computer remotely. I noticed the England/Miami thing too, but the static-IP-for-remote-access setup is something I deal with often in my non-WP job, so I'm not atrociously upheaved by his claim. HOWEVER--the unsecured-wireless-router scenario is one I hadn't considered.GJC 03:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The "friend" or "evil brother/sister" or "evil roommate" story is as old as wikipedia. And if the guy really does have an unsecured wireless router, getting blocked in wikipedia is the least of his worries. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed it some time ago. As I told the I.P. then, I saw nothing wrong with the block. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think GJC's actions here have been just fine. That block was clearly justified by the IP address's contributions, and while the user in question may or may not be telling the truth about the situation it's certainly clear that someone at that IP address was vandalising, so as a preventative measure that IP address needed blocking. Sarcasticidealist basically nailed it in his response at User_talk:90.220.37.95; I think admin actions here have been pretty exemplary all round. It's the user's choice to take it personally, but I don't think anything further can, or should, be done here. ~ mazca ^t|c 14:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

More User:PoliticianTexas sockpuppeting

Resolved

It appears that we've got another sockpuppet of PoliticianTexas: JWillems. For those who haven't followed the lengthy (and rather dull) saga, PoliticianTexas was banned last October due to sockpuppeting and copy violations.

JWillems has:

• recreated the page Española Valley High School Boys Basketball (initially created by Thomasalazar, another PolTx SP).
• recreated the page Carlos F. Vigil Middle School (initially created by DeLaCueva, yes, another PolTx SP).
• added a copyvio image to Albuquerque, New Mexico
• focused recently on Española Valley High School (page largely edited by PolTx and his SPs)

JWillems was tagged as a suspected sock puppet on 26-Dec-2006 by Uncia, but that didn't change anything.

History:

• PoliticianTexas (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
• JWillems (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
• Thomasalazar (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
• DeLaCueva (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Can someone block this guy? Thanks... Dori (Talk • Contribs) 08:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Blocked indef.  Sandstein  08:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You biased pig!

Resolved

 – The user has been warned for incivility. AdjustShift (talk) 12:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

User:LAz17 found it appropriate to describe User:AlasdairGreen27 as a "biased pig!" in his edit summary [71]. I don't think it should go unrewarded? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

(Non-Admin Comment): A warning to remind them of WP:CIVIL is all thats needed for now. I really can't see much history where it's come to a block which isn't warranted in this case but if they continue to remain uncivil then a block maybe needed. Bidgee (talk) 09:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I also thought a warning would be sufficient, but I didn't think it should just go unnoticed like that (maybe others would disagree). Hopefully he won't ignore the warning. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

We must not ignore incivility. I support the warning. AdjustShift (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The editor has been warned; I think the issue has been resolved. AdjustShift (talk) 12:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

...and this didn't go to WP:WQA first for what reason? Just askin' is all ... (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It could have gone to WP:WQA, but DIREKTOR posted it here. There is nothing wrong with that, we have eventually resolved the issue. That's what matters. AdjustShift (talk) 12:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conflict again

On 31 December, I asked for help here concerning an addition that User:Wolfkeeper was re-adding to the Wikipedia:Naming conflict guideline despite ongoing resistance to its implementation on another article that she or he is involved in a dispute over (Glider, a dispute that I am also involved in, on the opposite side to Wolfkeeper).

User:Smashville removed Wolfkeeper's addition to the guideline and asked her or him to discuss the change before re-adding it.

Wolfkeeper has now re-added the section, dismissing my concerns as "garbage". There are a couple of other troubling things in the same message, including what appears to be an attempt at extortion (a bizarre one, since the discussion on "Glider" is still on-going anyway...) and a boast about prevailing "both there and here" (ie, Glider and Naming conflict) which I can only understand as a battleground statement.

I'm not prepared to revert again. Could somebody else please take a look? --Rlandmann (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Posturewriter (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) has repeatedly edited my user talk page to include a section heading insultingly titled "WhatamIdoing’s attempts at undermining NPOV policy". This is the third message just today, and since he's in Australia, we're moving into his daytime (and out of mine).

I have asked the editor to stop posting on my talk page in general, and specifically to quit posting personal attacks. This behavior, as I pointed out to him before this last edit, violates the talk page guideline (specifically, see the fourth bullet item in this section) as well as WP:NPA.

The editor is an agenda editor (standing up straight cures disease, and now Da Costa's syndrome is a type of Chronic fatigue syndrome because someone that runs an iguana website said so), and we've already been down the RFC/U path over personal attacks, with no apparent improvement. He's effectively topic banned from editing the article, and all the editor has done this month is complain that he's not getting his way because I don't agree that a 1951 book or www.anapsid.org are reliable sources for current medical information. His last mainspace edits were in July 2008 (and nearly all of them were reverted as biased, incorrect and/or outdated), so we're not talking about a particularly valuable editor here.

He does not seem to mind that I object to his ongoing personal attacks. Would someone please consider whether a block is appropriate? I don't really want to come back to Wikipedia in a few hours and find another attack on my user talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I'm not an admin. But, it's clear that Posturewriter did not read WP:NPOV carefully. I suggest a strong warning for violating WP:NPA and if he does it again, then ask an admin to block him. ₰imon_K^S_K 02:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

He did it again, of course. That makes four times in less that 24 hours that I've had to remove this attack from my user talk page,[72][73][74][75] so now it's also a 3RR violation.

SK2, is your point that Posturewriter needs even more warnings about personal attacks (we had an entire RfC over behavior like this, and I've specifically asked him to stop this particular attack twice now), or is your point that posting at ANI does not constitute asking an admin to block him? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I am also not an admin, but a standard 3RR warning would be issued at this point. If he reverts again, take it to WP:AN3 and report him from there. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 11, 2009 @ 17:27

Special:Contributions/Buhmillion

Resolved

 – Account blocked on Wikipedia, images deleted on Commons Nick (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone may want to look at Special:Contributions/Buhmillion on en.wiki, and someone at commons may want to look at [76] Yngvarr (t) (c) 12:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Buhmillion seems to be a pro-Nazi. Redvers rightly blocked the account. Promoting Nazism on WP (or Commons) must not be tolerated. AdjustShift (talk) 12:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Er - we don't ban editors for political views. We ban them for disrupting the project. Pro-nazis are welcome to edit, as long as they abide by our policies - as are anarchists, communists, radical religious view holders etc. Exxolon (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think s/he was pro-Nazi, I think s/he was a pure and simple vandal, albeit slightly cleverer than the usual ALL GAYS ARE GAY vandal we have here. Nevertheless, we can live without them, so I deselected them from the editing team. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a reasonably good buy 15:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Uncommon vandalism on Buddhist_calendar

There's a vandalism I couldn't revert on the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_calendar After: "Each month has a waxing half of 15 days and a waning half of 14 or 15 days." and before the section: "Burmese names of the months" there's a: "xXxJUSTiiNAXxX OWNZ...."

I can't find it when I edit the page; I can't find it on the templates. So I went to the Wikipedia:Vandalism page and ended up here. I wish I had it reverted, but this vandalism is beyond my counter-vandalism knowledge. :-) Sorry if this is not the right place to put this. I'm not sure if it is. If it is not, please move it to the right place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.27.177.160 (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

{{Buddhism}} was vandalized not too long ago, and that version was still showing up. I've made a minor edit to the page to update it, and it seems to have gone away. Hermione1980 15:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Issues in astrology articles

There are persistent issues with the astrological signs (esp Scorpio (astrology) and Aquarius (astrology)) that defy resolution. Users insist on adding material that is incongruent with Wikipedia core policies. I have tried to ameliorate the state of the articles [77] [78], but my edits keep getting reverted and I am afraid of getting into edit wars. I have already addressed RSN, EAR about it, and the main offending user has been addressed by a third party, to no avail. Please have a look at it. Thanks, Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Strange category adding

Resolved

I just noticed Feral-Golduck (talk · contribs) adding Category:Viacom subsidiaries to loads of article about various companies. Most of these aren't related to Viacom in any way, and his edit summaries are usually some variation of "Does Viacom own that?". See his contributions for diffs, as he has no otehr edits except these. Could someone please look into this?--Patton^t/c 16:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

After warnings, I've blocked the account for 48 hours. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

2008 civil unrest in Greece

Please do something about this article, user:Der Blaue Reiter has made 6-7 reverts causing an edit war. No other person shares his opinion so far (as per talk page) and he refuses to be polite and stop reverting the article.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

User blocked for violating the WP:3RR policy (5 reverts), failing to reach consensus at the talk page and failing to source his edits. You have reverted 3 times, so please stop edit warring. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Teledildonix314 is back at it

User Teledildonix, who was recently warned by several editors and administrators (see discussion board history) about repeatedly vandalizing the Rick Warren article and nearly blocked for his actions (he avoided this by publicly apologizing on the Warren discussion page and promising to desist), is back at it. He recently posted another inappropriate blog-sourced edit that was removed by another editor. Please investigate and warn him that any further action will result in a block. Thanks. Manutdglory (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The edit which you are calling "vandalism," here and elsewhere, is not vandalism. You have been told not to insult other users and implying that that edit makes User:Teledildonix314 a "vandal" is clearly false and insulting. Meanwhile, Manutdglory's poor behavior continues. This edit continues his habit of implicitly insulting many other editors, by insisting that that the referenced edit above shows some real distinction between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" editors. Also, these three edits constitute campaigning, including the above terminology, clearly inappropriate behavior: [79] [80] [81]. Last but not least, after being told not to hurl insults, Manutdglory has now called me a hypocrite. Mike Doughney (talk) 06:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Just for full disclosure, it should be noted that User:Mike Doughney has a personal vendetta against me (my report against User:Teledildonix314 had nothing to do with him) and Administrator User:VirtualSteve threatened to block him if he continued to mess with me. Actually, the only reason VirtualSteve didn't block him is because I asked him not to (see Steve's discussion page).

The only thing I've done is accurately identify someone who has fought with and pissed off half-a-dozen editors (including Mike), repeatedly and purposely posted highly-inappropriate/inflammatory content on an article (Rick Warren), and already came within an inch of getting blocked by administrators for the exact same behavior that he reverted to today. I'm curious as to what Mike refers to Teledildonix314 as. Manutdglory (talk) 06:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The user in question has now consistently editwarred against any and all comers in that article, which is now protected. I consider Tele to not be acting in a proper manner there, and think having more eyes on the article might be helpful. Collect (talk) 12:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Manutdglory, I suggest you read WP:CANVASS. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I was not "canvassed" on this. As a result oif TD's interesting opinions and his edit style, the article is locked down. Collect (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue seems to be whether or not to include Warren's alleged involvement in the right-wing approach to dealing with the AIDS epidemic in Africa. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who's right on that one, but how does Tele-dildo get away with a username like that? We supposedly have naming standards at wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been wondering the same thing, but assumed that because it was dolled up into some silly techno-name, it was acceptable. I don't mind it, not sure whata tele-dildo would be... Sean Hannity? ThuranX (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Close, but not quite. There's an article on Teledildonics, which is a "love toy" that can be operated over the internet somehow. Between that article and that guy's choice of user ID, that's way more than we need to know about that user. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I've been away for a day or so (trying to get a break from this sometimes mad-house). I have the following comments to make:

1. Manutdglory as you have brought my alleged "threat" to block Mike Doughney up I think it is important that you state the facts - which is actually that I told both of you that any further incivility or name calling by either party would result in a block - see here for the edit diff.
2. I also do not see evidence of Mike having a personal vendetta against you.
3. Mike has different views to you but I am not seeing any incivility.
4. I do understand your concern with Teledildonix314 in so far that there is a serious edit-war going on at the Rick Warren article but that is not currently a problem because SoWhy has now locked down that article via a Full-Protect.
5. I do not think that you canvassing for support is helpful as it is inflaming the situation.
6. I further do not think that you reverting and calling so many of Teledildonix's edits vandalism (in the edit summaries are helpful) ... fact is if they are vandalism you should report them for consideration of a block at WP:AIV (indeed on my last request for comment I indicated that Mike's words were the most concerning but on this occasion I am of the view that yours are) and,
7. I make the immediately previous comment based on my view that I think you are trying very hard to have everything go your own way (for example when you heavily criticised ZimZalabim here and in related edit summaries for his actions at another article) but this is a complex community and that is not always possible. I appreciate that you may be severely frustrated but changing your approach to a less volatile one without canvassing etc will help enormously.

I'm not sure how to solve this problem - unless the three of you can spend time working out a solution on the talk page whilst the article is locked down by SoWhy. From my perspective I will be interested to see the language, co-operation (or lack thereof) etc that ensues there because that will further assist to see who and what exactly is the problem.--VS ^talk 01:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

PS As far as I can tell Manutdglory whilst you have canvassed a number of places, you have not gone to Teledildonis314 talk page to inform them that this discussion is taking place. Can I suggest you do so as a matter of courtesy and in support of finding a solution?--VS ^talk 01:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

That's okay, i have finally figured out how to read for myself on these subpages of NoticeBoards and Discussion Watch options. In sheer frustration over the threat of ostracism due to poor reception of anything i write which touches inflammatory topics, i don't see how i can edit any pages unless my modifications are purely Minor and trivial. I'll have to spend more time reading those WikiStress tips in order to keep myself away from Mike Warren or any other topic where people are going to fight over issues of bias or ideology. I'll have to avoid being terribly noticeable because apparently a totally innocuous username as silly as Teledildonix314 gets peoples' knickers in a twist because they might be forced to think about a mature topic (horrors!). You won't find any profanity, obscenity, nor vandalism in what i've written. Thank you. Teledildonix314 ^talk 21:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Block review requested

I have blocked Luther Hull (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely for multiple reasons including malicious page moves: on WikiScanner, posting fake warnings to my talk page: here, and thinly-veiled personal attacks here through the use of a barnstar. While I realize that this may be a bit harsh for a first block, I feel looking at this user's prior behavior that he is not here to build an encyclopedia. I welcome a review of this block and am open to an unblock if the user realizes why his behavior is inappropriate. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

From looking at the user's contributions, I'm scratching my head wondering why it took this long. This is a vandalism/trolling-only account with maybe 2 good faith contributions. Your block was correct and should have happened much sooner. --B (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Good block. I declined his unblock request, where he admits to almost everything. The account is vandalism-only (one of the earliest edits it made) but on the QT. Better off rid. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a reasonably good buy 19:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I wonder who it is. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

A further three unblock requests, none of them addressing the problem behaviour. Slightly out of process, having declined the first one, I've declined the fourth one as well. I've also protected the page. And that's that. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a reasonably good buy 20:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

He's now logged out: 87.102.115.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and is trying to get an unblock on his IP, which I declined and pointed him to the unblock mailing list, sorry to the admin who will have to deal with him there. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Another unblock request as an IP [82], and alleging admin abuse against me. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I semi-protected the userpage, and directly blocked the IP. Hopefully we're done here. Blueboy96 21:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

User 69.14.244.157

Resolved

 – IP blocked. Let's move on, folks. GlassCobra 20:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• 69.14.244.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) IP addressed used by sockpuppeteer User:BagelsbytheDozen is edit-warring over the ISP template on this ip's talk page, and is once again harassing other editors. --Ronz (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not harassing anyone. I simply want the ISP banner removed for privacy concerns. Also Ronz who is NOT an administrator has taken it upon himself to attempt to enact a vendetta against me. I've asked him repeatedly to leave me alone and he refuses. Please stop Ronz from commenting on my talk page and I will in turn leave him alone. Also, the ISP banner will be removed.69.14.244.157 (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note that you are not allowed to remove the ISP banner. If you don't like it, register an account. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? How come other ISP addresses don't have that banner? This is simply a revenge tactic by Ronz. 69.14.244.157 (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why I'm bothering but when you claim you aren't harassing anyone, why does "Ronz is a gaywad!" mean then? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Ricky. IP, a look at your recent edits shows you're only here to harrass Ronz. Care to explain? Dayewalker (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes really. If you would care to add ISP headers to all 4294967296 IPs in existence, be my guest. (That's not even counting IPv6 either) And don't make me lock your talk page down. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this has gone on long enough. I've been conducting an online experiment on internet flaming and provocations on a site like this. All of my edits and the now famous "Ronz is a gaywad" were part of my experiment to confirm some things I have read. I'm sorry to have troubled you and Ronz, no hard feelings hopefully. I would however appreciate it if you removed the ISP banner as I prefer to remain anonymous (region-wise). Thanks and sorry again. Please don't punish others for my research. i needed authentic reactions so I couldn't explain myself earlier. 69.14.244.157 (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fishy too me, as for the ISP banner. I'm pretty sure it stays. If you keep removing it, your talk page could be semi-protected. Elbutler (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The IP banner won't be taken down. If you want anonymity, please open a user account. If you carry on disrupting Wikipedia, I'll block the IP from editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Geolocate pretty well places him anyway, banner or no. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

First off, it's not fishy, it's what I was doing. Secondly, do ALL ISP addresses have the banner? Thirdly, I won't be doing anymore disruptions, I've gotten what I needed. Thanks. 69.14.244.157 (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

What is geolocate? 69.14.244.157 (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

http://www.ip2location.com/ enter your address. It is often wildly inaccurate. It places my IP address 100 miles away from where I live. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It actually placed my IP several states away from where I am. In his case, it was coincidental that it was just the next county over. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

One of the items on your CONTRIB page. P.S. I turned this in to WP:AIV, as it's obviously an improper use of wikipedia, so it'll be a race to see who blocks you first. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

At the bottom of this page. [83] Not foolproof, it just provides your ISP's location (Royal Oak), not your location (Sterling Heights). And it's not like it's posting your street address or something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Why would you do that Baseball? I told you I'M DONE! 69.14.244.157 (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You soon will be, one way or another. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Look people just leave me alone, I told you I'm done ok? Baseball, you're not accomplishing anything worthwhile with snarky remarks. 69.14.244.157 (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I see an admin has now blocked the IP for a month. Sorry about the aggressive approach, but as an editor I have very little patience with users whose sole purpose is abusing wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call them snarky. I would call them "innocent" ;) ₰imon_K^S_K 20:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm so innocent it's almost frightening. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've scythed the weed. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You may also want to protect the talk page. I almost said that in my previous comment, but decided to wait until he did something. Which didn't take long. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Good metaphor, by the way. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

ClueBot false positives URL down

Resolved

 – No admin intervention required. — neuro^(talk) 23:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

There are issues with the ClueBot false positives URL (http://24.40.131.153/cluebot.php) today. Anyone else experiencing issues connecting to the site? Thanks, Willking1979 (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

That site has been down for years (literally, not even an exaggeration). No idea what this is doing at AN/I, marked as resolved. — neuro^(talk) 23:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Help with checkuser request

Resolved

 – Checkuser filed as Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lzki by Kww

Could one of you helpful folks with the bit tell me which editors have created

• My Life Would Suck Without You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• My Life Would Suck Without You (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• My Life Would Suck Without You (Kelly Clarkson Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• My Life Would Suck Without You (Kelly Clarkson song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The constant recreation has necessitated salting, and I suspect disruptive sockpuppetry as well. I'll do the report formatting if someone can provide the editor names.—Kww(talk) 20:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• My Life Would Suck Without You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Created by WIKI-GUY-16 (talk · contribs); repeatedly recreated by Marco tulio o.o (talk · contribs)

• My Life Would Suck Without You (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Created by BlassFamily (talk · contribs); no recreations but multiple edits by 74.39.79.51 (talk · contribs) and 86.163.54.212 (talk · contribs)

• My Life Would Suck Without You (Kelly Clarkson Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Created by Beagle5589 (talk · contribs); no recreations or other editors

• My Life Would Suck Without You (Kelly Clarkson song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Created by JoNnS113 (talk · contribs); no recreations but multiple edits by Unwrittendrew700 (talk · contribs) and 74.211.60.70 (talk · contribs)

Best, - auburnpilot talk 21:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Unwrittendrew700 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has already been blocked, as he did recreate under the title My Life Would Suck Without You (Kelly Clarkson single) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I already knew that one, so I didn't list it.—Kww(talk) 21:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

In case it helps, there are also two edits to that last article by 88.207.61.91 (talk · contribs). - auburnpilot talk 21:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this much, however, There is another thread involving BlassFamily higher up, that has gone unanswered. — Realist² 21:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

See below. — Realist² 23:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Help required with IP Harassment

Recently, I've had a number of messages posted in a number of places that make highly offensive and clearly abusive comments about me because of legitimate actions I have taken in anon-blocking an abusive IP editor. I may have missed some of these messages, but the ones I have identified are the last three contributions from ip editor 78.149.61.125 here (including one on a sub-page of WP:AN dealing with the 2008 IWF actions). The nature of the actions they seem to have an issue about is stated incorrectly, as the initial block seems to be here, where I was responding to abuse that a different editor was a nazi, for which I blocked the anon IP address concerned. The editing history of 62.24.251.240 contains list of a number of such edits which were reversed, and for which a block was issued, and this has prompted another incident today from 89.242.199.220 here Since I find the accusations particularly offensive, I would like some other administrator now to look into this, as being repeatedly called an "Officious busybody" or an "editing nazi" in articles across wikipedia is not something I think anyone one shoul tolerate. Note that any blocks that I did carry out were all anon-only blocks in accordance with advice, and in light of the action TalkTalk is currently taking with respect to wikipedia. I do know that an editor appears to be "stalking me" because of comments I made when that editor tried to instruct a new editor to include old, now incorrect informtion about defunct boundaries of UK counties to an article (see Talk:Woolston), and I also know that abusive IP editors who are active on Ireland-related articles and British Isles related articles resent me monitoring those articles and talk pages for inflammatory messages (which do not conform with WP:TALK for the case of talk pages), but I am not sure who or why may have initiated this appearnt campaign against me.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you have made the title any longer? You even beat the length of my post above ;D — Realist² 00:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, but what comments do you have or help can you offer about the content of the section? I wanted the matter to be as explicit as possible, and I apologise for the length of the title.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think check user needs to be carried out on this series of ips. This is clearly an attempt to undermine and intimidate and is getting out of hand. I'm confident that Mister Flash (talk · contribs) is connected to this incident too. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: I changed the title of the complaint...in case we ever have to refer back to it in the future it will be a lot easier that way...also because it's so long you can't write an edit summary...--Smashville^talk 00:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks: we edit-conflicted when I was doing the same thing.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

PopSinger623 again

I think that SSP is still hopelessly broken, so I'm bringing this here.

PopSinger623 has been the topic of ANI threadsbefore. In a nutshell: he continuously recreated articles about imaginary albums by Matthew Parker, and blanked any articles that he didn't like. He and Hyp3rpimp96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) shared a computer, and identified themselves as friends. He was indefinitely blocked for this behaviour.

Today, I noticed a message to Hype3rpimp96 from Mparker623 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The name is suspicious, so, looking into Mparker623's history, I see that he has been page blanking, and, judging from the bot messages on his talk page, has been creating imaginary albums by Matthew Parker again, as in Reverse Psychology (Matthew Parker album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).—Kww(talk) 00:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Pretty straightforward. I indefblocked him. --Smashville^talk 00:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Mister Alcohol's signature

Hello, this user has been asked nicely several times, and he has outright refused any and all attempts at communication.

The signature in question uses a font size much larger than what the <big> tag outputs, and has long been consensus that <big> tags are not to be used in signatures.

I and several others have requested he shrink it down, and, as said, he has rudely just deleted the messages off his talk page with not even an attempt at discussion. I hereby ask that an admin tell him to do so. It is way to big than what is allowed.— Dædαlus ^Contribs_{Respond on my talk please} 09:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Daedalus. I'm all for unique signatures, but this one is a little over the top in it's brashness. I'm at least glad that the <blink> tag isn't being used... --Chasingsol^(talk) 09:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Daedalus and Chasingsol, although i support use of custom sigs by users this one stands out far too much on the page and draws the users attention away from the actual content, which is covered in WP:SIG#Customizing your signature although its listed under the Images section under the following points "they make pages more difficult to read and scan" and "images in signatures give undue prominence to a given user's contribution", although they aren't images those pointers still stand as they draw the viewers attention away. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 09:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I asked him to tone it down right here on ANI back in November, and got the same lack of response. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 09:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ironic, really, given that the page from which he substs his signature (User:Mister_Alcohol/Sig) says "it should not violate the signature policy - if you believe that it does please contact me on my talk page so we can discuss it"..._Gb^T/c 10:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Per this discussion, since he is vehemently refusing to discuss it at all, and it obviously is disruptive, I'm going to change his signature page. If he reverts it, then I suggest someone delete it, and he be blocked, because this is not acceptable behavior.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be a bit excessive. Give it some time--let's make sure he's online, has seen the ANI notification, and has had a chance to respond to this before escalating the issue. Personally, I find his sig annoying as all hell, but not disruptive per se. Let's give him one more chance to respond--yes, I think it'll probably be rebuffed--before taking what are almost guaranteed to be drama-inducing measures. //roux   11:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Support this measure. Its a pity, but he has been asked multiple times and is blowing everyone off. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've also got to say that the font color and background colors he's using are killing my eyes. The dark blue of a wikilink is really hard to read against that background, and in those wikilove boxes, the white text is invisible. While it's a separate issue, and in his userspace, I think it merits discussion. Also, if he's subst'ing his sig, that's against the rules IIRC. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • There's no setting of background colours in User:Mister_Alcohol/Sig, in any revision, nor in any of the most recent signed contributions at Special:Contributions/Mister_Alcohol. All colour attributes are for foreground colours only. Are you perhaps being misled by your web browser's own colour settings? Uncle G (talk) 08:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm talking about the deep red color used in his userspace. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on the userpage. Rules.. no. The guideline has been changed to reflect practice. //roux   12:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

D, you've quoted me twice :P Garden. 12:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment An additional minor point, but I noticed he's helped himself to the Plutonium star service award. I don't use them myself, but I know these mean something to the many Wikipedians that do. Together with the sig business, this implies a significant of a lack of clue (among other things), so I support forcible reduction of the signature and subsequent sanctions as necessary per Daedalus969 above. EyeSerene^talk 18:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree - the user's signature has already been reduced to size 2, and should stay that way. I also support removal of the service award from his userpage - it is misleading and, as with the signature, increases the importance of his comments. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 18:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I did it myself. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 18:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Followup: I just indef blocked Mister Alohol (talk · contribs) - note the missing "c" - for this edit. Suspect it's an unrelated troll trying to create more dramaz. the wub "?!" 12:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

He says he's retired now. Let it go. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an example of busybodies, many of whom don't edit themselves, chasing others away from Wikipedia. People who chase away editors are sneaky vandals, in spite of their title of administrator (if they are an administrator). Let's focus on the edits. Let's encourage good edits and stop being Wikifacebook.

Spevw (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

That particular comment seems rather pointy to me. It is not in the least aimed at bringing this discussion to a close, and per your comment, I doubt you even read through it. The editor in question has been sporting a signature a size larger than that created by the <big> tags, which is rather disruptive as it draws attention away from the discussion of content. It is quite clearly outline in WP:SIG, so why don't you go take a nice, long, gander at that page before comming back here and commmenting.

The editor in question explicitly stated that if someone found a problem with their signature, they should bring up the complaint to their talk page. Despite this, every single time a complaint was brought up, he blew them off, deleting the query from their talk page without even replying. This behavior is not tolerable, and beneficial, to building an encyclopedia. I don't know what he was thinking when he chose to retire, I frankly don't care, because he apparently thought so little of us, that he didn't think we deserved any of his time. Good ridence that he's gone if he isn't going to abide by consensus.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Paullillyusa making legal threat to protest deleted contribution of non-notable person

Resolved

 – Blocked. — neuro^(talk) 05:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Paullillyusa added Chief Paul D. Lilly on 2009-01-11 without sufficient references or asserting notability, so it was tagged {{db-bio}} as CSD A7. After being reminded, that user kept tagging {{hangon}} repeatedly without any explanation. After deleting the page with my very careful review, that user sent me a message a few minutes ago that I consider a serious violation of our policy about No legal threats. To avoid the conflict of interest, I would like to ask any disinterested administrator to review that user's action. Thanks.--Jusjih (talk) 05:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Paullillyusa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Diffs: [84] [85], clearly legal threats... I would suggest a block until they are rescinded. SQL^{Query me!} 05:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Prodego ^talk 05:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And tagged with {{uw-lblock}} -MBK₀₀₄ 06:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Orangemike

This admin blocked User:Alonzo when he shouldn't have. He blocked Alonzo for breaking the 3 revert rule before Alonzo knew about it. Also, he told Alonzo that a magazine that the user added was not reliable, and when Alonzo asked why it wasn't a reliable source Orange Mike never replied. Orange Mike also nominted an article of mine for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaufman Field Guide to Insects of North America and I asked him why he thought that the article wasn't notable, but he didn't reply. The prod that he put on the article before I contested it also didn't explain why it was non-notable. He really needs to stop doing this stuff. I could have discussed it with him on his talk page, but he probably wouldn't have replied to me. Schuym1 (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, the block expired in its normal course and the AFD was closed with your consent, what administrative action are you seeking? MBisanz ^talk 05:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

To see if one of you could find a way to make sure that he doesn't do something like that again. My point is that the block should have never happened and he should explain why something isn't a reliable source and why something is non-notable. I wouldn't be surprised if it happens again. Schuym1 (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at your complaint, and found it groundless - in the link you gave OrangeMike said why the reference was not reliable, so there was no reason for him to respond further. Also, there is no requirement for someone to be warned if they are violating policy, warnings are good faith notices that a violation is imminent or has recently happened but if there is disruption occurring at the time then an admin is correct to block to stop it. I would generally comment that it isn't a requirement that admins or other editors have to explain/teach all aspects of WP policy to those who are not complying with it - it is up to the every editor to familiarise themselves with WP procedures and practice. In practice sysops often give a link to the relevant policy, and may give further advice, but it is not mandatory and there is little that can be done other than notify the said admin of the concerns. Have you, for instance, given OrangeMike the courtesy of notifying them about this discussion? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC) (edit - yes, Schuym1 had notified so I have struck my comment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC) )

Well, sorry for acting like a dick head and wasting your time. Schuym1 (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you were acting like a dick head, Schuym. Alonzo was being unusually disruptive, but you still make some good points. (As far as "non-notable", though: I feel that the term is self-explanatory, "fails to meet our standards of notability.") --Orange Mike | Talk 13:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous user, likely Manhattan Samurai, making personal attacks

here. Thanks for your time. Xasodfuih (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

your kiding me, right? Manhattan Samurai has be n one of the mos tdeidcated editors i have personaly witnesse.d he had some issues here nad there but the work that he and i put into making and reviving the article Alan Cabal showed the tru e spirit of Wikipedia. i have not noticed any sign that he had done nayhting that would have caused any severe sanction to be placed oin him by an admin and as far as i can tell he has not been prevented. quite frankyl, if he were to go onto this repetitive WP:AFD again and he would have posted under his OWN name just as he did on previous WP:AFDs. if you dont have any evidence lnking Manhattan Samurai to his anon, dont make it see as if you do by mistake. Smith Jones (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

More telling is that after 'never editing here' and 'not writing his own entry', alan cabal shows up and starts defending his own page? I think this is the DUCK test pass that proves MS is AC. Big deal, block his IP, block his account, and ignore his antics. ThuranX (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• can manhattan samurai be punished for what Alan cabal is doing? if anyone shoudl be blocked, si it Alan cabal for personal attack and other nonstuf. Manhattan Samurai would be left unmolsested and free to make his case at the relevent WP:AFD thread.instead of being premeptivley punisehd based off a flawed miisnteriptation of a few acronym. Smith Jones (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, is Smith Jones requesting a CU be performed on MS and the IP? ThuranX (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• i am requesting no such thign. i am simply asking the thread creato rto reveal why he is claiming that Manhtaatna Samurai is this IP editor. nothing in the IP editors behavior is unique ot relevent to Manhattan Samurais behavior. Smith Jones (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, it hardly seems like MS (i should know, i was involved in his edit war), we only have one edit to go on. If the IP suddenly started making personal attacks at MS' blocking admins, then we would be sure. Elbutler (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No comment on MS, but Smith Jones has a habit of being, to charitably describe it, wildly out of step when it comes to ANI issues. Check his contribs, and take it with a grain of salt. Skinwalker (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

this is not a WP:ANI issue [or well, it shodultn be] but i invite anyone to dig through my contirbs at their leisure. back the actual point of htis thread -- User:Manhattan Samurai is a tuser that have i worked with closely before on this very article that has been placed on WP:AFD. i know his writin gstyle and i am well familair with bot h his strengths and his weaknessors are an editor and quite frnakly thid oesnt seem like his style, he is a strong, dedicated editor who would not jeepardize an article that he cares about in order to personally attack other editors. we designed this article on my userpage after two painstaking deletion related protocosl and it being deleted a 2rd time might anger Manhattan Smaurai but not the point where he would log off and preten dto be Alan Cabal in order to attack other editors. that is just unreaosnable and something that hsould be proven (although hopefully it wont get the point where there is a checkuser or anything that invasive) as soon as convenient for the accusor. Smith Jones (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• this is simple. If we have a reasonable suspicion that the IP==MS (regardless of who AC is or is not), we file a checkuser to determine if someone is evading a block. IF we don't have that suspicion, we don't. Protonk (talk) 02:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • AC and MS write, or should I say flame, in a very similar style. Compare MS post email from AC AC1 AC2 MS1 MS2. I could look for more MS flames, but I think this is convincing enough. Also MS posting an email seemingly from AC at the 1st AfD is quite strange. At the 2nd AfD AC shows up himself since MS is blocked. The IP address of AC appears to be dynamic, so you'd have to look for other things like browser signature or cookies. Xasodfuih (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser suggests strongly it's not Manhattan Samurai. Raul654 (talk) 08:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Urgent action by uninvolved admin required at Ayn Rand and its talk page

Once again, the situation is getting out of hand at Ayn Rand and Talk:Ayn Rand. I am too involved to do anything other than comment, but I do think there is an edit war, from viewing the editing history on the article after a badly worded RfC (see Talk:Ayn Rand#Request for Comment, here, and Talk:Ayn Rand#Comments on RFC) was treated as a straw-poll for a revert, closed after effectively one day by a clearly heavily-involved editor (User:Kjaer) who has a past history of edit-warring for which a block was issued, though not recently, and on a different article. A thorough look at the history of Ayn Rand does suggest he has been edit-warring again, but I felt unable to take action on those matters. I have commented as best I can on the current problems, but can clearly not take any action; even now, my act of making comments and giving advice have drawn criticism from Kjaer. I think there is urgent action required to put a stop to this by some uninvolved administrators.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The very simple situation exists that for a week controversial POV edits and radical deletions have been made by a determined faction under a supposed but non-existent consensus. Now that an RfC has shown that this consensus was non-existent, only now do we hear calls for mediation form the unilateral party. The RfC speaks for itself. Kjaer (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Your RFC has shown no such thing. In fact I do not believe that it has shown anything at all, and I believe that it has been mishandled. TallNapoleon (talk) 02:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I refused to take part on the straw poll as it was an obvious attempt to move against consensus. The involvement of some new editors has resulted in a situation that might restore this article to "good" status. Unfortunately it has been in danger of being a "fan" page and editors who take a critical approach are being subject to vilification. It needs someone to take some oversight--Snowded TALK 03:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The level of edit warring being unacceptable, I have fullprotected the page for 2 weeks, and encourage all participants to accept the mediation proposed.[86] I have never edited the article but I did make one comment on the talkpage pointing out possible BLP issues.[87] I do not consider myself involved though I am open to review of this matter, of course.

I would ask and encourage other admins to keep a close eye on this situation, which seems near to boiling point. --Slp1 (talk) 12:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Shabushabu violates WP:AGF, WP:NPA again, recommending indef block

User:Shabushabu evaded his block today by using the IP 218.186.12.204. He vandalized The Little Nyonya, as well as attacking me (diff here). Although admin Daniel Case blocked the IP for 2 weeks, and extended Shabushabu's block to 1 month, I am officially convinced that this user will not rehabilitate himself, nor will anyone be able to do so. As a Wikipedia user, I am also a bit displeased that someone with such a flagrant history of NPA violations be allowed to return after so many days.

I think we can say "that's enough" here, and close the case by banning Shabushabu for eternity. Arbiteroftruth 09:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point, i don't think he'll ever stop. Luckily, i've got the page on my watchlist. If "The Little Nyona" is an article that he treats his baby, why don't take that away? If the page is semi-protected, he'll eventually lose interest and leave wikipedia alone. It's a theory. Elbutler (talk) 11:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Return of the RTVGames people?

I noticed that a couple of the pages mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive505#Web forums using Wikipedia as a webhost have come back, and I'm not referring to the undeleted ones. Specifically User:Gilliganzeemo and User:Pumkinlov8. Could someone look into this? Sorry if this didn't merit a new post here, but I wasn't sure where else to bring it up. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

let me head over there, I'll be back in a minute... --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, a couple of us have been across there and explained to them that they can't host stuff here and they understand and didn't mean to cause any problems - it's just that it's a big site and taking time to filter down. As a sign of goodwill on our part (because many of those people might become editors and they aren't acting out of malice), can admins hold off deleting those for say.. 24hrs? I don't see any need to be particular hardball when they are working with us to resolve this. thanks --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

And someone deleted it when I was typing - no problem - an admin has said that he's happy to provide the material to them. --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

That someone being me - and I salted it also. Since this is a case of misunderstanding, on many parts, I don't think blocks are needed as reinforcement and I will unsalt the pages if there is any indication that these individuals may wish to edit WP according to our practices (I note there are contribs to related interest article space). LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Could someone check out User:Miss Macrocosm and User:Miss Globe 2008 while you're at it? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

These look spurious to me per Miss Globe 2008 and no significant G'hits for "Miss Macrocosm". Both deleted, but as before I'm happy to forward on the content on request. EyeSerene^talk 17:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The eclipse of Darwinism page move by User:Orangemarlin

User:Orangemarlin moved The eclipse of Darwinism to The eclipse of Darwin - perfectly fine for page moves that are likely to be uncontentious. Since then, 4 editors including myself questioned the move on the article talk page. Based on the objections, I moved the page to the original article name, and suggested the WP:RM process. Since then, Orangemarlin refuses to accept the consensus of the other editors and continues to move the article. Usually accompanied by wild accusations and foul language. Can someone take a look? --HighKing (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion here: Talk:The_eclipse_of_Darwinism Viridae^Talk 00:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ew...just kinda tried to delve back into the history when I saw he accused you of personal attacks...unless I'm missing something...the "personal attack" appeared to be a report to WP:AN3...can you pull out some diffs here? It also appears there's more than just the page move...--Smashville^talk 00:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. I first encountered User:Orangemarlin at a recent WQA. I commented but while researching the complaint, I looked at other edits performed by both editors. At that time I noticed that Orangemarlin was involved in what seemed like an edit war at Syracuse University. I posted a comment on his Talk page, but the response was pretty much uncivil - I'll consider this a personal attack, and ask that you go find someplace else to annoy people. Go away with your lies.. Seeing as the editor didn't appear to be willing to discuss or modify their behaviour, I raised a 3RR notice which I subsequently withdrew after I discovered that a complaint had previously been made and the decision was to not proceed. At the same time, the editor made the page moves to The_eclipse_of_Darwinism article and 4 editors. I opened a section on Orangemarlins Talk page asking him to tone down his language. Next day I moved the articles back to their original and suggested that a move request is filed. He moved them back and I've again returned them.

To be honest, now that I've written all this down, I can see how it appears that I've been drawn into a destructive unhealthy focus on Orangemarlin. His lack of civility doesn't help, but I can understand why he doesn't appreciate my scrutiny of his edits, etc. I'm happy if he undertakes to be more civil and to not move the articles again without first going through WP:RM. --HighKing (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Then you say he "continues to move the article", in fact he's moved it twice in 6 months. You, on the other hand, have moved it twice in one day. There is little evidence of a clear consensus that you claim, the discussion is barely 2 days old, and there is no evidence of any urgency (and thus no reason for you to move war). 87.114.7.226 (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This user is hounding OM and seems to be pursuing some kind of vendetta. Verbal chat

In accordance with common courtesy and usual practice, I have informed User:Orangemarlin of this discussion OK so he was aware of the discussion (thanks for letting me know Verbal), but that was not clear from his talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I did notify the user - Here's the diff. Orangemarlin has chosen to remove the notice and is ignoring this filing. Since he has not moved the articles since, I'm pretty happy to let this one slide for now on this basis that his silence affirms his agreement. --HighKing (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I just choose to do other things around here. Have fun. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It is worth noting that Ukexpat had already struck his comment before HighKing responded here. Verbal chat 17:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Reposted: Revert warring and disruptive editing on Hispanic and Latino Americans

Alright this has gotten to the point where I can't handle this on my own. User:M5891 is continuing to make unilateral edits without consensus on the article Hispanic and Latino Americans. Myself and another user (User:SamEV) have objected to some of the content placed in the article largely due to the POV tone of the content and the sources used (ex. Mexica Movement sources). Rather than try to work this issue out by discussion the user has continued to revert war in order to place this content on the article.[88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] He has also created what is essentially a POV fork article in order to try and place similar edits (see this edit). I am an administrator on Wikipedia so yes I know all about WP:DR. The issue to deal with now however is putting an end to this disruptive editing behavior. I would do it myself but seeing as I am directly involved in this dispute and I have been regularly editing that article myself I feel it would be inappropriate for me to take any direct administrative action. Thank you.--Jersey Devil (talk) 05:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've reposted this because it was automatically archived without a response from any administrators.--Jersey Devil (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 14, 2009

Resolved

 – let's keep things in one place. -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

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

This is going to be bad; evidence of vandalism is already showing up here and at Talk:4chan. I suggest we protect that article for the next couple days. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Also see this. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It's being discussed above at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_Featured_Article_issue Karanacs (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, didn't see that thread. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Took me a while to catch up: [99] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Megadeth's twelfth studio album

Resolved

 – Deleted. — neuro^(talk) 19:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Can someone purge the history of this (it now contains major copyvios) and recreate as a redirect to Megadeth#New_album_.282008.E2.80.93present.29 to stop the rampant crystal ballery? Exxolon (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, however, any editor can tag this as a CSD R3 for speedy deletion (recent and implausible redirect). Gwen Gale (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

User:BlassFamily - Continually uploading unfree images with insufficient FUR

Resolved

 – Indef blocked. — neuro^(talk) 19:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(Note, this went into the archive unanswered, I've retrieved it, it needs dealing with)— Realist² 23:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

BlassFamily Repeatedly uploads images that have to be deleted. The majority of the images he uploads are completely not needed and unsupported by his fair use claim. These are usually "Special edition" album covers (even when they look identical to the standard version) and images of music video stills with insufficient fair use. He's already had one block but simply won't learn. He is becoming disruptive. — Realist² 22:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've notified BlassFamily about this discussion. Let's give him the chance to comment before we take action about them. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thus far BlassFamily has just blanked his talk page without acknowledgment. Maybe he will come around... :-/ — Realist² 18:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

He's creating redundant fair use images still, someone please stop him. — Realist² 20:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Account claims to operated by more than one person (note "family", also "Welcome to our talk page", "What Do You Think of Us?"), and could be blocked under that rationale too. — neuro^(talk) 23:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I hadn't spotted that. — Realist² 23:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty, then, I gave 'em a chance... Blocking User:BlassFamily indefinitely, meaning until they put up an unblock request to explain what the heck is going on. This is not intended to be the usual sort of indef block. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 07:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. — Realist² 16:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Valeofruin Six Times Reverting an article (double the WP:3RR)

User:Valeofruin has repeatedly attempted to wipe out in excess of 100 edits for numerous editors in the article Joseph Stalin. By selecting a version several days old, such as here, here, here, here and here.

Worse still, he has given no reason, other than on the talk page, citing an overtly political (and odd and frankly incorrect) intention with "The leftist community of wikipedia, will not stand for edits" (as an aside, he couldn't be more off base with his political speculation), and incorrectly suggesting bias in other edtirs with odd rants such as "I don't care how much you hate Stalin." and "They are designed to ensure readers get a negative picture of Stalin right off the bat." (the Stalin-hating charge being both incorrect and another obvious violation of WP: Civility)

In the process, his massive reversion has wiped out the addition of numerous sources by multiple editors, including much text discussed by numerous editors on the Talk Page, representing numerous hours of time by several editors and substantially worsening the article.

Three different editors (Kurzon, Silly Rabbit and myself) have attempted to reverse his mass deletion, but he continues to repeat it -- now 5 times in a day.

I also warned him on the Talk Page twice before taking this to ANI, here and here.

The user has a very limited number of edits on Wikipedia and does not seem to undestand the process. The first time he did it, he might have thought he was just reverting the intro (not clear, as it's hard to discern what he means in statements).

Please help.

I don't wish to get into an edit war, but I and other editors can't even really effectively edit the page with new sources from books as it is now because he has wiped out so much. Mosedschurte (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

As a heads up, Administrator jpgordon jumped in and protected it here -- completely the right move.

Unfortunately, just seconds before his protection (literally the exact same minute - 03:59), User:Valeofruin wiped out the edits by multiple editors AGAIN, here.

That's his SIXTH time in, I think, the last day. Numerous editors have reversed his massive wipeouts.Mosedschurte (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

On top of the numerous violations and edits, this user has now bizarrely declared that it is the "The Marxist-Leninist community of wikipedia, will not stand for edits, done without proper discussion and explanations being placed first on the talk page".

Not only is such a unilateral requirement for all editing an example of an overt violation of WP:Ownership of articles, but he bizarrely seems to think he speaks for the "Marxist-Lenninst community" and that they own this right.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. The WP:3RR rule was obviously violated -- in fact doubled up (6x)-- in addition to all of the other conduct. I'm not sure what else to do at this point.Mosedschurte (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• User:Valeofruin now also admits he just did a mass wipeout of everyone's edits (over 100) because he didn't want to individually examine the article or edits: "there were so many edits by you and a few others that I could not really seperate whos lies were whoms accurately."

Another violation of WP:Civility with the allegation that Wikipedia editors are lying (while he admits he can't actually identify such lies).Mosedschurte (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• User:Valeofruin now characterizes other editors of the article adding material doing so to "drown out those who actually admire Stalin and have evidence that rejects what is pinned against him, is a slap in the face."Mosedschurte (talk) 05:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

While the protection of the article was a necessary short term solution, the thing is that there really was no 'edit war' going on here. This was just one anon user violating 3RR twice within a space of couple of hours with edits that were bordering on vandalism (reverting 100+ edits by other editors without discussion) and subsequent reversion of these edits by multiple, established editors. What was/is needed in such cases is a simple block of the offending user, not a long term protection of the article in question (though due to the generally controversial topic, it's understandable why it was protected in this instance). In particular the anon user has managed to sneak in a highly POV version of the article right before it was protected and in so succeeded in undoing the conscientious work of many editors that took place over several months. As such, the previous version of the article should be restored before any kind of protection is put (back) in place.radek (talk) 06:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and unfortunately, his WP:Edit War (SIX TIMES wiping out huge sections) has achieved his desired result: locking all of the editors out of the page, still today. Another editor just noted this on the talk page.

I know this wasn't the desired effect, by I fear this is only going to embolden him to his admittedly overtly political (and inaccurate, as well) WP:Ownership of articles position of simply wiping all edits of the page en masse. As it is, he doubled the WP:3RR rule and has walked away without a block. Mosedschurte (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken Admins have already seen this, the reality is I'm interested in reaching a consensus reguarding an article, and have presented genuine NPOV concerns, wheras it appears some users APPEAR to be more interested in just blocking those who disagree with them. Also if I am not mistaken it takes 2 (or more) to make an edit war. Valeofruin (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

jpgordon's solution, to unlock the page and restore it to the version before your last mass wipeout revert snuck in seconds before the lock. restore to this version here, is correct.

And I'm glad that you stated on the Talk page that "And I agreed I was done mass editing, hence I got the hint. My Idea at this point is to discuss the actual content of the article with an open mind." This is definitely the way to go moving forward.

I actually have to correct some of my own edits (I pointed to the wrong ref name) and am waiting for jpgordon's unlock.Mosedschurte (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Requesting suggestions

Role account

Resolved

 – Role account has already been blocked. –xeno (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The above file is hosted at Wikimedia Commons with the following description: The logo of the account, BjrTriad, which is a universal account for Users BlueCaper, redhearts11, and JP4Jackpot. Used not for sock puppetry, but primarily as a station for all three established users.

These users appear to have created the account in good faith, unaware of the role account clause in the policy. BjrTriad is an English Wikipedia account, though, so it should probably be blocked anyway. I'll be notifying all three users of this situation. Durova^Charge! 16:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• What's the problem if the account is announced and linked? Maybe they have one IP at work or home? Protonk (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • As I read this (and I may be misinterpreting), there are three independent en-wiki accounts sharing a single Commons account, and the fourth en-wiki account is just an automatic creation due to SUL. If this is the case, the "role account" problem is at Commons's end – IIRC their rules aren't as strict about role accounts as ours. – iridescent 16:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Role accounts must be pre-approved by the Foundation. This one is not. 2. The role account is active only on English Wikipedia, not Commons. That is why I came here. I am a Commmons administrator and cannot solve it at that end. Durova^Charge! 16:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Have the users been contacted about this? Wouldn't that be the first step? –xeno (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, as stated in the opening post, I was contacting the users. Standard practice according to policy is that the role account itself would be blocked anyway, which is why this thread exists. Durova^Charge! 16:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Already indefblocked here and has been for over a month. – iridescent 16:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• I note that one of the editors behind the "role" account contacted an admin to see if it was alright, and was responded to by another administrator on BlueCaper's talk page, where BC was told the role account would be blocked. User:MacGyverMagic blocked the role account with BlueCaper's agreement. This appears to be resolved on Wikipedia. Is there anything more to do here? Risker (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much. In that case no, I'll proceed to delete the role account image at Commons. Best, Durova^Charge! 16:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• Go ahead; delete it. I am not using it anymore, and I thought that it was all in the past. I welcomed an admin to delete the user page, and now I am welcoming everyone to delete it. There is no need to keep this on Commons. Go ahead, "open fire." -BlueCaper (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Michael Brandon

Resolved

 – Thank you, reverted to a NPOV and non-BLP-violating version. -- Banjeboi 00:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, there has been some content inserted on Michael Brandon (porn star) that violates BLP. There has been some edit-warring to re-introduce the content with myself and another editor removing it and trying to dialog about why it's problematic with those who have been re-adding it. The article has just been protected but, unfortunately, we have indeed had "the wrong version" protected in place with the BLP problematic version. Could someone please revert to one of the non-violating versions? -- Banjeboi 23:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

From what I can see, the last non-problematic version is this one, although there may be a few others in between. I am not in a position to do the revert at this time; however, I would remind administrators that WP:BLP permits removal of unsourced or poorly sourced negative or controversial information from an article such as this whether or not the page is protected, provided they make clear (through edit summary or talk page posting) that they have made this removal in compliance with the policy. Risker (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried the BLP noticeboard? I don't have the expertise/mental capacity to do it myself unless bribed with some sort of sherbet or ice cream. --Tznkai (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

From the lede commented out This should be a red flag that something is amiss. If I could email you sherbet I sure would. -- Banjeboi 00:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted (note, my only bias here is a BLP bias), no comment on the current version. Thanks for bringing this here Banjoboi. John Reaves 00:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Editor creates 100,000 or more non-notable articles!

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

---

Resolved

 – Editor is not breaking policy, ANI is not meant for discussing policy worries or changes. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(un-closed by 67.122.210.149 (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC), I hope this is the right way to do it, see my comment further down about how WP:BOT is the specific policy being broken).

Resolved

 – Per Gwen's initial closure. ANI is not meant for discussing policy worry or changes. Nor is it a place for baseless accusations of policy violations. --Smashville^talk 05:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This editor, user:Carlossuarez46, appears to be methodically creating many tens of thousands of articles that contain minimal or no content. They are simply stubs for place names.

Take here for example [105] - it is one of the several hundred settlements in the Lachin region of Azerbaijan that he has recently created articles for. Click onto any of the other place names listed for Lachin to see that the vast majority are empty articles containing nothing more than a single sentence. It is the same for tens of thousands of similar articles on settlements in Azerbaijan and Armenia that he has recently created. He appears to be using country gazetteers containing lists of settlements to create articles for every place-name in existence, without any thought about whether a Wikipedia article is really required for those places - the vast majority of them are (and always will be) without any notability.

The editor mentioned is not alone in doing this, but he may be the most prolific and he appears to be going through every country in alphabetical order (he has already done all the "A"s and most of the "B"s). Is it correct that Wikipedia should become an A-Z gazetteer containing an entry for every single village or hamlet in the World? Meowy 21:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. spryde | talk 21:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If we can have entries for places like Holder, Illinois, and Bill, Wyoming, then pretty much anyplace having a structure with a roof on it is fair game. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Basically, yes. While there is no accepted notability guideline for settlements, WP:AFDP#Places agrees with Bugs. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Bill, Wyoming: "The new development more than doubled the population to 11 people in two years". I know of single houses with more inhabitants than that, I can't get an article on 256b Acacia Avenue though. MickMacNee (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, does this mean my garden shed is noteable!? Jtrainor (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

My south terrace can be seen in the satellite view of GoogleMaps. Does that make it notable enough for a stub? Oh. Wait. I get it, there's already an article about the city in which that terrace can be found. Meanwhile, if that terrace was here and six people lived in two dwellings on either side of it, a stub about this wouldn't be so crazy at all. Whichever way the community goes on this is ok with me. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Try 2 million more like. Permastubs are the future. MickMacNee (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Another useful link is WP:OUTCOMES, which indicates that articles about villages tend to survive AfD. Otherwise, this situation doesn't require any immediate admin intervention. PhilKnight (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just too traditional, but for me an article should not be just a single sentence stating the blindingly obvious (settlement X is a village in country A). If that is all there is to say about a place, then there should not be an article on it! I think these hundreds of thousands (or millions) of near-empty articles makes Wikipedia a bit of a joke. Whatever, it's probably just a cunning plan by He Who Cannot Be Named to bump up the daily count of newly-created Wikipedia articles because their numbers have been going down compared to past years. And maybe also an even more cunning plan to eventually sell advertising on place-name pages. Meowy 22:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to be outdone, I plan to create articles on all the possible combinations of 3 letters and numbers, or 36 to the 3rd power, figuring that every one of them is likely to be an abbreviation for something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's obviously a conspiracy to bump up the figures for unpatrolled new articles, so that they can launch phase one of the masterplan. MickMacNee (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I really hope he discussed it on the country- or region-specific wikiprojects or on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities. If the editors of a country want the criteria to include 100,000 places in that country, that's fine with me, but they should have the say-so, not one editor. There's WP:BOLD but if he did this on his own, he's going overboard. Have you discussed this with him? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't know about that, but I don't think he did. Look at his talk page - he seems to be getting plenty of support, and other editors encouraging him to create even more articles. "Wow thats a highly impressive number of articles. Its almost like the bot is running as planned. How you generate them so quickly I have no idea but its faster than even I could do." comments one of them. About the Azerbaijan names, the same editor (User:Blofeld of SPECTRE) posted the disturbing "Well you know exactly how I feel about editors who try to get in your way. .... You can have my word that nobody is going to delete 4500 articles".

The problem with the Azerbaijan names is that a good few thousand of them are in Nagorno Karabakh or in areas controlled by Nagorno Karabakh and so the place-names and province names in current use are often different from those that Azerbaijan has officially given them. So I'm sure those single sentence articles will be a cause of endless and pointless arguments for months. Meowy 22:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Nagorno Karabakh is not a country - it doesn't sit at the UN - it is only recognized by Armenia - it's Meowy's real reason: anti-Azeri POV push. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The biggest bummer is that this is being done in a manual and more or less haphazard manner, with no community control over the information in the stubs. Had we allowed Fritpoll's bot to do its work, we would have much more useful examples of all of these same stubs. There is a lesson there, perhaps - when we as a community turn down a relatively reasonable request to simply allow good work to move forward, someone will later choose to do it anyway and without the same deference. Avruch ^T 22:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You have recalled it wrongly. The bot was approved, on condition of the implementaiton of a whole supporting project framework, which would ensure that rich datasets were prepared to be processed by the bot, to then allow users to create 'rich stubs' full of content. You will have to dig out the deleted versions of the project pages to see why it failed. These one line articles on Azerbaijan I am pretty sure would not have passed the notability requirements of that project, although I do recall at one point that 'two references' was mooted as the bar of inclusion. MickMacNee (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The comment about permastubs being the future was aces! Anyway, I am thinking that a lot of new users might not really know how to use the tools (and increasing numbers of new users tend to be those folk somewhere on the bristly side of puberty). Working on the article for your hometown might be a pretty good way to get started. Of course, creating articles for those places without a lot of internet access kinda prevents them from developing into full-blown articles, but doesn't this partly address one of the flaws of Wikipedia - that areas non web-savvy get little coverage? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but since when does an editor need the permission of anybody, WikiProject or not, to create an article? Every inhabited place in the world needs an article, as has been clearly stated over and over again, for years now. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet again, Wikipedia's flaws spin up something helpful. Time and again, the consensus has been that human settlements are notable. This is not that same thing as consensus for article creation by bots sucking stuff out of databases. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The dichotomy here is between notability and usefulness. If the source database contained more than basic information, e.g. geographical coordinates, population, etc., etc., so as to give a reader something to work on, fine, but it doesn't seem to be so. And I have little hope that anyone is ever likely to flesh out this myriad bunch of articles with actual content, so in that regard we might just as well be a "list of places"; policy should militate against that, and perhaps it's about time we revisited notability of settlements. --Rodhullandemu 03:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I would also say that this crapflood of contentless microstubs is in violation of Wikipedia not being a directory. Consensus has ususally been that all places are inherently notable, but consensus can change- and if I were going to WP:POINT out how silly that opinion is I'd be perpetrating this exact same flood of terrible articles. Articles of the form "Blongoville is a village in Shpadoinkleland" are useless- anyone who knows the name of a tiny village likely already knows what country it's in and would learn nothing. They accomplish nothing except diluting our content, making maintenance a nightmare, and making the random article feature a cruel joke. Reyk _YO! 04:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Points for using "Shpadoinkle". Padillah (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There would be nothing untowards about doing a mass AfD on them, to see what happens. However, I wouldn't think it would be untowards to let them be either, text stubs are cheap and thousands of them are likely to grow sooner or later (by which I mean, many years later). Gwen Gale (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could get rid of these somehow, but it's historically been rather difficult. I wonder, though, why we can't have a solution much as we did for schools or fictional elements which are not individually notable—a "list of places in" by administrative division. In many areas, this would be the county or its appropriate local equivalent. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Some of the stubs get minimal data from the World Gazetteer website, and another user linked the site on User_talk:Carlossuarez46 as a suggested place for that user to go. I decided to check a couple cities in China. Our Bengbu article lists a population of 3.5M, but Gazetteer gives about 600K. Our Changde lists 6M, but Gazetteer gives about 580K. Our Dongying article currently lists 1.7M, but Gazetteer gives about 310K. Our Foshan article lists 5.4M/1.1M, but Gazetteer gives about 770M. Why the consistent difference? Should we be using Gazetteer? Gimmetrow 04:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Off topic of this AN/I post, but in answer of above by Gimmetrow: This is probably like we're writing an article about New York City, but you're reading the population of Manhattan in the gazetteer. Many of the larger Chinese cities have a city center (Manhattan) and a number of counties (Queens). The population of the city (New York City) is huge, but the populatin of the core city (Manhattan, which many people consider to be New York City) is just a part. The populations of all of these cities is in the millions, but the core area has only a small part of that population, and may be called by the same name in English. --KP Botany (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not exactly off-topic. It's an example of why people shouldn't be creating these stubs without input from other people and multiple sets of data to draw from to create a page of useful info. Gimmetrow 04:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Putting the stubs in a project gets input from the other editors and multiple sets of datas. That's my suggestion for improving these articles and making them accurate. --KP Botany (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I dont mind Lachin region of Azerbaijan page containing a list of the villages there. But those village names should be all or mostly RED not blue links. Blue promises the user that they will find more notable information and not merely a time wasting stub.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Stubs are not a waste of time. Botany stubs provide a species name, its taxonomy, and, often, a common name, and a geographic range. This is useful information. I've worked in a garden, and this has for a long time been one of the most useful areas of Wikipedia: if there is an article, even a stub, it's a good start on the taxonomy of an organism. And there are a lot more stubs than not. --KP Botany (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Botanical terms are completely different from an endless line of place-names. Meowy 03:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Meowy seems to have problems with creating articles. This editor he hasn't discussed anything with me but made wide ranging arguments which are basically straw men and seeking drama here. WP is best served by having articles about notable topics than having none on the topic. If you think any of the articles are on non-notable topics, nominate them for deletion. As the critics have tried this before and failed, another attempt will be viewed as WP:POINT - as the prior attempt was - and likely earn the nominator a permablock. Why doesn't Meowy go ahead and improve the stubs s/he thinks are too stubby - not just those I have created, but the tens of thousands of others. Or is this the latest Meowy effort to push his POV in the various conflicts between Armenia and its neighbors. Does s/he want me delete the hundreds or so articles on Armenian places as well? Nominate those for deletion first if you really care to go down in flames on principle rather than as a POV pusher. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You bet I want him to delete all the thousands of pointless Armenian placename article stubs, and all the hundreds of thousands of other pointless stubs his bot-editing has gleefully created. But he can't. Nor can anyone else. And nobody is going to manually nominate 100,000+ articles for deletion. That is why this editor must be stopped asap - he is doing possibly irreparable damage. Meowy 03:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a human edited encyclopedia and large-scale bot editing should always need consensus even if any of the individual edits that the bot does would be perfectly fine for a human to do. Look at all the Betacommand dramas for endless examples. WP:BOLD does NOT apply to bot editing, since bots (because of their scale of editing) are much harder to revert, breaking the concept of "bold-revert-discuss". If this bot has been approved, it should be operating under a bot flag. If not, it should be blocked until consensus emerges to let it continue. 208.120.235.110 (talk) 04:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

What bot are you talking about? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll float my perennial proposal: create a bot that deletes all articles that have only been edited by bots. If no human has ever shown an interest in the article, there's no reason to have it. I'll buy the notability argument for places to the extent that if someone has found enough data about a location to create a full article about it, I would never be inclined to take it to AFD on the grounds that it was too puny or insignificant to warrant an article. That's a long way from believing that a speck in an atlas and a line item in a census warrants creating a stub that nobody ever finds enough data to expand.—Kww(talk) 00:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Carlossuarez46 needs to be banned from creating any new articles. Though it has been pointed out earlier that geographical places do not need to fit the notability criteria, that leeway was never intended to enable the mindless creation of millions of stubs containing nothing. Carlossuarez46 seems to be some sort of weirdo intent on attaining the record for creating the greatest number of Wikipedia articles, and he is doing it at the expense of the quality and credibility of Wikipedia. It amounts to vandalism. All edit should be done with the aim of improving Wikipedia. He is making a joke out of Wikipedia! Meowy 03:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. There will always be people who contribute to the encyclopedia in a way you disagree with. You will not accomplish anything by calling them crazed weirdo vandals who need to be banned, and you will particularly not win anyone over to your side. rspεεr (talk) 09:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If you disregard the incivility, Meowy is right though. These contentless microstubs do drag down the quality and credibility of Wikipedia. Behaviour that hurts the project, whether it's done in good faith or not, needs to be stopped. With a big fat banhammer in the case of persistent deliberate vandalism; with kind words and politeness in cases like these. Reyk _YO! 09:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an astonishingly bad idea. You have claimed this editor is causing "possibly irreparable damage", that they "must be stopped", that they're a "mindless" and "gleeful" vandal... and now you're asking they be banned from creating articles. All this is basically over a content dispute? This sort of thing is really not appropriate behaviour and we will not start sanctioning people just because you don't like their legitimate and good-faith contributions. Shimgray | talk | 11:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Shimgray. If indeed it's "harming the project" to make all these stubs (and I'm highly skeptical of that claim), it's hardly the user in question's fault if the community has never come to a consensus against the articles. Maybe we need to come up with a better guideline about settlements. OK, do that instead of talking about sanctioning Carlossuarez46 for behaving in a way that doesn't conflict with our policy, guidelines and practices as they exist now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think my request to have Carlossuarez46's article-creation rights restricted is a fair response to an urgent situation. At the very least, he should be restricted to manually creating articles. It is not a content dispute - it is an editing process issue. I don't know how many articles Carlossuarez46 has created - the link declines to answer because he has made more than 100,000 edits. By the time better guidelines are decided upon, he may have reached Zululand and the situation will be a fait accompli.

I stand by my characterisations. The creation of hundreds of thousands of empty stubs does amount to "vandalism" - it is damaging the project because it is damaging the credibility of Wikipedia. Users reading an article on Wikipedia expect to get information from it - but none of Carlossuarez46's stubs contain informative content. Claims about the size and inclusiveness of Wikipedia become laughable if millions of its articles are just empty stubs. The articles created by Carlossuarez46 are "mindless" because they have been created using a bot. There is an element of "gleefulness" in the attitude of Carlossuarez46 towards his mass article creation - just look at his talk page, and also his flippant responses to the points made here: "the critics have tried this before and failed". Rather than addressing any of the concerns made by others in this thread, he has just been making extreme personal attacks on me for daring to attempt to interrupt his activities (accusing me of "seeking drama", of being a "POV pusher" and wanting to give me a "permablock"). Meowy 17:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

As the fact we're having to debate this above should show, it is far from generally accepted that these articles "damage the credibility" of Wikipedia, and it certainly isn't accepted that writing articles which someone thinks are damaging to our credibility should be considered vandalism! We have hundreds of articles, many very good ones, which I think make us look silly - I wonder why people write them, and I wouldn't mind seeing them deleted, but it certainly isn't "vandalism".

Yes, he may be being rude about you and getting heated about this, though I wouldn't call it "extreme personal attacks". But you're being rude about him - "some kind of weirdo" - and getting just as intemperate. If having a heated argument was a blocking offence, you'd both be needing sanctioned, so this really isn't the way to be arguing!

He hasn't done anything that requires blocking. He has done something that suggests we need to get back to discussing a philosophical dispute we've been avoiding thinking about ever since Rambot came along, and the appropriate thing to do would be to discuss that somewhere appropriate, not vaguely demand he be punished. Shimgray | talk | 19:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm reading and re-reading the thread, and still don't see the issue. No policy or guidelines has been brought to bear to make the claim that these kind of stubs should not be created. Dragging down the quality of the project? That statement is laughable. All you need to do is look at Pokemon to get an idea of the crap that's out there already. Unless there is some formalized guideline developed, the WP:IDONTLIKEIT types of argument won't weigh much. Yngvarr (t) (c) 17:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I don't mind stubby articles, what does worry me is the lack of reliable sources which prove the locations notability, and the rapid rate of creation--how else would we stop a similar editor creating hoax articles? Add to this the somewhat pointy attitude (on both sides) but especially in response to concerns about the properness of the action, and we have a serious issue. If the user in question persists, I am willing to block per disruption criteria until this can be resolved, and as per an application of the spirit of WP:BRD. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(rm earlier comment) You and I both seem to have fallen into the same trap of not noticing signature dates! Looking at Carlos's actual contributions, rather than the characterisation of them here, I see... well, I don't see a surge of new articles needing stopped! The most recent spate of creations of small articles looks like it was on December 16th, eg Allahqulubağı. Shimgray | talk | 19:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I haven't jumped on the block button :P his most recent contributions are mostly disambig/tagging. But the concern about a rash of articles still remains relevant (but might be outside the scope of this particular discussion). -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's an issue we need to think about - but it's a philosophical issue of content inclusion, unrelated to this particular dispute, and ANI doesn't really seem the place! I was astonished to realise this whole thing was about edits a month ago... Shimgray | talk | 19:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

What bugs me about this thread is user Meowy's gross violation of WP:AGF. Requesting a ban on a user for performing actions that are within a standing consensus is remarkably asinine. --Smashville^talk 19:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention done in bad faith that this editor is actually trying hard to improve the coverage of wikipedia in the long term. The Bald One ^{White cat} 13:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've had to reread this several times before commenting here, because to be honest in all my time on Wikipedia I've never read anything quite so ridiculous. Let's get this straight - Meowy wants to ban Carlossuarez46's article-creation because it's somehow damaging to Wikipedia to add information that increases this encyclopedia's coverage - information which should be easily verifiable. If the suggestion wasn't so pitiful it would be hilarious. Hasn't anyone anything better to do here than start coming up with spurious concerns like this? Sure, we end up with tens of thousands of tiny articles. But what harm does it do? All it does is increase Wikipedia's scope. And is there any guarantee that those articles - or a significant proportion of them - won't grow into far larger articles? Or any guarantee that - if Carlossuarez46 was stopped - someone else might not add any specific article manually that would otherwise have been handily bot-created (thereby saving a lot of work)? All that Carlossuarez46 seems to be doing is adding encyclopedic information to an encyclopedia. it's not as though we've a shortage of space - we're not having to use more paper to get this information down - it's basically being given to us for free. Sure, a lot of them are likely to remain stubs for a long time, but that's true with a lot of articles - and stubs do provide a basis from which to expand. I'd wager that a large number of FA articles have started as stubs and grown from there than began as fully formed large articles - toady's front page FA for one. Grutness...wha? 22:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Bot is breaking policy

I undid Gwen Gale's closure since this bot appears to definitely be breaking policy, namely WP:BOT, which states:

Operation of unapproved bots, or use of approved bots in unapproved ways outside their conditions of operation, is prohibited and may in some cases lead to blocking of the bot account and possible sanctions for the operator.

Note that higher speed or semi-automated processes may effectively be considered bots in some cases. If in doubt, check. [Italics in original]

I searched for evidence that Carlossuarez46's bot had been approved, and didn't find any, though maybe I missed it. (Per the italicized provision of WP:BOT that higher speed processes can sometimes effectively be considered bots, I am going to refer to this operation as a bot despite Carlossuarez46's annoying coyness about whether it actually is one). If there is an approval for the bot then I'd appreciate a diff. I don't think this bot should be approved. If it has created 100k articles and is still in the A's, it will have made at least a million articles when it's done, quite a substantial fraction of all the articles in enwiki. That degrades the quality of the encyclopedia all by itself (lowers the average quality of articles), and maybe more importantly, these articles are unlikely to be watchlisted by anyone, making them vandal magnets. We are long past the point where Wikipedia benefits from growth of sheer numbers of articles like this. Unenrolled (IP address) editors can no longer create articles directly, and there is a reason for that. The crap and spam potential is just too large despite the efforts of the RC patrol (look at some submissions to WP:AFC for a while if you're not sure of this).

The argument that individual articles about habitations usually survive AFD and therefore this bot is ok is a non-sequitur. The first part is like saying that editors usually don't have it in them to kill a living baby after it is born--ok, fine. It is quite a different thing to conclude that it's appropriate to launch a bot with the intention of causing millions of teenage pregnancies and no plan whatsoever to care for the offspring. The argument that any such stub is a potential FA is also unimpressive. No evidence is given that the presence of the automated stub has non-negligible chance of giving rise to an FA that wouldn't be created anyway if the stub weren't there; it's far more likely that the authors of any such FA will create the article themselves if there isn't already a stub for it. For that matter, an editor creating a stub about his or her hometown is also different than a bot doing it, since the human editor will likely watchlist and care for the article. Will Carlossuarez46 maintain these millions of stubs that his bot is spewing?

Carlossuarez46 has taken quite a belligerent attitude about this in the past, as well: "If you think that there is a consensus somewhere that settlements not be added to the WP, show me where and we can go ahead and delete all of them in accordance with such a fouled up consensus or maybe we'll just WP:IAR and say that consensus smells like what it's full of..."[106]. The consensus is not about adding settlements, it's about rampant bot sprees that are not supported by consensus (think of Betacommand, who this incident reminds me of). There are some other such incidents that I don't feel like digging up but can be found if necessary if (say) we end up with an RFC about this. WP:BOT seems very clear to me, WP:BOLD does not apply to bot edits. The requirement is to get consensus first, then launch the bot, not the other way around.

For the reasons I've stated, I think this bot is a bad idea and I urge Carlossuarez46 to stop it himself, and for admins to intervene against it if he doesn't.

67.122.210.149 (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I don't think Carlossuarez46 is using a bot. Astonishingly, he is creating these articles himself, and I applaud him for it. While I don't always agree with his edits, such is Wikipedia, and he is doing good, verifiable, and notable work. And he isn't using a bot, the best I can tell. If there is evidence of a bot, I'd like to see it. --Friejose (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

He is creating an atlas index, albeit a fancy graphical and interactive one, but an index none the less. If he were creating a dictionary on Wikipedia in the same manner he would quite rightly be pointed to the appropriate venue. Why this sort of addition is accommodated here has always been beyond me. Is there any evidence he has any information to expand any of the index entries, or is this it? MickMacNee (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

One might argue any editor such as myself that has mass-created geographical stubs has done the same thing. I have created hundreds of articles for missing Perth suburbs, Western Australian towns and suburbs in Melbourne and the Central Coast region. Most have been vastly improved since I created them 1.5-2 years ago. Orderinchaos 04:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this issue was appropriately closed. If you have evidence of the unapproved bot use, please produce it. Rlendog (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

By patterns in editing I think that there is a bot operating at that account. the durations and editrates are somewhat unbelievable for a person to be doing.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 10:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, if you have a basic one sentence template that you copy and paste into each new article and a separate tab with the needed census data, you can get going pretty fast. I've done some article creation this way myself, though dealing with much more heavily populated areas in China and longer than one sentence.--Danaman5 (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I am curious. Isn't this sort of thing going to make it virtually impossible for us to prevent the addition of editors using these stubs for advertising and promotion in various ways? dougweller (talk) 05:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen that personally, but I suppose it is possible, especially with travel agencies and the like. I should note that I only create longer stubs translated over from the Chinese Wikipedia. Having some material already there, rather than a one sentence stub, seems to dissuade other people from adding their own random advertising to it. (I have no evidence to support this assertion, it is just my intuition)--Danaman5 (talk) 06:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The stub on Darica survived an AfD even though it was created with and kept this link: [107] -- which shows that no one looks at these, even in an AfD. (And how did I find this article, you ask? I was looking at [108] which is a link to a weather site that apparently has a map from the frontispiece of a book (which is how the link is described in the article), and then looked at other articles linking to this odd weather site). dougweller (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the creation of Ağalaruşağı. Stubs are useful to Wikipedia. It is that simple. Kingturtle (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Its not that simple. The letter Q is also useful to wiki but that doesn't mean that a bot adding the letter Q to 1000s of articles is a good thing. Naturallyblind (talk) 01:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That analogy makes absolutely no sense. In addition, there is no reason for this to still be open. There is no admin action that can be accomplished, considering no policies have been violated and Carlos was operating within consensus. --Smashville^talk 05:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Manhattan Samurai very suspicious "case" behavior

After a recent interaction with ThuranX (talk · contribs). Manhattan Samurai (talk · contribs) has been babbling on about a case, presecution, and defense. I beleving he was confused, asked him for more information. He has made severl very supicious comments that lead me to believe he is being coerced by an ooutside source that he believes may be an official wikipedia sources. Comments such as, "I'm afraid that this case is still ongoing. I have yet to receive word that it is over from the proper channels. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have work to do. Sincerely, Manhattan Samurai (talk) 12:10, 9 January 2009 " and "I have been told to cease interacting with you. I don't want to but unfortunately this will be my final comment on this matter as far as concerns you. I hope you understand. Sincerely,Manhattan Samurai (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)" I have reviewed his edit history and he is not in any way involved with any forms of formal dispute resolution. When I asked him about it he became very dodgy and suspicious, again babbling about some, "case." he is working. I am mainly concerned for his sake that he is being duped. Perhaps somebody else can stop by his page and support this. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

My only comment will be that I can no longer comment on this matter in any form. This will be the last you will hear from me on this particular matter. I hope you will respect my wishes to remain silent on this matter as it is a directive that I cannot disobey under any circumstances. Sincerely, Manhattan Samurai (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You see, that is EXTREMLEY suspicious. I would love for osmebody else to review this. (note, he has now, "archived" all notices regarding this [109], however it was not archived, only deleted. I am wondering if this account has been hijacked? Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed this and other strange behavior too. I don't suspect account highjacking, but I do assume this user's history goes back further than the edit log shows. He's apparently been talked to about odd or disruptive behavior before, but you'd have to dig through history since it doesn't look like he archives his talk page properly. Maybe ignoring him would work, or maybe it'd be quicker to just indef block as troll account. Friday (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That is what I was leaning towards Friday. It is very obvious being disruptive. He also has a history of page blanking and some incivil comments. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Also note, he has tried to hide his past talk page history by moving it to a page called archive, then moving it to a page called, User:Manhattan Samurai/Rumsgood then having it deleted under G7. Deleted history shows trolling and disruption. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite concerned about this. Manhattan Samurai is the editor who, about six weeks ago, was talking here on ANI about creating an 'edit war army' to keep an article at his preferred version. Nothing seems to have come of that, but looking through contribs I'm seeing a long pattern of subtle trolling and, frankly, probable socking. I'm on break from class and can't be bothered finding the diffs-- a look at his contribs should find the ANI posts as well as posts to Barneca's talkpage. //roux   15:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what this guys deal is. Looking through his deleted contributions he has several suspicious statements such as, I am also actively looking to join any wiki-conspiracy you may be plotting. Please include me. and other stuff. I don't want to be overly harrassing but something suspicious is going on here. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not happy. I'm tempted to undelete the talk page, perhaps move it to an archive in his user-space, but I'm not sure of the protocol. Maybe we should ask Redvers his opinion? dougweller (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd support restoration, having one's talk page history deleted via sleight-of-hand is inappropriate. –xeno (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of admins delete their own talk pages. DuncanHill (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't make it appropriate though. –xeno (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it is highly inappropriate and very suspicious when someone entrusted with admin tools abuses them in this way. DuncanHill (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd also ask for a CU. My socky sense is tingling something fierce, but I can't think of another account that acts like this. //roux   16:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

←Yea, my socky sense is tingling too. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I undeleted his hidden rum is good page and moved it back to his archive page User:Manhattan Samurai/archive. Archive is full of extremley suspicious behavior as well. It looks like he moved his talk page to User:Manhattan Samurai/archive, then added in the article on Rum and moved it to User:Manhattan Samurai/Rumsgood then asked for speedy deletion. Looks pretty intentional to me. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely intentional. Also.. hmm... clear attempts to votestack an AfD and then a DRV, the 'edit war army' thing, the latest issue with the thinly veiled legal threats... this is not adding up to a terribly nice picture. //roux   16:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Been a while since if done it, but I think our socky senses are tingling. Does anybody wanna file a request for checkuser?. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think it would be rejected as fishing (we have no one to compare to). I would suggest that we just indef Manhattan Samurai and then any socks that pop up can be CU'd as relates to MS. SirFozzie (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I am going to go ahead and block him. If he wants to explain it in an unblock request that is fine but as of now, there is something fishy going on and it needs to stop. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

On what grounds is this editor blocked? Someone "suspects" something odd is afoot – this is your idea of respectful and responsible use of administrator tools? The editor has been actively contributing top-quality article content at Is Google Making Us Stupid?, which is the middle of a GA review you have now disrupted. If I am not mistaken, they have contributed multiple items of featured content over the past few years under a previous account in good standing. The attitude here seems to be "guilty until proven innocent of a crime we are not going to bother to mention". Can someone please explain how this is in line with our blocking policy and in the interests of the encyclopaedia? Skomorokh 19:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

More very suspicious activity. I have asked that if he was being asked to do this by an outside source, that he could forward the emails to me and I would look into this. A recent reply from his states, "Well, my friend is having a laughing fit. I'm not as amused. He has told me to let you all know that I delete all my emails after I'm done with them unless they need to be kept. I do the same with talk pages. So there's the answer to your: "machinations to delete your talkpage archives". This is probably why I work on articles and really focus on them. Sincerely, Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC) " He is clearly working on behalf of another editor or person, if it is not himself. This is either meatpuppetry, or sockpuppetry. We gave him a chance to explain himself, assuming good faith and he has refused to respond, dodging all questions, and replying with suspicious answers. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

My two pence: I was involved in the ThuranX AN/I complaint, wherein Manhattan Samurai involved himself, not really contributing anything. After the user followed me to my user page, I came to the conclusion that one of two situations exists: either the user is the sort who wears tinfoil hats, or that the user is an extremely clever (and likely ex-) contributor to the Project. While most of the talk page stuff would imply the former, the skill with which the talk page history was deleted was suspiciously brilliant. I am leaning towards the latter, that this person is a formerly blocked user. A number of days ago, I contact Chris with my concerns that this user was likely a former banned member; I've had some contact with a few (as we all have), and the first name that came to mind was SixString1965 (talk · contribs) (note the RfCU here), though I didn't offer that name to Chris at the time, as I cannot be sure. I agree that a current CU might be fishing, but I cannot shake the feeling that I have encountered this user before.

Either way, this user is annoying; I guess being possibly insane isn't an exclusionary factor for contributing. I know its unfair to suggest it, but maybe the user has not just issues, but subscriptions to issues. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Really silly block. Especially for "trolling" - he is doing splendid work on articles (such as "Is Google Making Us Stupid?") and deserves more than what he's been given. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

So, comments implying that his account is a meatpuppet/sockpuppet account are ok? It is ok that his account, per he own statements, are being used for the will and intent of another user who is unwilling to reveal themselves? There is something wrong here. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

On the (in my opinion minimal) chance that he wants to contribute constructively, I'm sure he'll come back and do just that. Where's the problem? We don't need to spend time speculating about whether his bizarre performance art is an act or not- he's either an intentional troll, in which case he should not be welcome here, or he's a kook, in which case he should not be welcome here. Sure, he made article edits. Maybe they were even good. This doesn't change the fact that he's unable to behave like a reasonable adult. Friday (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

PS If anyone hasn't noticed that I noticed.. we have a history of inappropriate behavior, going back to when the account was fairly new, including edits like [110] and [111] that he got complaints about, see User:Manhattan_Samurai/archive. Much more recently, we have stuff like this, plus a bunch of utterly unhelpful comments related to ThuranX which are still on this page. Does anyone not think he's just here for the lulz? It surprises me we'd spend much time worrying about an editor like this. Friday (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've seen enough. I'm all for throwing away the key. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I first encountered this user on Arcayne's talk page and he's an odd chap. I think the hypothesis that he's mentally unstable is a likely one (no personal attacks intended) though he is undoubtedly very intelligent. I'm reminded of people who develop paranoid schizophrenia and became convinced that they are helping MI6 unravel a conspiracy. The cryptic references to a "case" Manhatten keeps mentioning are reminiscent of Cabalistic conspiracy theories. In any case, we dealing with an insidious foe and we need to tread carefully. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads up. It appears that his rebuttal to any concerns is answered with a completley unrelated comment. For exdample here he says, "When I said, "This is probably why I work on articles and really focus on them" I meant that I don't really like all that bureaucratic stuff that surrounds articles even though I realize it is necessary. It was not a motive!" a quote/comment completley unrelated ro any of the discussion. I am not sure if this is intentional or not but just be aware of any requests like this. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 21:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Was reading this for the giggles. I suspect, if any cares anymore, that this all ties in somehow with Alan Cabal, an oddly amusing train-wreck of an article. This AfD [[112]] resulted in deletion last July but the article was soon created without any fuss (perhaps as part of an agreement if "x" sources are found it could be kept or something). Again, the weirdness/potential grievance seems to tie in with this. Bali ultimate (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now MS is trolling his talk page, i request his block be bumped up so he can't edit his talk page. Elbutler (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I endorse (At least temporary) talk page protection. I may be overly involved in this and will leave that to the discretion of another administrator. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 22:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about protecting the talk page. One the one hand, they currently are not doing any harm. On the other, I'm opposed to an unblock. Setting aside the mysterious, suspicious, evasive, and just plain weird non-answers to questions, I can't see this user's extraordinary efforts to delete their Talk page as anything other than bad faith, deceitful, and gaming the system. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Now he says "i wish i could indef-block you!". Now the fact he's a troll has been confirmed. Elbutler (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Dunno whether anyone noticed, but the protection of his talkpage has been overridden. D.M.N. (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This user emailed me asking for some assistance with this matter because I had made a comment in a GA assessment of an article he'd written. This is my response: "Hi I read through the comments on you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents relating to your block. Initially I thought that the block was harsh, especially as you were doing such good work with the "Is Google Making Us Stupid?"‏ article. However, when looking at the diffs, and when looking at some of your edit history, I do find your behaviour quite strange. I am particularly concerned that you were so devious in trying to conceal some of the warnings you had previously received for your inappropriate behaviour. I assume I can trust people when I encounter them - I continue assuming that until I am shown reasons why I can't trust someone. I certainly cannot trust someone who goes to such lengths to be devious. All I have to go by is what you have done - and you have blanked pages and left inappropriate comments, you have been rude to people, and you have attempted to conceal comments about your bad behaviour. Do you see how that presents? Because you have shown that you have a devious, anti-social, disruptive personality, there is no way I can trust what you have to say to me. I really would like to assist you in this situation as I feel you have much to offer the project, but disruptive, devious people take up time, effort and motivation. And often the cost / value balance is weighed too much on the cost side. I do wish you well in your life, and I hope this incident will make you reassess how you deal with others. Regards Steve (SilkTork)." SilkTork *^YES! 21:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The unprotection on his talk page was me. MS emailed me requesting that I review his block. I unprotected it because I intended to drop him a message on his talk page, but reconsidered and sent him a private email instead (and forgot I had unprotected it). MS claims that his edits were "creative banter" and believes that he is a net positive contributor here, and would like the ban overturned. Raul654 (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I realize I'm an involved party, but: His inability to listen to anyone telling him to stop hassling me, both Arcayne and Chrislk02, and to make comments acting confused as to why he was being rebuked, in the face of clear explanations and simpler requests, shows that if nothing else, he 'luvz teh drahmahz' to a point where the drama is his reason for participating, not an occasional problem. I oppose any ban overturn. ThuranX (talk) 07:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with the block. Too much drama. Protonk (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Time for my 2 cents. You're right, way too much drama. Besides everyone he called "boneheads" at AN/I (including me), wouldn't even think about agreeing to unblock him. Elbutler (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

MS emailed me again. He requested that he be allowed to resume editing on the Is Google Making Us Stupid? article, and promised that he'll behave. What do you guys think about allowing him back to edit on a probationary basis. In other words, he's unblocked, but he's only permitted to edit his own talk page, and Is Google Making Us Stupid? (and talk:Is Google Making Us Stupid?, and the GA and FA subpages of it). If he edits on any other article, the full community ban kicks back in. Thoughts? Raul654 (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm always one for allowing second chances, as long as he cuts out the tomfoolery. –xeno (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. I don't want to say "only edit articles XYZ", because if he actually changes his behavior, that restriction would be stupid. I would just say "cut out the bullshit, broadly defined" (I've got a future on arbcom!). Agreement to that would be sufficient for an unblock, unless there are some concerns that prevail. Protonk (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Protonk. If MS is capable of behaving himself, the restriction to his talk page and the article & talk for Is Google... can be revisited in the future. //roux   03:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Anonymous_user.2C__likely_Manhattan_Samurai.2C_making_personal_attacks is worth looking at and seeing what a CU says. //roux   03:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Raul says they aren't related. Protonk (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've issued a probationary unblock to MS. I've outlined the terms on his talk page. Raul654 (talk) 08:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm against the unblock with any conditions, this editor is obviously very clever and very pernicious and a detriment to the project. The original block should stand. Verbal chat 08:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, i've seen disruptive editors before (Simulation12, Nicholsy, the german guy), they will stoop to any level to get back editing while blocked. We're just playing right in MS' hands. Elbutler (talk) 11:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Reblocks are cheap. –xeno (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I, as the orignial blocking administrator, agree. I would have had no problem unblocking him a while ago if he had made ANY EFFORTS what so ever to adequatley address the concerns. I dont have a problem with the probationary unblock as I hate to see any good editor remain blocked but if he continues to be disruptive then he should be re-blocked, at least for a good while. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 13:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we can give him another chance. His contributions in the other article have been solid; so long as he stays there, he should be okay. That said, those contributions have remained steadily competent while he was simultaneously seeking the drama elsewhere. I think particular attention should be made as to his interactions with others on the Google article, and form an opinion of reformed behavior based upon his/her interaction there. Should the user screw up again, tar and feather them, throw them away and never look back. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This probation is ridiculous. If he's the kind of editor we want around, why are we restricting him to a certain set of pages? If he's not the kind of editor we want around, why the unblock? When I see cases like this, I see only one reasonable justification for it: ego. An individual steps up and says "Do what I say. I am in control of the situation; look how important I am." I suppose there's no harm letting this unblock continue until he goes off the rails again, but this sort of thing should not be done in the future. Friday (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Is this within the terms of his unblock? It's not disruptive (beyond putting forward blogs as reliable sources), but the terms of the unblock appear to be very limited. Should a (largely) blocked editor's opinion carry weight in an AFD discussion?--Michig (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Sigh. It's a reasonable (altho misguided) edit. It illustrates the ridiculousness of this probation condition. I don't agree with the unblock but as long as he's unblocked, re-blocking him for this would amount to "you must do what I say or I'll block you." He should be re-blocked only if he continues his nonsense. Friday (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm against an unblock. MS can add good content to Wikipedia. But so can hundreds of other people without being anti-social and devious. Whoever MS is can come back to the project under a new account and keep that account clean. He has demonstrated anti-community and anti-project activity and a devious manner in attempting to hide it. Just the sort of account we don't want. The effort to keep people like MS in line requires too much time, effort and good will that exhausts and demoralises people. He is, quite simply, not worth that. And we need to send a clear message to every user who feels that producing a bit of good allows them to also produce a bit of bad - as though that is what we have to pay for their bit of good - that we will not accept it. If an account blanks pages with rude comments and engages in provocative and time-consuming behaviour, we don't want that account - regardless of what else they do. Block the account, and the person behind the account can come back and try again with better behaviour in a new account. If they can't, we block that account as well. And we carry on until the immature dork behind the accounts gets the message that bad behaviour will not be tolerated. That will save us a lot of time, effort and energy we can then spend on building the project. SilkTork *^YES! 08:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

O. I didn't read far enough into the thread. I see he's already been unblocked. Hmm. Questionable call that one. I'd have liked to have seen a bit more discussion and consensus before going ahead with that. SilkTork *^YES! 08:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Cali567

Hi, I have a complaint about a User:Cali567. In the past, this user used a genetic study that said 56% of Argentines have at least 1 Amerindian ancestor. This user has used this source to claim that "Argentines are Mestizo and Castizo" [113]. Which is not true, the genetic study just say most have at least 1 Amerindian ancestor, and it does not classify them as Mestizo. This user was told by an admin to stop claiming that most Argentines are Mestizo [114]. Cali567 has stop for a while, but the user return again yesterday an continued his/her disruptive edits [115]. I have removed her manipulation of the genetic study, but the user keeps putting it back.

Cali567 is also know for being a bad-faith editor. Cali567 is rude, he/she falsely accused me a sockpuppet[116] just because I remove the manipulation of the genetic study. I need help here. Thank you for reading.

The sources imply they have Amerindian ancestry, I do not call them Mestizo or Castizo. I was never told to stop "calling them Mestizo". There is no manipulation of the study as I do not use the word Mestizo. This user is falsely accusing and is Pro-European to a point where all non-European peoples are ignored by this user. Cali567 (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't examined the source or the article, but your first sentence above raises a flag. If the sources only "imply" the ancestry, and don't explicitly state it, then the information you're adding is WP:OR, possibly WP:SYNTH--you're drawing a conclusion which is not specifically in the text you cite--and is thus against policy. Sorry... GJC 23:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are not manipulating, then why do you place Argentines and Uruguayans with Mestizo, when the source doesn't mention it. The source only mention that 56% of Argentines have at least one Amerindian ancestor. I doesn't say they are Mestizo. There is a similar genetic study about White Americans, but does that make them multiracial. And yes you were ask by a admin to stop saying that "Argentines are mestizo" [117] and [118] Lehoiberri (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Cali567, go to dispute resolution and follow the steps there, for each article you are disputing. People told you what to do and if you continue to fight the same way, you will get blocked. This is a content dispute at the end of the day and really doesn't belong here. If there is no change in editing strategy, then inform me and I'll block myself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

After his edit at White Latin American here, I've given him a final warning. His editing doesn't seem to be stopping though and I can't tell if he's continuing or getting better. If he doesn't improve, please inform me. Changing what sources actually say is next to impossible to detect and that should not be allowed here at all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Stinky Cadaver

Resolved

 – username was enough for an indef block Gwen Gale (talk) 07:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Stinky Cadaver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm concerned about this user. I believe he either joined this morning, or the day before, either way, he has all of four contributions, yet, already seems to know quite a bit more about wikipedia than normal new users do, and even more so, quite a bit more about me.

This leads me to believe that this user is someone else's sock. I am posting this here in case anyone might recognize him. At this moment, he has been blocked indefinitely because of his username, but his behavior is just too suspicious. Also, in case it matters, he nominated me for adminship, and I declined because, as said, it is just too suspicious.

Please weigh in if you share my suspicions, or this is similar to someone you've seen.

Also, of notable mention, I should note, is that I have not been participating in editing the mainspace for quite some time, I have been mainly dealing with socks and things I've found on this board. To the point, of new editors who randomly nominate people for adminship, I do not believe I could fall into the same group who new editors usually select from: the history tab of articles.

Too many things don't add up.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No, they don't add up. You're definitely being targeted. The good news is it looks like there's a lot of editors and admins who're watching your back, so hopefully they'll leave you alone. Dayewalker (talk) 07:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing about that account looked ok. Gwen Gale (talk)

You are correct, Daedalus; there was a definite sock odor mixed in with the dead body smell, but without more to go on, I don't think there's any way we could tell if this was a sock of somebody or just some random troll. There's not enough evidence for SSP, and an RFCU would be declined as outright fishing. I'm afraid the best to do at this point would be to ignore it and move on. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 07:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's very likely someone's sock. Whose, I don't know. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The sarcastically "cheerful" attitude kind of reminds me of the indef-blocked User:Cheers dude. I don't recall if Daedalus was in on that discussion or not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I remember many of the disputes I was in. Anything regarding that user, I wasn't.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous vandal making death threats

Resolved

 – Sent to time-out ... and then sent out to pasture. --Dynaflow babble 10:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

See [119]. AnyPerson (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

And now they're removing reports of their vandalism from WP:AIV. AnyPerson (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

They've been blocked. AnyPerson (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

72.189.167.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Death threats are now blocked for 48 hours? I tell ya, Sid, this place is slipping. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears that that IP address is dynamic, so it's very likely he'll have moved on two days from now. There's no need to block it for longer than that, just long enough to "send him to time-out" as Dynaflow put it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, I know. Mind you, though, an actual murder would likely result in a much longer block. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Why? don't they have the internet in the afterlife? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is your chance to issue a nice, satisfying indef block. In addition to the earlier death threats, there's now socking to evade a block and another generous helping of general stupidity. For you consideration, I present: Metroid476 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Fire at will. --Dynaflow babble 09:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

and blocked. Thanks for that. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Don Murphy and threats

Please see [120] and [121]. See also User:ColScott. Is there anything you folks can do about this person? - Naturallyblind (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, no there isn't. You signed up solely to attack him. Ninety percent of your edits were for pages that had to do with him. Now you have incurred his wrath. We cannot help you. We will give you up for a dollar because we have no loyalty here except to Jimbo the head cultist. Cary tried with this guy and Chapman tried but his power just increases. You have tampered with the primal forces of nature.NaturallyDumb (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• NaturallyBlind does not seem to be a WP:SPA, however NaturallyDumb clearly is, so that account is blocked, as is the IP. I'd be faintly surprised if this was Murphy himself, more likely one of his stooges, who tend to get carried away on occasion. I think Mr Murphy is leaving Wikipedia alone, which is a good call given past events. Incidentally, I have trouble seeing why we have quite so many links to Don Murphy's forums: Special:LinkSearch/*.donmurphy.net. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I've stricken the comment to make sure no one interprets that as an actual answer. flaminglawyer^c 23:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

A posting by Mr.Murphy on the relevant forum thread indicates that it was indeed him. Black Kite 23:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Allknowingallseeing was recently blocked after a determination that he was User:ColScott who (as i understand it) is known to be Murphy. Plus a fresh editor-stalking notice on his message board [122] isnt exactly "leaving Wikipedia alone". Naturallyblind (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that you steer clear of him if your real life identity can be found easily. He and his goons have a habit of stalking people (myself included). John Reaves 23:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, just read your last post. Best to just ignore it, he isn't actually competent enough to stalk you on his own, he has to use his lackeys, so it's best not to anger the messageboard. John Reaves 23:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC) John Reaves 23:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I dont even use my own internet (wifi). Naturallyblind (talk) 10:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Stn080188

Resolved

 – Warned. — neuro^(talk) 11:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm heading to sleep now but could someone inform User:Stn080188 and the IP addresses there not to use his userpage as a way to avoid blocks on Facebook and Myspace? See also the deleted edits at Stephen is in the middle east where they were before. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

On it. — neuro^(talk) 11:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Threats

Resolved

 – blocked by Protonk

Hi - I received the following posting on my user page posted by on 12 January by User:Cmchir: "Contaldo80 - your allegations were deemed to be libellous. Do not pursue to lay such allegations or action will be taken to trace your identity." I am concerned at what I see as little more than intimidation and harassment, and that I am personally being threatened with physical harm. The articles referred to are those on Herbert Ganado and Joseph Flores. My contributions to these articles have been within wiki guidelines - not original research and simply citing and referencing mainstream published material. I would be grateful if anyone could advise on what I should do. Many thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. Protonk (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

User creating gibberish talk pages

Resolved

 – pages deleted, IP blocked Xavexgoem (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

201.230.216.47 (talk · contribs) has just created 34 talk pages to non-existent articles. The first one I looked at was of a deleted article. I've blocked him for a week, is there a quick way to delete all these? Thanks. dougweller (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Hrafn

Hello all. I need to get this out of my system. It has caused me so much wikistress and causes me, oftentimes, not even the ability to keep the will to edit. This is my problem – Hrafn (talk · contribs). I have tried to be kind and civil to him, for example, wishing him a Merry Christmas, but he has pushed this way to far and I need comment.

When I first met him, he hasn't a big deal to me. He added templates Todd Friel, followed by proposing it for deletion here. That is not in itself wrong, and it caused the article to, over time, become better. However, he quickly continued doing a similar thing to Adventures in Odyssey – he followed me from one article to the next. All through this time, he continued to accuse me of bad faith, when I haven't once done anything in bad faith. Here are some diffs of this: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

Also, he said that I was unwelcome on his talk page, because all I did was in bad faith, but it is not. However, I have done what he asked, and have not edited his talk page once (even though I needed to). Within hours of doing some work to Paws & Tales and Down Gilead Lane (which I am planning on working on), he followed me to the article, proposed one for deletion and added {{articleissues}} tags to the other.

And finally, he threatened he will be doing this to articles I try to edit from now on (in context: AllNight with Jason Smith). I have gone through lots of stressing things and plenty of disputes/debates, but I cannot handle him any longer. I really needed to explain this. Please end it for me, I don't even feel like contributing anymore, as he will be close behind me. Thank you. TheAE talk/sign 20:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This issue looks better suited to dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

So ... Hrafn is trying to maintain the encyclopedia, got it. An option to consider would be to gradually build an article in your userspace (for instance, at User:American Eagle/article in progress), then move it to articlespace once it is well-sourced and relatively mature. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not just that he proposes deletion of articles I have written. He follows and stalks every edit I make, of which I don't do in userspace. TheAE talk/sign 20:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

And for the record, most of the articles I write I do in userspace first. And I have added thousands of RS to articles. TheAE talk/sign 20:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for misinterpreting the problem, I did not intend to impugn your editorial experience or rectitude. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh on, that's completely fine. :) Right now, I could care less about myself, I want this over. TheAE talk/sign 21:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

<undent> American Eagle, you can end your problems very quickly. Just follow WP:V and base your articles on reliable third party sources, instead of using primary selfpublished or questionable sources to build large articles on subjects that, judging by the few third party references you seem to have added, barely mention the subject of your articles. Of course if articles you've contributed show no evidence of notability, you'll either have to find good sources establishing their notability or accept that they can't be hosted here until you provide such verification. Keep a text copy of them, relax, and find good sources so that your work is well established. . dave souza, talk 21:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

And looking back, you've used your sandbox in the past to build articles – Sherwood Baptist Church, for example has at least a couple of mainstream news reports for verification. You'll find it helps greatly if you simply get good sources together before moving articles into mainspace. . dave souza, talk 22:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about Verifiability, I know all that. Most of what I am concerned about isn't related to articles I write, but random articles (mostly Christianity-related) that I edit, and he stalks me from behind. I cannot edit like this, and it discourages everything Wikipedia stands for, stalking. I'm not talking about Verifiability, but stalking. TheAE talk/sign 23:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have been checking User:American Eagle's contributions. That user had reverted a redirect that I had put in place as a result of the consensus of a recent AfD, and then made the redirect point to a non-existent section, rendering keeping a watch legitimate. As I was checking anyway, and as AE appeared to be a regular on a number of articles lacking WP:V & WP:NOTE, I checked out a few articles on his contributions history. The Huckabee Report (which he had recently created) was sourced only to that program's own website, so I contemplated tagging it. However I suspected that Huckabee's name would make some editors consider it to be notable (along a flimsy line of reasoning that anything a former presidential candidate would do would be notable) and that a primarysources-tag without a notability-tag to back it up was unlikely to force improvements. I thereafter Articleissued Paws & Tales and Down Gilead Lane (and also prodded the former, as it seemed to be particularly insubstantial) also from his contributions list (I also noticed that AllNight with Jason Smith was likewise unverifiable). At about the same time, I also tagged articles in Category:Trinity Broadcasting Network shows & Category:American religious radio programs that demonstrated similar problems but (as far as I know) were unedited by AE. This area of religious broadcasting suffers from a 'can't see the wood for the trees' syndrome -- an enormous amount of effort is spent creating unsourced (or solely primary-sourced) articles on individual programs of (at best) questionable notability, while neglecting to improve and expand articles that might provide a useful overview (e.g. Religious broadcasting).

I would further note that AE has a habit of removing legitimate templates (as you can see at the bottom of the dif, this article had only a single citation at the time -- to the show's official website), and here (whereas the AfD close explicitly explicitely stated "Disagreement over notability and whether sources are sufficient to establish notability" as part of a non-consensus keep). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 01:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn, following users across multiple contributions is not a good thing and can be a violation of WP:HARASS. You have a habit of doing this and I have talked to you about it before. For the record, everyone on Wikipedia is replaceable, so don't feel as if you have to follow users that you feel are problematic and correct them. Someone else can be perfectly able to correct the other pages. This will help keep you out of such situations that would shine poorly upon you. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I would add that you appear to be in a revert war with User:Christian Skeptic across a few threads and that this looks bad. You should probably stop these actions and instead take it to the appropriate forums and the rest. You have justified your reverting with claims of sources not being reliable, etc, but this is better if there was a ruling at the RS noticeboard and someone else changed the link. One or two reverts is excusable, but it currently looks like there is more of a conflict over philosophy than an attempt to work with others towards consensus. Plus resort to words, compromise, and understanding instead of reverting people across many pages. If they are here to troll, vandalize, destroy articles, etc, take it to an appropriate forum. You probably shouldn't act unilaterally in this situation. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima:

1. I never claimed that I wasn't replacable, so am curious why you raise this issue. I'm sure it was not meant as a threat, but see no particular relevancy.
2. As to AE, I would question whether tagging only two articles (in neither of which cases the underlying legitimacy of the tags appears to be in question), amounts to even a question of WP:HARASS.
3. As to the Christian Skeptic matter, I would point out that I am an established editor on the articles involved (and became aware of CS's edits through my watchlist), and that the only edit that involved a second revert was for a reference to trueorigin.org, a blatantly unreliable source which I challenged CS (on article talk) to take to WP:RS/N if he thought it should be taken seriously. I cannot consider dragging these matters into this thread to be in keeping with WP:AGF.
   • On the matter of WP:AGF I would suggest that editors consider this inaccurate and snarky comment from Ottava Rima. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
   • Further on Christian Skeptic, I would suggest that observers take a look at that editor's recent activities on Uniformitarianism (science) (also on my watchlist), before ascribing my recent conflicts with that author to wikistalking on my part. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I was merely giving some advice on the situation that, if followed, would help protect you from any problems. Now, if you want to consider my comment "inaccurate" or "snarky", feel free. I was merely giving the project a notice that you did not give. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima: I would take your advice far more seriously if it were not for the fact that it has little factual basis (and in the case of Christian Skeptic, no basis whatsoever). Yes, I did not notify these merges on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject intelligent design -- but then, nor has anybody else notified merges there in the entire history of that page -- so my omission is hardly surprising. What is surprising is your sudden interest in my benign activity, in a project that I (unlike yourself) am a long-standing member of. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You cannot justify shortcomings by pointing out the shortcomings of others. "They are doing it too" is not a defense. You are a mature individual who has been here for a while. Take some responsibility for yourself, watch what you say, don't feel the need to constantly chase after others, and stop with the over aggressive responses. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, it is a "shortcoming" is it? I had thought it was a convention. There is, it seems, a rule that states that all mergers must be notified on wikiproject talk, which we have a been flagrantly violating. It's just as well you pointed that out, otherwise we might have been under the impression that we should run the wikiproject as we find best suits our needs. Your continued efforts to cast my actions in the worst possible light are so noted. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I am confused as to your narrowing of my response as if it dealt only with something completely off topic and not about the point that I made in response to your actions in regards to what this thread is about. This, combined with your constant claims that I am some how shining you in the worse light, even though I have provided you solid advice with you constantly misinterpreting is a reason why you find few defenders. You are here because you have a problem dealing with others. Your actions right now only reflect that the original complaint has merit. As I told you before, you need to stop with the overly aggressive responses. They will end up in a block, and if you continue to keep it up after the block, then it will probably result in measures that will prevent you from acting in a manner that is against what this community expects in its members. If you want to attack me for helping you, fine, you can attack whoever you want. However, there is only one result waiting at the end of that path and I don't think that you would enjoy it. So relax a bit and stop treating everyone as if they are your enemy. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Replies to diffs given by Hrafn:

[123] One user in the AfD had said 'weak keep' for the video series (among some Strong Keeps). I, however, compromised and merged the content. And the only reason it redirected to the wrong section was because I changed it after I redirected it. What you said was entirely untrue.

2 The article clearly states notability, and users in the AfD (subpages) considered it notable. Is now has sources, so it is pointless to debate that, it is a matter of opinion (it was, at the time, verifiable, but just needed sources added, which has happened since).

3 Primarysources and self-published are virtually the same template, but one is wider in context, so there wasn't really a point in including both, and having primarysources tag at the top, which includes the entire article, and then in every section is meaningless. There is no reason in adding these, except that one wants the article to look bad.

Not one of your statements are correct. Ottava Rima's points are valid, and ones I did not know. Regardless, please stop stalking, following, tracking and (in a sense) continuing to harass me, Hrafn. TheAE talk/sign 03:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

AE: given that you have taken issue with my factual accuracy, let me point out a few facts. (i) Notability-tagging an article relates to the establishment of notability (the mere assertion of it, which you are demonstrating, has a separate tag -- the importance tag). (ii) You changed the section-name approximately one minute before you redirected to section, so it would be reasonable to expect you to redirect to the new section name. (iii) The AfD had 6 !votes for redirect (either via support for Deor's rec or directly) and only four (including one weak) for keep on that article. (iv) I did not place the primarysource section templates, User:Rtphokie did ([124][125]) -- a fact that I've already pointed out to you, so I can see no good reason for you to raise it again here. I would strongly suggest that you raise your own accuracy level before throwing stones on the subject. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I may be wrong on the timing of my section redirect. But either way, it was a simple mistake I did not do on purpose (and there is absolutely no reason for me to intentionally make that error). The rest are all minor things, mistakes or typos, etc., and aren't related to this discussion, and aren't even worth our time. I shall once again repeat, and if you follow through on it, I will be willing to end this discussion forever, Please stop stalking, following, tracking and (in a sense) continuing to harass me, Hrafn. I do not want to have you stalking me on every edit I make, and I'm sure you have better things to do (I'd hope so). I am here to build this encyclopedia, and you are keeping me from my desire to do so. Please stop. Respectfully, TheAE talk/sign 05:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

AE: if they are "all minor things", then why did you raise them here? It was you who made an issue of them. I continue to assert that tagging two articles does not amount to wikistalking. Given that Ottava Rima appears to be subjecting my own edits to scrutiny that goes well beyond WP:AGF, I would suggest some scrutiny to the articles American Eagle is involved with. I have noticed a correlation between such hair-trigger aversion to peer review and problematic articles. I have no intention of further inflaming this situation, but do not intend to admit culpability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

<ud> TheAE, since raising this here and getting sound advice, instead of putting some attention into meeting the standards required by policies you've continued to present unjustified complaints here. You've made a big issue out of "Within hours of doing some work to Paws & Tales and Down Gilead Lane (which I am planning on working on), he followed me to the article, proposed one for deletion and added {{articleissues}} tags to the other." – both articles still have issues, and though Hrafn has not reinstated the Prod tag "It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern: Unsourced WP:OR. No indication of any notability", you've still done nothing to provide a source, even the self-published sources that form the sole basis for the other article and for Paws and Tales (television). This strongly suggests non-notable fancruft, the onus is on those wanting to keep the articles to find verification of notability. Please treat this as a friendly reminder, and improve the articles accordingly. . dave souza, talk 10:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Also, TheAE, have you read WP:Hound? dougweller (talk) 10:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

From what I can see here, I suspect Hrafn may well be right on policy, but I think AE's complaint is most likely a result of posts like this. Whoever is wrong, I'm not seeing how AE acted in bad faith. Probably focusing more on the content here and less on the contributor would solve quite a bit. Mackan79 (talk) 10:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The above summary is pretty close to my own view on this. (AE, he was meaning the other editor should not focus on you, btw.) Orderinchaos 05:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn: By "all minor things," I was speaking of the things you accused me of (bad faith in removing maintenance templates), not your wikistalking me around. When you say, "I would suggest some scrutiny to the articles American Eagle is involved with," I don't get what good you are trying to reach with it. I didn't write Paws & Tales, Down Gilead Lane, AllNight with Jason Smith, Adventures in Odyssey, or most other pages I have worked on. I just find them at random (and often know about the subject), and decide to work on it. Also, I don't really care if you "do not intend to admit culpability," I just want you to stop. You don't have to apologize or admit you did anything wrong, I just don't want to be stalked anylonger.

dave souza: I haven't been able to go online very well. Our computer has had a virus that we have spent days and days working to get rid of. I have also been getting ready for our ski trip this week.

dougweller: Yes, I have.

Mackan79: Wikistalking isn't about content, it's about the contributor. As long as Hrafn stops stalking me everywhere I go, I will end this. I just want to be able to edit without someone warring with me, it takes away the point of editing. And yes, I didn't do anything in bad faith. TheAE talk/sign 22:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

TheAE, it seems to me that everyone here's working with the same aim of improving Wikipedia, and looking over the articles others have been editing is a normal part of that process. "Wikistalking" has been redefined as WP:WIKIHOUNDing to show that it's not all that heinous, and is problematic when used to attack another editor rather than trying to improve Wikipedia, which I'm sure is Hrafn's aim. There's a significant problem of non-notable fancruft, and in trying to improve such articles without being sure that they meet WP:V for third-party sources, you've put in effort which may unfortunately have been wasted if they're really not notable. Agree that you didn't start these articles, and indeed there are equally questionable articles such as Adventures in Booga Booga Land and The Adventures of Marty the Monkey and Gerard the Giraffe which you've not touched. Please accept that Hrafn is doing useful work in trying to ensure that policies are met, and of course my advice to Hrafn is to accept that AE is working in good faith, albeit with an imperfect understanding of notability issues. Sorry to hear about the virus problems, grrr envy about the skiing outing, trust you'll have a good time and be refreshed by the trip. Have a good holiday! (or vacation, if that's your preferred term) . . dave souza, talk 10:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Where do we get this boneheaded idea that we can't watch over the contributions of other editors? I watch over contributions of editors I like and editors whose edits may cause concern. When I revert an NPOV violation on a medical article from either an anonymous or registered editor, I immediately look at their contributions to determine if there's a pattern (with anonymous ones, it usually is), or if something else is going on. What AE is doing, I see all the time. An editor writes a whole bunch of articles (reasons unknown to me sometimes)--some of them need to be deleted, not out of revenge to the editor, but to keep this place neat and clean. I thinking hounding or harassment is chasing someone across articles to cause disruption or revenge. AE might think he's being attacked, but he ought to get over that feeling immediately. This complaints about this non-issue comes across as, well, whining. Now I'm going to watch over your contributions, and I will make requests for deletion whenever I want. So, I expect to see you complain about me here, and just so you know, as opposed to Hfran, I won't care what you say. AE, I don't mean to be mean, but you really should be finding another method of working with other editors. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wont care what someone says? Sigh. You know that is severe fodder for someone to justify removing any need to AGF and will lead to conflict, right? And you ask for him to find another method of working with others when you stated that you wont be working with others (i.e. not listening). I hope you reconsider your choice of words. We should make ourselves out as exemplars to give new people a model to live up to. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)