Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive508

Tales23 off block, right back in with weird behavior

Not exactly sure what's going on here, but I thought I'd bring it here for admin attention. Tales23 (talk · contribs) is fresh off of a block for edit warring. His talk page was locked because while he was blocked, he spent most of the time compiling cases and arguments against editors who had disagreed with him. Since his return, he's gone back to his old pages and old edits. He's also posted four separate reports at the edit warring board among two editors who've had contact with him before here [1] [2][3] [4] including one against Rick Norwood, who had only edited the article once in the previous 48 hours.

I tried to ask on the edit war page if he actually intended to report an editor who wasn't edit warring, and his responses were a bit confusing to say the least. It seems like an edit warrior returning to file pointy claims against his opponents to me, but I figured an admin would be better able to sort it out. He doesn't seem to get it, as we say. Thanks in advance for your help. Dayewalker (talk) 08:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello There, to understand the subject which i tried to explain to Daywalker(This is my first contact to Daywalker, i dindt spoke with him before.) here read my explanation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Rick_Norwood_reported_by_Tales23_.28Result:_.29 --Tales23 (talk) 08:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That link doesn't work, so I will point you toward WP:Consensus instead. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: The link now should be this. — neuro^(talk) 14:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

User:78.34.145.54; possible sockpuppet

Resolved

 – Seems ok so far. — neuro^(talk) 14:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to report User:78.34.145.54 who I believe is a sockpuppet of a user who has been banned indefinitely. My assertion is based on a note the user left on his talk page which states "Thanks, but I'm obviously not new to Wikipedia, what with making an edit like this one. Just (currently peacefully) evading an indef block here. Anyway, cheers." Diff for quote: [5]. Terrakyte (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, though kind of a sticking point- an indef block is technically different from a ban, though in practice it frequently isn't. While the IP's admitted to block evasion, it isn't doing anything particularly bad. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I would leave this IP alone and watch them closely. They aren't doing anything wrong as of right now. When they start. Hit em with a block. Rgoodermote  15:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit war going on, and on

Resolved

 – Wrong venue. — neuro^(talk) 14:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a case at WP:EW, but it's been up for over an hour without anyone going over it and these guys don't appear to be slowing down. RafaelRGarcia (talk · contribs) and Simon Dodd (talk · contribs) are arguing over the Clarence Thomas article. Both appear to be somewhere near 7RR by now on the article. Since this is clearly over the line, I thought I should bring it here to slow down the edit war, at least. Dayewalker (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you meant to say that the case is at WP:ANEW. Deor (talk) 05:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the correction. What the Hell is WP:EW? Was I accidentally sending people to Wikipedia:Entertainment Weekly? Sorry about that. Dayewalker (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No, WP:EW is a redir to the edit-war diagnosis page. At least it isn't a lupus erythmatosus diagnosis page. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 10:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I protected the page and am reviewing the WP:ANEW request -- Samir 06:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Samir, I appreciate your acting, in effect, on my request to protect the page,[6] but the upshot is that the page has been locked in the state preferred by the other party to the dispute.Simon Dodd (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Dayewalker, with respect, I don't think that I've violated 3rr, let alone 7rr. I was under the impression that the difference between a change and a revert was that the text be new: for example, several of RafaelRGarcia (talk · contribs)'s reverts returned the text to the same thing he had had before I amended it, and in each of the changes I made, I proposed different wording from that which he or I had previously used.Simon Dodd (talk) 06:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Dodd has repeatedly broken the letter and the spirit of 3RR, as anyone can easily see.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 06:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I proposed different wording; you insisted on returning it to your preferred wording. I proposed another different wording; you insisted on returning it again to your preferred wording. This is the difference between reverting and editing; I had not thought it so unclear. A review of the edit history from this evening will make very clear that you have demonstrated inflexibility, bad faith, ownership, and have casually violated 3rr.Simon Dodd (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Enough please. Report is on WP:ANEW -- Samir 06:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

New user violating BLP through sock...not sure what to do about it

Resolved

 – Blocked IP, sorted at least for now. — neuro^(talk) 14:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Supasexy55 (talk · contribs) has been violating BLP at JC Chasez by repeatedly inserting information about this individual "coming out" and giving a ref that says nothing about that; I warned the user several times, after which the user started editing from 128.12.119.98, making the same kinds of edits. I'm sure a block is warranted by now, but I figured this is too complicated to bring up at AIV. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 09:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked the IP and left the account a note, which I imagine takes care of things for now, pending any further developments. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Threat by User:DePiep

User:DePiep just threatened me by saying, "I wish you a white phosfor [sic."] He/she was referring to white phosphorus. --GHcool (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Notified Depeip. Isn't that a component of the rockets used in the conflict? ThuranX (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems more like a joke than a threat to me, but what do I know.--[[User:|Atlan]] (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Atlan, you're right, and you know enough. GHcool phantasises a tshread, and his friend ThuranX raises the dust. Both waive the Israel flag. Jew-1 helps jew-2 to make a row, and/or vice versa. Interestingly, at this same time GHcool is losing the dabate on renaming the article Israeli-Palestinian conflict (into Israel-..., the state. The state that drops WP). Changing his arguments and subject every line. I pointed this out to him. Of course he feels threatened. He is. In fact, he is already been hit. Doesn't want to know. Bad for Wikipedia. -User:DePiep 20:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Untruthful behaviour by User:GHcool and his friend User:ThuranX. Smearing my name. User:DePiep 20:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Refactor and redact that. I only know of either of you two by YOUR actions as reported here by HIM. You can add another layer of tinfoil, but there's no conspiracy here. If you want to continue the personal attacks and antisemitism, there are other places for it. ThuranX (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Still awaiting refactoring. ThuranX (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

After looking at the thread at Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this is part of a heated dispute over a fairly minor point -- whether to call the article "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" or "Israel-Palestinian conflict". (Somewhere in Wikipedia someone must have observed that as the matter of a dispute in Wikipedia approaches lameness, so the disputants are inversely passionate over the matter.) Both sides need to calm down & work harder to find a consensus than to give the article the "right" name: this is why we have redirects. And if wishing people "white phosfor" is your idea of humor, DePiep, I suggest you save your humor for other discussions. -- llywrch (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

RE ThuranX: Both you and GHCool have the Israel flag in your User-page. Why disallow me calling you jews?

RE Llywrch: I did not call it humour. Atlan did.

RE Llywrch: why a fairly minor point? I truly think and write it is to be named different. Why not discuss it (be it minor or major)?

RE Llywrch: Why cool down? Why not read that GHcool is changing topic, every line he/she writes?

RE: ThuranX: What do you mean by refacor and redact?

RE: ThuranX: I am ON topic. Why make it personal? What is personal? Why follow GHCool?

RE: ThuranX: fuck off introducing antismuumitsm.

RE: GHCool: where are you? Israel is throwing white fosfor.

--DePiep (talk)

Forum-type chat on article talk pages.

In accordance with point 4 of WP:FORUM and {{notaforum}}, I twice removed clearly inappropriate discussion Talk:US Airways Flight 1549. Was I right to do so? BillCJ (talk · contribs) has twice reverted me, as discussed. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It is my understanding that non-admins can only remove outright vandalism, trolling, and such from article talk pages, or extreme cases of forum talk. The items that were removed were relevant to the ariticle, including a question about where the plane would be taken and if it would go back in service, and some examples of when accident planes were restored to service. Also, the animal righters have been making noise in some news outlets about the animals being left in the plane, so that is legitimate too, if nothing else to determine whetther it should be covered in the aritcle or not. Yes, they do stray off-topic a bit, but these were all removed whole, not that any peace-meal removal should have taken place either. The no-forum tag is there to keep the fan-people from going too far astray, which was not the case here. My apologies for being snippy on my talk page. - BillCJ (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Admins' rights and responsibilities are no different to other editors in this (and many other) regard. None of the edits I removed discussed changes to the article. Apologies accepted. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the sections in question were not related to improving the article. They were mostly speculation and opinion. Andy's removals were appropriate - being current headline news, the article and the talk page are receiving a lot of attention right now, and I think he exercised great restraint in that many more comments could be removed for the same reasons, although those two sections were the worst offenders. There's no special editing privileges that only admins have, except editing fully protected pages, and this one is not protected in that way. – jaksmata 21:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The two discussions deleted and reverted do have some relevance to article and apart from a few daft comments probably not bad enough to be deleted, probably more appropriate just to archive with Template:Discussion top and Discussion bottom. MilborneOne (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that is type speculation is relevant. If you find a WP:RS for what you are thinking add the thought and cite to the article. No need to use the talk page as a forum. 16x9 (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

←This partisan comment is also relevant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, if someone asks a question about a topic (rather than the article) on the talk page, it's more polite to move it to the Reference desk and leave a link. Frequently I see people answer questions and follow up with something to the effect of "but I answered just this once, please use the reference desk in the future." I also sometimes leave OR on the talk page for a while just in case it turns out some other editor is familiar with it and it's not OR after all. Dcoetzee 01:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, the initial questions 'Were pets lost in the hold?' and 'How will the plane be recovered?' are legitimate questions, prodding editors to review news sources for information. The responses, however, seem mostly of the forumish variety, except for a few about cranes and costs. I think that everything after the initial pet question could've been cut, replaced with a reminder that this is not a forum, and you haven't seen any news mention, but if someone finds it, please add it. With the other, you could have steered the conversation back on track by asking if anyone had found sources that any of the mentioned methods would be used. I think you went too far, but I could AGF the problem, and hope both sides do. ThuranX (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

IPs and admins have precisely the same rights as non-admin editors to remove offtopic talk page discussions. It is just not usually worth the arguing that always happens when discussions are removed (there will almost always be someone complaining about censorship) unless the offtopic discussions make it difficult to use the talk page for its intended purpose of discussing article improvement. In the case at hand, this doesn't seem to be a fight worth fighting. Kusma (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Needless drama. One question should be directed to the ref desk, and one is just plain silly and can be archived manually. Neither helps develop the article, so neither has any need to be on the current talk page at all. Adding the "not a forum" tag is clearly perfectly reasonable, it can be added to any talk page uncontroversially as it is descriptive of the consensus regarding talk pages and is not specific to any one page. There is, as noted above, no restriction on who may and may not handle such matters, though in general it's best for uninvolved parties to do it. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• When in doubt, don't remove the discussion - as people have said above, just steer it in the right direction, or archive it after a few days if it's dead. No harm done; can't run out of paper on discussion pages... 140.247.14.141 (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Forum-type chat on article talk pages.

In accordance with point 4 of WP:FORUM and {{notaforum}}, I twice removed clearly inappropriate discussion Talk:US Airways Flight 1549. Was I right to do so? BillCJ (talk · contribs) has twice reverted me, as discussed. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It is my understanding that non-admins can only remove outright vandalism, trolling, and such from article talk pages, or extreme cases of forum talk. The items that were removed were relevant to the ariticle, including a question about where the plane would be taken and if it would go back in service, and some examples of when accident planes were restored to service. Also, the animal righters have been making noise in some news outlets about the animals being left in the plane, so that is legitimate too, if nothing else to determine whetther it should be covered in the aritcle or not. Yes, they do stray off-topic a bit, but these were all removed whole, not that any peace-meal removal should have taken place either. The no-forum tag is there to keep the fan-people from going too far astray, which was not the case here. My apologies for being snippy on my talk page. - BillCJ (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Admins' rights and responsibilities are no different to other editors in this (and many other) regard. None of the edits I removed discussed changes to the article. Apologies accepted. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the sections in question were not related to improving the article. They were mostly speculation and opinion. Andy's removals were appropriate - being current headline news, the article and the talk page are receiving a lot of attention right now, and I think he exercised great restraint in that many more comments could be removed for the same reasons, although those two sections were the worst offenders. There's no special editing privileges that only admins have, except editing fully protected pages, and this one is not protected in that way. – jaksmata 21:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The two discussions deleted and reverted do have some relevance to article and apart from a few daft comments probably not bad enough to be deleted, probably more appropriate just to archive with Template:Discussion top and Discussion bottom. MilborneOne (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that is type speculation is relevant. If you find a WP:RS for what you are thinking add the thought and cite to the article. No need to use the talk page as a forum. 16x9 (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

←This partisan comment is also relevant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, if someone asks a question about a topic (rather than the article) on the talk page, it's more polite to move it to the Reference desk and leave a link. Frequently I see people answer questions and follow up with something to the effect of "but I answered just this once, please use the reference desk in the future." I also sometimes leave OR on the talk page for a while just in case it turns out some other editor is familiar with it and it's not OR after all. Dcoetzee 01:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, the initial questions 'Were pets lost in the hold?' and 'How will the plane be recovered?' are legitimate questions, prodding editors to review news sources for information. The responses, however, seem mostly of the forumish variety, except for a few about cranes and costs. I think that everything after the initial pet question could've been cut, replaced with a reminder that this is not a forum, and you haven't seen any news mention, but if someone finds it, please add it. With the other, you could have steered the conversation back on track by asking if anyone had found sources that any of the mentioned methods would be used. I think you went too far, but I could AGF the problem, and hope both sides do. ThuranX (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

IPs and admins have precisely the same rights as non-admin editors to remove offtopic talk page discussions. It is just not usually worth the arguing that always happens when discussions are removed (there will almost always be someone complaining about censorship) unless the offtopic discussions make it difficult to use the talk page for its intended purpose of discussing article improvement. In the case at hand, this doesn't seem to be a fight worth fighting. Kusma (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Needless drama. One question should be directed to the ref desk, and one is just plain silly and can be archived manually. Neither helps develop the article, so neither has any need to be on the current talk page at all. Adding the "not a forum" tag is clearly perfectly reasonable, it can be added to any talk page uncontroversially as it is descriptive of the consensus regarding talk pages and is not specific to any one page. There is, as noted above, no restriction on who may and may not handle such matters, though in general it's best for uninvolved parties to do it. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• When in doubt, don't remove the discussion - as people have said above, just steer it in the right direction, or archive it after a few days if it's dead. No harm done; can't run out of paper on discussion pages... 140.247.14.141 (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Eva Peron, again

The issue of reference to the musical Evita in the lede of Eva Peron, which has already been to ANI once, and which involves breaches of WP:NPA, WP:AGF and especially WP:OWN, is still not resolved. I have attempted to resolve the dispute on the talk page, but the other editor involved, Andrew Parodi (talk · contribs) now apparently editing as an anon (140.211.64.148 (talk · contribs), 140.211.112.230 (talk · contribs)), keeps reverting me, without using the talk page - indeed, without even using edit sumamries (though that's probably an improvement over his use of "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwned" as the sum total of a comment there). Further dispute resolution attempts therefore seem futile. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should stop deleting referenced information that seems perfectly suited to be in the lede. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 21:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you might read the talk page discussion? I've explained why I think that text should be removed; invited discussion; and waited for days at a time for a response. The other editor simply reverts, almost immediately, with no comments. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I've read your argument, and do not find it compelling, but I agree that the IP editor should discuss it. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 21:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

← The disputed section has been reverted, twice, with an edit summary apparently in Spanish. The second revert came after the reverting editor was asked in an edit summary to refer to the talk page, where they have as yet made no comment. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the person who reverted twice without discussion, and will do so to anyone else who reverts without discussion. I've had enough. --barneca (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

strange IP edits

Please see the recent changes to User_talk:24.180.23.135, and note the early deleted revs. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I politely asked what he was doing, and was quickly reverted. Seems like it will eventually be pointy. Dayewalker (talk) 04:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Funky. I've notified the IP of this discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

And the IP has removed the notice. But that's its only edit in about 10 hours. Awfully weird behavior. I'm not entirely sure what the IP's user talk is supposed to be- it looks kinda like WP:RFPP but I don't think any of those protections ever took place. And I'm not sure what Dungcamed, an indeffed user, has to do with all this, but a link to his talkpage is on every line. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

He's still at it. Not sure what he's doing, but he's not building an encyclopedia. Dayewalker (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

User page wandered into mainspace

Resolved

 – Pages moved back. — neuro^(talk) 14:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Eugene Krabs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Looking at Eugene Krabs contributions, it is apparent that he has stranded his userpage in mainspace, and us lowly non-admin types can't fix it for him. Seems to be a newbie playing with the move tools.—Kww(talk) 05:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like all his inappropriate moves have been reverted. An admin has move-protected his User talk. I've notified him of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 06:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I checked that all his moves were undone and cleaned up (deleted) redirects left in mainspace. I figure move protection of his user pages is pretty benign as only 'crats can officially do renames. I have no problems with removing the move protection if others think it inappropriate. --NrDg 06:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

When I saw this discussion I thought it referred to Limbu182, which is a user page that was moved into article namespace.[7] This seems a strange coincidence. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

That page needs to be moved back to User talk:Bigen182 and probably histmerged with what's currently there, since said user has gotten messages since the move out to mainspace. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong has handled the Bigben situation and move-protected the user talk page. Is there much else we need to do here? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

First off, I don't appreciate being called a vandal by NrDg. How can someone vandalize their own page!?
Second, what's so bad about wanting to move your page to a cool name (User:Mr. Krabs' page of money, User talk: Mr. Krabs' talk of money)? I don't see anything wrong with that. The full name moves I did I understand what the wrong part was, but with me wanting to move my user page over to a cool name, I am not seeing the wrong part.
- Thanks,
Eugene Krabs (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If you wanted them to be a "cool name" then you should have created a "cool userid". Moving your personal userpage into article space turns it into an actual article - and since it isn't an article, it could be considered as vandalism. Besides, Wikipedia isn't about being cool, it's about creating an Encyclopedia. Around here, coolness is earned. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Now I see the wrong part. Thanks for clearing it up. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Since creating his account on 30 December, this editor has made 29 moves. In spite of his conciliatory comment just above, he has since made some further dubious moves. I've left him a final warning, though he's removed it from his Talk page. If he undertakes any more moves without consultation he should probably receive a block. EdJohnston (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Underfist: Halloween Bash

An IP keeps on adding this which looks like vandalism or the editor's point of view. User:J'onn J'onzz (most likely the same person as the IP) reverted one my reverts and called it vandalism. Schuym1 (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

He may have been attempting to revert what you reverted, but reverted you instead. HalfShadow 01:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

IP blocked for edit warring. If you're curious about J'onn J'onzz's motivations, you could ask him, I suppose. --barneca (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Cerejota

Discuss at the talk page, other wise, you are a vandal. :D--Cerejota (talk) 08:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

All I'm asking is a warning to this user who sent me this kind message minutes after being asked to read WP:VAN and WP:NPA.
NOTE: I answered him on the talk page of the article 20 minutes before he sent the above message. Squash Racket (talk) 08:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Warn him if you want and then report him to WP:AIV. If you are being ridiculous, you could get blocked though. I don't see what's the issue, since I am not in the mood to try to guess the underlying fight at 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict or wherever. I'm guessing it's over his removal of your subheading which doesn't seem like an issue to me (if you are responding to his section, why create a new section?). How about you actually discuss it at the talk page? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I was notified by Ricky here, not by Squash Racket: extremely bad form to forum fish without informing people. The history of my talk, Squash Racket talk and the article is all there. *yawn*--Cerejota (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

While I was here, Squash left me another gift: [8]. Ricky (or someone), can you block him for 24 to calm down? Its stalky. Thanks.--Cerejota (talk) 09:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

He is revert warring while editing my comment which is also NOT allowed here as far as I know.

I guess "forum fishing" means posting on many forums. where else did I report you? False accusation?

He called me a "vandal" with zero reason (per WP:VAN) and added a smilie right after being warned. If that's a non-issue, forget it. Squash Racket (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As ricky said, you should have replied in the existing thread - refracting is not vandalism as anyone will tell you. Nor is doing a bunch of consecutive ocnsensus edits for MoS 3RR or edit warring. Nor is consolidating tags reversion. Forum shopping means stead of talking it out with me or on the talk page, you come here to try and get me banned. And the consensus is that edits such as yours are vandalism. --Cerejota (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If we have a small debate over the proper tag, that's fine. I did answer you on the talk page. The problem arised when you called me a vandal and added a smilie on my talk (please don't tell me that is totally acceptable on Wikipedia).
"get me banned" - I asked for a warning here, please read my comment and stop misrepresenting it. You added a section title on the talk page (with my name highlighted) that made it seem like I changed a tag on the article without discussion. No. Fact is, someone else changed the tag that originally I inserted. Squash Racket (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Squash, I'm going to tell you right now. Drop it and go discuss the real issue at the talk page. I don't care about this distraction and if you keep bringing it up, I'm going to block you. Cerejota, don't call people vandals, until they are actually vandalizing. You should have stopped refactoring after he reverted it. One time, fine. He reverts because he disagrees, fine. Both of you, leave it alone. Leave it for someone else if they think it should be refactored. Two minor issues and everyone just keep escalating for the fun of WP:DRAMA, it seems. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Its on my watch list since leik 2005. ;) Yeah I agree I should have dropped the refract and let someone else do it. But I was channeling consensus from the talk page when I called him a vandal (there was another user doing the same tag thing). Ok, I go to my room now... :D--Cerejota (talk) 09:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The other user removed it, because "who's to say what is a dispute" and didn't add anything instead.

I drop the issue, the tag may remain, just stop the personal attacks and the arrogant edit summaries despite the warning on your talk page. That's all I was asking here. Squash Racket (talk) 10:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Then say so, in the talk page. No need to "escalate". --Cerejota (talk) 10:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I DID say so in your talk page, I received an attack despite that a few minutes later. Squash Racket (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You both need a block of 24 hours to calm down — Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Wiikiiwriter, thank you for your very first edit on Wikipedia. Squash Racket (talk) 10:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring and meatpuppetry on g-force

Can I get some help with HDP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and with Wolfkeeper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There has been abundant discussion on Talk:G-force where the facts of the matter have been overwhelming proven regarding two points of fact (regarding how a unit symbol is written in the real world, and regarding how gravity is an acceleration that accelerometers respond to). Other editors have weighted in to point this out. Yet Wolfkeeper continues to ignore and edit against consensus and slap {fact} tags on points that have been clearly proven. He is in violation of WP:POINT. The end result is to have assertions of fact that simply don’t match the real world nor fundamental physics.

Further, the other editor,HDP, only recently jumped in with the very same edits and has made only a minimal, facade of an effort to discuss issues on the talk page. The end result appears to be a concerted effort to employ a meatpuppet in order to circumvent 3RR violations.

Further, Wolfkeeper has long been *citing* a Canadian government manual of style for justifying what he is doing. When another editor pointed out (by using Google Book) that the manual of style seems to say no such thing, Wolfkeeper conveniently ignores this inconvenient truth. We’ve repeatedly asked that he cite just where in that manual it supposedly says what he says is there, but he refuses to do so. Based on our searches in the Google Book view, and our utter inability to find anything in the book that says what Wolfkeeper asserts it allegedly says, we can only conclude that the citation is an error or a fabrication. But his refusal to address the subject leads us to conclude that he perceives no need whatsoever to demonstrate that citations actually say what he says they do. This citation is fundamental to his position since it would be the only leg he has to stand on since the evidence regarding the real-world practice is overwhelming.

There also appears to be a troubling pattern here with this editor. He has ignored this advise on his talk page regarding editwarring, and there is this recent complaint about editing against consensus without discussion on yet another article.

I ask that both editors be advised on these matters, as well pointing out that circumventing expected conduct via a meat puppet is also not allowed. Greg L (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• In fact you have only flimsy facts! Fact is that g in physics books for university grade prove that g should wrote italic (lowerchase) to avoid confusion. --HDP (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Greg_L's called me over to that article and has been attacking me, assuming bad faith, and ridiculing me more or less like this ever since, and he has been systematically removing citation flags. That's it really. Maybe he should try decaff or something, I don't know/care.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Neither of you seem to be addressing my points about POV-pushing without citations, and meatpuppetry to engage in tendentious editing. You seem to be trying to justify your violation of rules by citing fictitious references. So…

  Fine, let’s briefly talk facts. You will now note my references here (references 1, 2, and 3). They are indisputable and highly authoritative. I have cited the SI-using European Space Agency, the BIPM (the people behind the SI), NASA, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a world-wide manufacturer of accelerometers, a Australian distributor of accelerometers, and others. If you would like me to take an extra moment or two, I can also cite the world-wide, preeminent weekly periodical, Aviation Week & Space Technology, which has advertisements for missile systems and fighter planes and is directed to governments and industry leaders throughout the world. The practice of Av-Week too, is lowercase, roman g, as in “a 9 g turn.” How do I know this? I subscribe to it (really really—not like your “Canadian government manual of style” reference).

  Now, what does any of this have to do with tendentious editing and breaking rules of conduct here??? Just because you think you are right (but can’t prove your point with a single, authoritative, verifiable citation; particularly since the one you had cited all this time didn’t say what you alleged it to have said all these years), is no justification for breaking rules. As I noted above, you seem to be making this sort of behavior a standard practice on other articles lately and ticking off other editors—including the part where you bypass the requirement of explaining yourself on article talk pages. Greg L (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I consider your position to be actually untrue on all major points here, and I did in fact give a major reference to a well regarded textbook (Rocket Propulsion Elements by Sutton) and this has been verified by other users, and is still a valid reference that is contrary to your position. I also challenge, and I continue to deny that your ESA reference is valid in this context for technical reasons, but the other 2 you give are certainly valid. One reference to a Canadian style guide that was used in good faith over a period of time that was suggested by another user, when we were able to check it did not seem to support this particular usage as a reference, but this cannot really be considered truly 'fictitious', and its removal is certainly fair enough. I do find your abrasive, insulting, and intemperate disposition and incredible bad faith is to be deeply regretted in an editor of the wikipedia and to be, in every way, not conducive to a pleasant or productive atmosphere, and this ANI is part of this pattern of behaviour you exhibit.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I would also add this evidence of Wolfkeeper’s tendentious editing and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point: [9]. He now deleted an important reference he apparently found *inconvenient*. If admins really want to get into content issues to see what is underlying this, see ESA: GOCE, Basic Measurement Units, Gravity, g. The citation is absolutely clear and the European Space Agency is indisputably authoritative and is an SI-using entity. The citation speaks straight to the heart of the issue. Yet Wolfkeeper deleted the citation after earlier complaining about a lack of citations. This is inexcusable and makes improving articles an exasperating experience no one should have to tolerate. I request an immediate block for tendentious editing and disruption. Greg L (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but removal of challenged references is a normal part of the wikipedia, you simply reinserting it and claiming, ranting really, that you're right and everyone else is inherently wrong is not productive or useful either. There was another reference that also supported that fact, and was not challenged or removed, so it's unclear why you really care about this one particular reference to the degree you apparently do- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• I am proud to say that I agree with nothing you wrote there. It is utter and complete nonsense. Greg L (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

* I think you can mark this as resolved—at least with regard to Wolfkeeper. Although he wasn’t exactly *contrite*, and while inviting me to do something that isn’t generally considered to be physically possible, he indicated (∆ here) that he is “gone”, which I take to mean that he won’t be causing any more problems. Greg L (talk) 07:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out that comments about Wolfkeeper's behaviour have also been made by different users on a different subject at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Glider edit abuse and 3rr avoidance JMcC (talk) 11:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

IMO probably not, as that was raised by me to do with your behaviour Jmcc150.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Wolfkeeper, you are making a pest of yourself on Wikipedia and are exceedingly uncivil [10]. Please take a break for a week or two. Greg L (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

And calling him a pest is civil… how? Short version: knock it off, both of you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 03:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Is that the best advise you’re going to dish out? “Shake hands and stop bickering?” There are (or were) three posts in a row on Wolfkeeper’s talk page complaining about tenditious editing and refusal to get the point. There is no point to having rules of conduct if there is no remedy when someone chronically flouts those rules. I cited above that Wolfkeeper has been exceedingly uncivil (writing “fuck off” on my talk page if you’re not going to bother clicking on the link). Then, I write that he’s making a “pest of himself” and suggest he take a break and I’m criticized for that? This isn’t passing my *grin test here*. If you’re going to dish out advise, try reading the posts and understanding the issues. Greg L (talk) 09:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Constant reverting without debate

At Aspartame controversy editor Verbal doesn't tolerate critical statements, even though fully sourced and valid within Wikipedia's guidelines. Verbal reverts many times my edits immediately, and to avoid the 3-revert rule, as you can see on the history page within 2 minutes another person at 16:47, 13 January 2009, Tom Harrison came who otherwise is not an active editor of the article and reverted my edit, which I suspect Verbal had contacted. Verbal seldom participates in discussions on the Talk Page but is against anything being critical of aspartame. I suspect wikipedia:COI which Verbal hasn't responded to. When I recently removed a clearly false statement from a sourced study, Verbal reverted it immediately, claiming for extra time to investigate it. Next day I removed the false statement again, which was reverted immediately. Verbal doesn't engage in a discussion about it. Since the article is a valid controversy, it means there are at least two sides. Verbal tries to ridicule one side and promotes his side as the only valid one. Critical edits are constantly very much scrutinized, even though fully correct within Wikipedia's guidelines, while incorrect pro statements are not allowed by me to be removed. This scares off anyone who wants to join editing the article for a better balance, as you quickly grow tired of it. When I concluded that a majority of editors agreed on an edit and the rest is silent, that a consensus has been reached after waiting more than 20 days since the last edit in a particular discussion, Verbal immediately reverts such an edit, claiming that consensus suddenly hasn't been reached, which puts me back where I started and I have to start discussing with the other editors again. Can anyone do something about this? (Immortale (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC))

I was only able to follow the discussion on that talk page up to Dec 21st or so, and it seems Immortale is making a nuisance of himself, on the anti-Aspartame barricades. Verbal might be a more blazee editor and whatnot -- which I understand can be frustrating. But Immortale forgets to mention Scientizzle's active involvement on the talk page; Scientizzle is an administrator, and up to Dec 21st at least has been a very accommodating (if dismissive) discussion partner for Immortale. I will continue the investigation and follow up on this. --Gutza ^{T T+} 23:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, done reviewing: no administrative action is needed, and if any, it should probably be directed solely against Immortale.

Context: As hinted above, Immortale has indeed been pushing for an anti-aspartame POV throughout his involvement in that article. Moreover, he has been wikilawyering (the so-called consensus he's still pleading for above) and revisiting the same questionable topics over and over. The other editors have probably had enough of it and stopped responding to his repeated pounding, although they did seem pretty malleable at first -- all in all, the interactions are the natural results of human nature and I was unable to find proof of any COI, genuine malice or bad faith on either side.

Current state: Regarding the current revert war, there are two aspects to consider: who's edit warring, and who's right:

• Who's edit warring: both sides, but if anything, I highly suspect Immortale of sockpuppettry via User:78.70.36.35 and User:Eraserhead123 (single-purpose account). Given that I found no proof of bad faith on Immortale's part so far I will do him a favor and not ask a checkuser to look into that. However, that can be done at any time by anyone based on these findings.
• Who's right: I have to start by stating explicitly that "who's right" is an editorial matter and administrators such as myself have no place to make any definitive decision. However, since I have looked into the matter I want to include my findings (subjective as they may be) in this report. Having said that, I believe the current edit war is waged around an iffy topic and that neither side is clearly right. Personally I side with Immortale on that one, in that it's inappropriate for Wikipedia editors to volunteer conclusions not explicitly drawn by the authors of the study itself (disputed diff vs. presumably supporting study for that diff). I do want to emphasize again however that this is just one opinion as anybody else's, I am no expert on any related topic and my quality as an admin here is totally irrelevant.

Findings on the involved parties:

• User:Verbal does indeed seem to be a more cynical, less talkative contributor, although he did get involved in constructive discussions. Although his nature might aggravate Immortale on a personal level, there is nothing inherently wrong with his approach, he has certainly not violated any Wikipedia rule and the allegations of any presumed COI on his part are utterly nonsense as far as I was able to tell.
• User:Immortale obviously puts a lot of heart into the anti-aspartame position for some reason -- I was unable to determine whether that's a position he strongly held personally prior to getting involved into this debate on Wikipedia or whether this is a result of his interactions here, but it's obvious that he's currently genuinely convinced he is right, everybody else is wrong and so on. I strongly believe that is a good faith reaction on his part, whatever his reasons, and that even if he didn't come to ANI with clean hands he shouldn't be reprimanded -- I strongly hope this incident report was his last resort and that these findings will make him reconsider if not his position on the subject matter, then at least his position towards his fellow editors on that article. Failing that, administrative action is needed in order to protect Wikipedia.
• User:Scientizzle hasn't been nominated here explicitly, but since he's a Wikipedia administrator who has been constantly involved in that article's talk page, Immortale's lack of disposition to defer to his judgment might be considered as a tacit way of questioning his conduct, so I'll volunteer my findings on his conduct in this matter. In my opinion Scientizzle has made some tactical errors between December 4th-5th 2008, but overall his conduct has been way beyond reproach: he has tried to discuss all topical matters extensively, constructively and from a balanced POV with Immortale, and he has never even hinted at abusing his position as an administrator in editorial matters; he has explained his actions, has explained the policies and has interpreted them correctly. All in all, chapeau, Sir.

Given all of the above, I consider the matter resolved, and I think any persistence from Immortable is likely to blow up in his face. --Gutza ^{T T+} 01:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Immortale signs with a ( in front of his name. Didn't we have someone who recently got blocked with the same sig style... and then socked as IPs with the same style sig? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 04:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Funny you should ask that, I thought the same thing. You're thinking of User:Ibaranoff24 and this AN/I thread. —Travis^talk 04:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

AGF, guys -- there is no reason to make that connection. --Gutza ^{T T+} 04:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Check my name all you want, I have always had one account and one name and never cheated. I signed a few times with my IP 78.70.36.35 as I had forgotten to sign in. I put my name between brackets as I thought that's what I read to do when I started with wikipedia. Of course in an article that's called Controversy, there are differences of opinion and controversy. The article is POV tagged, because it's very biased towards the industry. To bring balance in the article I decided to spend some time on editing it. Scientizzle may be a administrator, but when I went to sources/Noticeboard to get a neutral comment of other editors about a source, User:Verbal and User:Scientizzle were the first ones to respond there. According to protocol I debated and contested my statements and some of them made it to the article and some of them not, which I have accepted. Pro aspartame and pro industry statements are allowed to stay even though it's verifiable wrong and no one seems to care, not even Scientizzle. To me this is POV no matter how you wikilawyer yourself out of it. Anyone can read that critical statements are constantly being scrutinized in the extreme while pro statements seem to flow in much easier. What I do find offensive here is that when I visit the appropriate pages to get clarification about the mentioned matters, which is my right as a wikipedia editor, I get told to stop doing that and unfounded suspicion in cheating is directed at me. Immortale (talk) 11:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

TOTSE

There's some strange things going on over at TOTSE. It's an article about a net site that's recently shut down, and the page seems awash with IP and SPAs trying to plug their new sites and send the TOTSE traffic to them. None of them have any sources, and I have no idea if any of them have any connection to the original site. Any ideas on how to handle it? Dayewalker (talk) 09:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Given the recency of the site's closure, it's unlikely that any site can truthfully claim to be the "successor" to TOTSE at this point, so none of them should be linked. The TOTSE home page currently links to the article urging users to "add their thoughts", so semi-ing the page for a few days is probably in order. Zetawoof_(ζ) 11:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree on the semi, since it took exactly one minute for an anonymous IP to put a new site up on the page after you deleted the section. Dayewalker (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have sprotected for 3 days, so concerned editors can determine how this should be dealt with (and allow the situation in RL to become clearer). Any unprotects or extensions can be referred to me as well as the usual places. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

User|Tales23 again

Tales23 (talk · contribs)

If you look at this diff [11] for Euclid's Elements, you will see that Tales23 has taken part of an edit by NittyG (talk · contribs) and created an article from it, Uclides. NittyG has asked Tales23 to delete it (see Tales23's talk page), but of course he can't. At the moment Tales23 is a few hours into a 12 hour block, his second this week. Looking at some of his comments here, 3RR, the Logic talk page, etc., he needs a bit of a clue. dougweller (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but how can anything posted in an article on Wikipedia be plagerized? How can it be plagerism to take part of another article and make a new one? I am not commenting on the value of the article, whether it is accurate or should remain, but only NittyG's comment about plagerism. I was under the assumption that there was essentially no such thing as plagerism in using things posted on Wikipedia in other parts of Wikipedia, since no one owns what they contribute, and by contributing you waive all rights to the work as your own. Am I missing something? Theseeker4 (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't allowed, but for the different reason that cutting and pasting other people's work between articles violates the GFDL since the author isn't attributed in the edit history. (see help page). If he'd added a link to the source article that would not be a problem. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No offense, TS4, but none of what you have just said is correct at all. People are still credited for their contributions, and must receive attribution. — neuro^(talk) 14:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hold on thar. Since when do individual editors retain any kind of "ownership" or "copyright" or "credit" for their work here? As an example, an article about a baseball club might be getting a bit long, and the history portion might be spun off into a separate article and the main article correspondingly shortened. There's no "credit" connected with any of that. Once you write something here, it belongs to everyone. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Update EdJohnston proposed a deletion of the Uclides wiki, stateing its a fork of Euclid wiki. Well as ther eis currently no mentioning of Uclides i wait for further discussions. Also i cite the reference and i will improve the wiki if nessassary. Or what i think would be best if we can sort this out in the Euclid or more Euclids Elements - there is already a discussion going on for some time about the wiki name, basicly it should be just Elements - is the minor suggestion as far i can tell. --Tales23 (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

A discussion is going on above, too. — neuro^(talk) 18:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

A note to Baseball Bugs - people do retain attributive rights for their work. — neuro^(talk) 18:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Something I think most editors do not understand. There is a lot of copy and paste from one article to another with no attribution, is there a way we can make clearer what we expect? dougweller (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, we bend the rules all the time, like when we use the subst function. There is a different between what is an ideal actuality and what actually occurs. — neuro^(talk) 21:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit". Once someone posts some text, it is subject to change by anyone else. There is no practical way for any one editor to retain any "rights" of any kind to what was written. In fact, I've been on here 4 years and this is the first time I've ever heard this cockamamie notion. I would very much like to see what specific policy is being cited in support of this idea. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Haha - I was also wondering about this myself. Tales did this first by copying an edit I did to Euclid, not Euclid's Elements, though that article has the same info in it. Tales literally copied the same info and put it in the article on The School of Athens. It's interesting and a bit difficult - first of all, this edit literally does not make sense - this is not at all what C.K. Raju meant by "images". And since it is written word for word by me, it becomes associated with me. But yes, anything in wikipedia is for wikipedia. In this case, it's not so much that he copied it, but he copied and pasted an entire paragraph or two. You have to write things to be original, more out of social and quality conventions. If you look at the article he started on the subject, it does not follow any conventions for a new article either (does not start by stating the subject, etc). This article needs to be deleted, for several reasons, which I have said on the talk page. NittyG (talk) 06:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

NittyG it is just not correct that i 1:1 pasted your text whatever this is what you claim is yours. Further what i added to the school of athens wiki was i added a link under the euclid image for uclides - as that what is this wiki mostly about. Btw i just reworked everything see Uclides and the talk. --Tales23 (talk) 10:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Work is based on all, especialy the key argument of Rajus translation error. 2. NittyG i asked you 4 or 5 times to tell me what you want me to change as it is not your work and links - just parts of it where you formed a sentence for the wiki talk infos already (still) there. 3rd i still dont get what you mena with Images?

The point is i edited Athens and Elements And the related info is relevant - is importend to undertsand the history. And i have to say i been quit disapointed after i read the euclid is uclides hypothesis - As this reperesents the most scintific approach for the authorship or origin of Elements. The way this could be just a link and the info about a translation error so on. So NittyG, either help with improveing the article and content - and im all open ears and eager to read your writtings. --Tales23 (talk) 07:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Can't this thread be closed? The article on Uclides has been proposed for deletion. That ought to take care of the issue. EdJohnston (talk) 06:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

What about this theory that editors somehow have a copyright on material entered here? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If there is a decision to keep the article, which seems unlikely, we can fix up the edit histories so they trace the contributors properly. EdJohnston (talk) 06:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't get it. In the example of the spinoff articles for baseball team histories, there is no attempt to "attribute" anything, and why would there be? The information being spun off is the product of dozens of editors. What policy is being use for this "attribution" theory? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

EdJohnstons argument for his delete proposol been Uclides is a fork - which it is not as Uclides and the wiki content is nowhere interpreted at all. --Tales23 (talk) 10:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Since Tales23 removed the PROD, the discussion now continues at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uclides. EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Aparnarules

Resolved

 – Blocked indef (ACB). — neuro^(talk) 15:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been here twice recently regarding problems with the contributions made by User:Aparna rajesh, here on 23 December and then here on 7 January. I won't reiterate everything that was said in those discussions, but the end result was that the user was indefinitely blocked for persistant copyvios and nonsense edits. Just three days ago it came to my attention that this user was back using the account User:Kala24ma; I reported this account as a sock puppet here which led to another block. Today I've logged on and checked my watchlist and saw a number of edits made by User:Aparnarules. Clearly this is the same user (edits the same articles, creates short stubs with broken English and with minimal content, etc.); no more copyvios as of yet, but these nonsense edits persist ([12], [13]), though he does at least seem to be reverting himself now.

Incidentally I think I finally know what he's trying to do with these edits. It appears that he's creating a red link for an article he wishes to create by adding it to an existing article, and then when he's done goes back to remove it. Which besides being a rather odd and long winded way of doing things, seems like a somewhat inappropriate use of article space.

Now believe me when I say I have no desire to hound someone off Wikipedia for good; if he can stay and be productive in his contributions then we're all winners. But it remains a concern that he seems unwilling or unable to take on board what's been said to him, and that he apparently seems determined to evade his block. PC78 (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef as obvious sock of Aparna rajesh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If he can be taught to contribute usefully, he should request unblock through his main account.  Sandstein  14:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Violation of free speech

Resolved

 – Not ANI issue Toddst1 (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I am a new user, but I am nevertheless outraged that the "List of unusual personal names" page was deleted. There is no reason this page needed to be deleted, a humor banner at the top would have fixed it. This article needs to be reinstated or wikipedia will risk losing its whole reason for existence: an alternative to britannica. Nameless9123 (talk) 03:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't exits to humor its readers. Grsz¹¹ 03:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual personal names (3rd nomination), you could ask for a deletion review. It was close. Among logged-in editors, I counted 6 keeps, 1 weak keep, and 10 deletes. If you add in the non-logged-in editors, it's 8 keeps, 2 weak keeps, and 10 deletes. Since rough consensus is supposed to be a lot somewhat more than 51%, this might be subject to review. Depending on how you count, it was between 50-62% for deletion. But beyond rough consensus, AFD is not completely about headcount, it's about the strength of arguments. I found the arguments on both sides to be valid. I didn't see the article but there are POV issues, but as someone else said, that's true of "Beauty, Terrorism, Pornography, or Christianity." Others suggested it was unencyclopedic and one user said it would make a good user-page. Several editors said the term was undefined or undefinable. One editor called it unencyclopedic. Arguments to keep included that at least part of the article was sourced and the rest could be addressed by editing, that the article had been around for years, which I assume was him implying a historical consensus to keep, that you can define "unusual name" by relying on reliable sources to define the term for you, and that there really isn't a lot of disagreement over whether a name is or is not unusual. Had I closed this, I would have closed it "no consensus" or kept it open/relisted it as there was discussion and a "listing on" announcement in the last 24 hours. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The closing admin has added his reasons for deleting the article. Nameless, if this resolves the issue please add {{y}} '''Resolved''' explained and a blank line to the top of this section. If it doesn't resolve the issue, say so and ask for help so this can be resolved. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, without a list of strange names, Wikipedia is certainly doomed to fade into obscurity. I bet the Britannica editors are already compiling their own list, so we better act fast! We're nothing without this page! Mr.Z-man 03:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the free speech thing: see this. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 04:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Various other items in the bill of rights are supported by wikipedia. For example, soldiers are prohibited from being quartered in the homes of wikipedians. Except for vandals, who are sometimes drawn and quartered. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

...and then cooked to order. Vandals are mighty good eatin' once you crisp up their widdle puddin' haids. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Ya know, this "unusual name" idea has some merit. Consider the name "John", for example, which draws snickers because it's a synonym for a loo, and hence kids don't get named "John" any more due to its unusualness. And let's not even get into the high unusuality of "Richard". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I take offense! WP:NPA!!!1!!!!eleven!!! 05:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

And who are you? I suggest you change your sig so that it follows policy, I can't even figure out where your post ends and your user name begins, less if that is even your username. Per WP:SIG, it needs to have, at least, a link directing to your talk or userpage.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That was User:JPG-GR, an admin, and I take it his first name is the unusual name of "John". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That...or he has a penchant for hookers...--Smashville^talk 21:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't going to bring up that possibility. A little too much information about an editor. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism/ threat

Resolved

 – banhammer engaged

By user:Lava476 [14] on Ryan P.'s page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually quite a few threats, vandal edits, etc. VirtualSteve blocked the editor for 31 hours; I've upped that to indefinite and, since the editor was cursing VS out on his talk page, have protected that too. Problem solved! Tony Fox (arf!) 01:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Reviewer's strong bias against middle-aged women ... and my request for help

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

Resolved

 – take it to WP:DRV if you desire to have a deletion overturned. This is not the forum for this matter

Letter to Wikipedia Arbitration

I have written two books: one about my neighbor Movie Icon Lana Turner ... and the other about lonely misfit dog worshippers, "Is Pet Ownership Destroying the Lives of Americans?" My dog book created a firestorm of anger within the Pet Industry and among dog owners.

I have twice applied for consideration for inclusion in Wikipedia. Both times your reviewer "schuym" has sent me unusually tart (and unhelpful) replies to my Wikipedia requests.

Your reviewer "schuym" presents the appearance of expressing a deep-seated hostility against middle-aged women. Here is what "schuym" wrote to me last month:

"LEAVE ME ALONE Stop posting on my talk page! I will not review your new submission and I will not send it to another editor so leave me alone!"

I am asking your Arbitration group now for nothing more than honest useful feedback. Thank you for your consideration.

Attachment: my Wikipedia submission

---

<advert removed>

Alumnacarole (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

speedy delete clear hoax. No one is this weird and needy. Oops, wrong forum, sorry.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Where do I start.... well, probably by pointing out that a) Schuym has not made any comments to the complainant indicating any sort of bias; Schuym tagged the article for speedy deletion; it was deleted by User:Fritzpoll as an WP:CSD#A7, quite appropriately. Two print-on-demand books don't assert notability. Thus... this is a deletion review issue, not an admin issue. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Move to close, this isn't an admin issue, not to mention I call bullshit on this whole thing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:01, 19 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.

Mudvayne

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

Resolved

 – User has been blocked indefinitely by the admin Gwen Gale Also, let it be made of note, that the checkuser has come back positive. Most, if not all of the IPs listed below are that of the offending sockmaster, User:Ibaranoff24. Here is the report: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ibaranoff24‎— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – User:Ibaranoff24 blocked 24hours for violating 3RR on Mudvayne

• See my comment below.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ibaranoff24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Landon1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm bringing this here instead of WP:AN3 because the user has not technically violated the three revert rule, but is gaming 3RR. User:Ibaranoff24 repeatedly reverts my edits, plus another editor's based on the claim NME, The Rolling Stone, etc., are not reliable sources. See the history of the article for a clearer explanation, he has now resorted to personal attacks such as calling User:Prophaniti a liar and using uncivil edit summaries such as "rv idiocy." I have reverted my last edit so not to edit war myself. Any help would be much appreciated. Landon1980 (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Prophaniti started a thread at the reliable sources noticeboard and they were said to definitely be reliable sources. The Rolling Stone and NME are widely used throughout wikipedia and are well-known to be reliable sources. I warned Ibaranoff24, he reverted the warning then reverted my edit. the last attempt to discuss the issue ended with a rude response on the talk page with the edit summary stop it, vandal. Landon1980 (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ibarinoff's threat to ban Prophaniti is also problematic, and seen in the RS noticeboard section.ThuranX (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is the diff of Ibranoff24 threatening to ban Prophaniti. I can supply several more diffs of uncivil/rude commentary if needed. Landon1980 (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a bluff or an attempt at intimidation. Ibaranoff24 is not an admin, and hence is in no position to ban or block anyone. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll add my voice to it too. Ibaranoff24 continues to remove sourced material. The sources have mostly been verified: Rolling Stone and NME are perfectly valid, popmatters and Metal Observer are not the best of sources, but they meet the criteria to be used in the professional review sections for albums: they have an editorial and writing staff. So I don't see a problem using them to back up the other sources we have. All my edits are doing is adding those sources. I'm not changing anything in the opening line, nor the genre section of the infobox. I'm literally just adding extra sources.

Ibaranoff24 has taken a highly hostile, aggressive and even threatening tone. As Landon has said, he has repeatedly warned me I will be banned, and while this carries no real weight it's still hardly pleasant. He has repeatedly called my edits vandalism (how adding in sources is vandalism is beyond me), repeatedly said I am "strongarming my POV", and repeatedly accused me of lying, though about what I still do not know.

He simply seems to refuse to accept reality: adding sources, whether valid or not, is not vandalism. The sources are valid. And he has even stated that I am removing sourced content, which I've not done at all. I'm at a loss as to what is to be done about it. Prophaniti (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• The problem is that Prophaniti thinks that he owns the articles he edits, and has repeatedly attempting to enforce his own POV upon articles, including repeatedly removing sourced content. When confronted with these allegations, he denies them and moves the blame to another. The only edits I made were to fix Prophaniti's vandalism. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC))

Adding reliable sources is not vandalism, and you repeatedly calling Prophaniti a liar and a vandal are personal attacks. Also, you do not own my talk page, Prophaniti is more than welcome to comment there. Stop reverting his edits. Your behavior is unacceptable, the personal attacks need to stop. What on Earth makes you think adding sources is vandalism? Landon1980 (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Prophanti and yourself undid my clean-up and fixing of formatting. That's clear vandalism. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC))

Also, Ibaranoff, please stop harassing Prophaniti at the reliable sources noticeboard. Landon1980 (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Absolutely no harassment took place. Prophanti's edits were reverted because the genres do not need more citations, and "nu metal" is not considered to be the dominating style of the band. Stop twisting things to fit your own reality, the both of you. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC))

Once again, Prophaniti is allowed to talk to me about whatever he wants, stop reverting his edits to my talk page. Landon1980 (talk) 06:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Here Ibaranoff24 is reverting yet another editor on the Mudvayne here he is edit warring with me on my very own talk page, removing Prophaniti's edits. Here he is still making personal attacks by calling Prophaniti and I vandals. Landon1980 (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I could go through and yet again explain all the incorrect statements you're making, Ibaranoff, but I know from experience that you would not listen, and I think any reasonable editor or admin who looks at this will see them quite clearly without me needing to explain them. And Landon is doing a fine job with it. So all I will say is thank you to Landon for his support, and that's he's quite correct: your behaviour is on all counts unnacceptable, and if he wishes to stop me talking on his page, he can. You do not own his talk page. Prophaniti (talk) 09:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The edit summaries are clearly over the line, I've posted a warning on the user's talk page not to do it again, and reminded him of the various civility policies. I'll leave the content matter for you to hopefully work out amicably, but if the user continues acting in this aggressive fashion, then a short block might be called for. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC).

Thanks for taking the time to leave him a warning, he has now reverted you just like always, not that it matters. This user has already received multiple warnings for edit warring, civility, etc., and the next step was bringing it here. He reverts anyone that touches the Mudvayne article the last few days, even nominated an article for deletion because Prophaniti was editing it. Oh well, I suppose he knew he could get away with it, he has done a good job of gaming 3RR. Landon1980 (talk) 10:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Landon, I nominated The Metal Observer for deletion because it's not notable. It was even deleted before after a nomination! The new revision's only sources come from the website itself! (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC))

It comes off as rude, but s/he is explicitly permitted to do that. The user's conduct has clearly been disruptive up until now, hopefully he'll get the hint, but just in case he doesn't, I'll keep an eye on the user. If they cross the line again I'll block them myself. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC).

I haven't done anything wrong. The only disruptive edits are being made by Prophaniti and, whether intentionally or not, by Landon. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC))

Ok thanks. I understand they are allowed to remove their warnings, my point was he has already received multiple warnings in multiple places. Hearing you say you will keep an eye out for future similar behavior is good enough for me. Have a good day. Landon1980 (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Lankiveil, Ibaranoff may be allowed to edit his own talk page in hostile ways, but he is NOT allowed to disruptively edit others' talk pages, as he does by deleting one editor's comments, then making a long series of edits to his own message. It obscures the fact that the editor whose talk page it is, was contacted by multiple editors. It's disruptive, and when done specifically to editors you're in a conflict with, incivil as well. ThuranX (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've done no such thing. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC))

He's allowed to remove messages from his own talkpage (in fact, I'm glad he's done it, because now he can't claim he didn't know), as he did to my message. He's not allowed to do the rest of that stuff you described, and he'll be blocked if he does it again. Sorry if anything I said above was unclear in that regard. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC).

He still will not quit messing with my talk page. I have asked him over and over to stop. Landon1980 (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You are not allowed to remove any message that is not a personal attack or vandalism. I have never "messed" with your talk page. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC))

I beg to differ. Users can remove whatever they like from their talk pages. Please cease edit warring over User talk:Landon1980 - if your post is removed again, do not revert or undo. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a reasonably good buy 14:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That is not what is going on, he is removing another users edits, and has been warned repeatedly. I am not removing his posts, only when I undo his edits that he has also removed Prophaniti's edits within them. Ibaranoff is also still reverting everyone's edits on mudvayne. Ibaranoff removes everything that hits his talk page, it is shocking to see him say that. I suppose Lankiveil's warning was a personal attack/vandalism. Landon1980 (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Landon1980, you fully well know that none of this is true. Everyone who looks at the edits can see that you are lying. So why do you continue like this? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC))

I do not appreciate being called a liar, you have been warned repeatedly to stop with the personal attacks. I can supply several diffs of you removing Prophaniti's comments if you need me to. Landon1980 (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• I moved content directed toward me to my talk page. These were again, actual personal attacks and accusations, much as you have been directing towards me. I never made any personal attacks or accusations toward any editor. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC))
  • If you deleted others comments from other people's talk pages, even to move it to yours, you broke the rules. Copying it would be OK. Deleting it from someone else's page is not. NEVER mess with other people's comments on their pages. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The comment is not directed at you and I suggest you not remove it again. Vandal, liar, childish, and whatever else you have said are all personal attacks. Landon1980 (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It is the absolute truth that your edits in this issue have been disruptive, and yet you still deny this, and lie about being "harassed" when I bring the issue up. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC))

• Just now, Landon posted an attack on the deletion page for The Metal Observer, accusing me of nominating the article for deletion as a result of the edit war that Prophaniti started. Clearly, these users are connected on some level. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC))

Will someone please put a full protection on my talk page for the duration of 36 hours? Ibaranoff has been warned over and over again, but reverts any edits I make, no matter where I make them. I cannot comment on my own talk, an article, or even on an AFD without him repeatedly reverting my edits. Landon1980 (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This is what I mean. You make posts like this after you get your talk page protected in order to make it seem as if there's an issue that isn't there. You/Prophaniti really are hopeless. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC))

Ibaranoff24 seems to think that backing up another editor and agreeing that a deletion nomination is the result of an edit war is a personal attack (as he linked to above). Landon was perfectly justified and it was in no way a personal attack. Accusing someone of being a vandal for adding sourced content, that's a personal attack. Accusing someone of being a liar, that's a personal attack. Telling someone they'll be blocked if they don't stop "strongarming their POV" into an article by adding sources, that's a personal attack. Edit summaries like "rv idiocy", that's a personal attack. It should be painfully clear that if anyone has done wrong here, it's not Landon. Prophaniti (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Landon's comments absolutely were personal attacks. You/Landon were accusing me of nominating that article for deletion as the result of spite or whatever. Such accusations are considered personal attacks. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC))

• Ibaranoff24 has now violated 3RR on the Mudvayne article, he has received multiple warnings for this. He reverts anyone and everyone that touches the page. Should I start a report at WP:AN3 or can that be dealt with here? Landon1980 (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Landon, I did not violate 3RR. I reverted the reinsertion of the unreliable Muze source. I am not doing any of the things that you or Prophaniti are accusing me of. It seems that you want me to send you messages, because you continue to make unwarranted attacks and accusations, and outright lie, as you have done in the past. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC))

The source is from NME, and you have been told countless times by countless people that it is reliable. You have received several warnings very recently for edit warring as well. Landon1980 (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Look at the bottom of the page. Read the copyright information. The content was created by Muze, which, as far as I know, is not a reliable source. YOU have received several warnings for edit warring -- but you deleted them so you wouldn't have to listen to reality. Secondly, 3RR is reverting to the same page more than three times within 24 hours, not making three completely different edits to the page in the span of 24 hours. Get your facts and policies straightened and stop making disruptive edits. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC))

You have violated 3RR whether you will admit it or not, there are 4 reversions within 24 hours and you know that. Also why are you deleting and moving my comments on this page. I'm getting really sick of you calling me a liar and a vandal? Landon1980 (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Landon, there was clearly no revision of 3RR. He made three separate edits. 3RR is reverting to the same revision more than three times within the course of 24 hours. No matter how you slice it, you are lying. (65.10.86.155 (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

Right, that's about enough of that. Both of you, stop your bickering. You have a few options:

1. seek mediation at MEDCAB. I'm not terribly sanguine about the chances of that, given Ibaranoff's rejection of mediation the last time he was in one of these disputes.
2. leave each other the hell alone
3. Be forcibly kept apart. I'm about five seconds away from proposing that you all be topicbanned from music articles and restricted from interacting with each other to stop this ridiculous disruption. I have a sneaking suspicion that such a topicban will be largely supported.

I'm off to class. I suggest the two of you disengage from this thread and from each other. //roux   18:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ibaranoff did start a mediation for this dispute. Landon and Prophaniti refused to participate. The last occurrence in which a MEDCAB was opened for one of Prophaniti's edit wars, Ibaranoff did participate. Prophaniti, as always, lied about the participation and acted as if Ibaranoff was being unreasonable, which he was not, then Prophaniti proceeded to contribute to the discussion without his username to make it seem as if Prophaniti had more support than he actually did. (65.10.86.155 (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

You have got to be joking. The only disruption is with Ibaranoff24, the rest of us get along just fine. Five seconds are up, if you truly feel that I disrupt all music related articles to the point of being banned from them start a thread on it. I don't feel I have been disruptive in the least. If you are correct I'm sure my topic ban will be unanimously supported so why not go for it. I will now add that if I have been disruptive I have not meant to be, but I'm fairly certain you are wrong about this. Landon1980 (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Not joking. It does take two to tango, and ending the disruption is the key point. You need to learn to disengage from him and not get sucked into these things. Either choose to learn it yourself, or the community will decide for you. //roux   00:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This thread was started due to User:Ibaranoff24 edit warring on Mudvayne. He has now been blocked for violating 3RR. As far as I'm concerned the matter is over. I see no need for any further comments to be made. If you truly feel I deserve a topic ban from all music related articles start a different thread. So this can be archived as far as I'm concerned. Landon1980 (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Landon, you've been busy! Ooh...looks like you forgot to think of a few things, namely that Ibaranoff made three separate edits to the page rather than reverting to the same revision four times as you claim. Oh well. (65.10.86.155 (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

Ibaranoff, like I told you above. You do not have to revert to the "exact same version" to violate 3RR. It can be to a different version and just be reverts of others edits in general. However, in your case, all 4 times you removed the NME source. Which is reverting the same material. Landon1980 (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Ibaranoff24 and personal attacks

Ibaranoff24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Let us not forget that WP:NPA is a policy here at WP, and as far as I can tell after having reviewed this thread, the user in question has indeed broken it. As stated on the page of the policy in question, is is disruptive to the building of this encyclodpedia to have someone running around throwing insults. Yes, this user was blocked for 3RR, twice in fact. As a small side note, blocks usually esclate in time if the user fails to abide by policy. My point here is that the block, at least in regards to 3RR, should be more than 24 hours.

Continuing on when what I was originally saying, this user has made quite a few personal attacks, he has been warned against doing such, and yet he has continued. More than that, he's denied having ever made any, in the face of hard evidence. To the point, the user has not said that he would stop making such attacks in the future, and in regard to his block history, and the above, I believe a longer block is justified. At the moment I do not see a constructive contributor.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That is just how Ibaranoff is, this is just one of his flaws. We all have them I suppose. No matter what he does, if you call him out on it he says "NO, you are the one" Even when supplied with hard evidence of the allegation he will deny it to the bitter end. He does make some good edits though, he has many constructive contributions. As long as no one challenges any of his edits that is, and in that case be prepared for him to edit war with no matter how many editors involved and brace yourself for some personal attacks. I completely agree with you and I'm in no way condoning his behavior (see above). I doubt anyone will be willing to extend the block. Even though I agree that as disruptive as he has been here recently, and with his previous block for edit warring the duration should have been longer. Landon1980 (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is not how it works on wikipedia. We do not just let someone go around insulting people just because that's the way they are. They can either learn to play by our rules, or they can leave. If this editor is not going to stop personally attacking people, then he needs to have his block lengthened to prevent further disruption.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, my point was I don't see it happening. Landon1980 (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And that is where you are making your mistake. You should not be preparing to editwar with him. You revert once and gain consensus on the talkpage. If he keeps reverting against consensus you have someone uninvolved deal with it. You do not participate in the editwar. //roux   02:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I am quite correct on this as well. When you have one editor edit warring with several editors it is more than appropriate for the "several" editors to revert the one disruptive editor. What you are suggesting is overkill in situations like that, a quick report to WP:AN3 works quite well. What do you not understand about not being in a position to tell me what to do? From the looks of your block log I believe I'll get my "edit warring" advice elsewhere. If you have nothing to say other than insulting my vocabulary, and making rude edit summaries such as "cluebat" there is no point in continuing. If you feel I have a problem with edit warring start a thread, this thread is not about me. Landon1980 (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Never mind the fact all I said was "be prepared for him to edit war with no matter how many editors were involved" I never suggested I was going to be edit warring with him. Landon1980 (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Still missing the point, and your insults are becoming tiresome. //roux   04:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Roux, your 'patience forever' meme is naive nonsense. Landon1980 and others have been behaving perfectly, while one editor's being a continual provocation, and your response is to chastise everyone BUT the offender? You defended Ibaranoff's right to vandalize the comments of a second user on a third user's talk page on the grounds that 'anyone can edit' applies with impunity and without boundary, and now you assert that it's ok for the same provocateur to play other games to cause disruption? Here's a trout slap. ThuranX (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

WTF are you on about? I defended nothing that Ibaranoff was doing. Try reading again what I've written. //roux   04:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ibaranoff never "vandalized" anything. Landon1980 and Prophaniti are the only users at fault here. Ibaranoff made absolutely no disruptive edits. These users repeatedly reverted Ibaranoff's clean-up and restoration of sourced material repeatedly deleted by Prophaniti, and then proceeded to lie about Ibaranoff's edits, make personal attacks toward Ibaranoff, and continue to vandalize the article as they pleased. Ibaranoff's edits were perfectly valid and within his rights. Ibaranoff never broke any of Wikipedia's rules. The evidence is in the edits. (65.10.86.155 (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

Sock much, Ibanaroff? ThuranX (talk) 04:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• I am not Ibaranoff. And sock puppets make disruptive edits, not contributing to the discussion as I have done. (65.10.86.155 (talk) 04:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC))
  • Socks do alot more than just disrupt, they also argue in favor the the blocked editor. You aren't fooling anyone, so why don't you just take off the mask before I gather evidence and submit a request for a checkuser. You realize that if you just admit to being a sock, that they might let you off easier for evading your block?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

But then again, let us look at the evidence:

• Your only edits, apart from the sandbox edit, are to this noticeboard, defending this editor.
• You sign your posts the same way he does.

True, there isn't much evidence, but the edits speak for themselves. Throw down the veil and stop hiding who you are, you aren't fooling anyone.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The user has now proceeded to claim that the other two users who were originally involved in this dispute are the same person, and, when asked to supply diffs in regard to this accusation, has completely blown me off.

To put it simply, he baselessly accused User:Prophaniti and User:Landon1980 of being sockpuppets of one or the other/the same person/sock and master/master and sock.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

So now Ibaranoff has evaded his block to further his disruption. I find it extremely unlikely this ip which is saying all the exact same things in the exact same way as Ibranoff is someone other than Ibaranoff. The edits to ANI are the IP's very first edits. One of the last things Ibaranoff said was the claim about not violating 3RR with the same wording the IP used. You are not fooling anyone, Ibaranoff, and I hope you had enough sense for that IP to be an open proxy. Landon1980 (talk) 09:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

WQA Link Just a quick note that a related issue arose Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive56#User:_Ibaranoff24 in WQA a very very short time ago... you'll be very interested in the discussion. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The IP has now been blocked as a sock of User:Ibaranoff24. Landon1980 (talk) 11:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

To BMW, there are valid points there, but editing while blocked is still not allowed.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 11:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I never disagreed with the fact that Ibaranoff was an issue, and the blocked-with-socks is very very very bad. I just wanted to provide some background information, and a link to a past attempt to resolve this dispute. Odd that such a minor article would elicit such major WP:DRAMA. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion on just a 24-hour block? That's fairly desperate. And presumably the original block should be extended. Maybe to a week. And then the user could be renamed Ibaranoff24x7. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is the checkuser case, if you want it. Although the IP has been blocked an obvious sock, we need hard evidence, as the user is denying all claims despite the obvious.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 11:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on the block evasion should the duration of the original block be lengthened? If so to what?

• support block lengthened to one week. Block would be very much preventative, not punitive. Ibaranoff24 continues to deny any wrongdoing whatsoever despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Even in regards to personal attacks, and violation of 3RR when you can clearly count 4 reversions. Landon1980 (talk) 11:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have re-blocked Ibaranoff24 for 24 hours. I believe this is a sensible middle road between a reset according to WP:EVADE and the lengthened block suggested by various parties. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with 24 hours, a total of 48 hours is what the original block should have been for the second block for edit warring. Have you not read over his talk page, have a look at all the "NO, YOU ARE WRONG NOT ME ACCEPT IT's" Evading such a short block is not a sign this user is here for constructive reasons. I thought a week was lenient considering the circumstances. He still denies violating 3RR and is still making personal attacks. He is accusing me of sock puppetry and refuses to give any evidence that supports his claim when asked. Landon1980 (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry if this throws a spanner in the works, but just a note of caution, because I extended the block for someone in similar circustances a while ago, and it turned out I had been wrong. The fact that the IP mimics Ibaranoff24 is good reason to block the IP, but you have to be careful of joe jobs. Absent a checkuser, or a history of socking from Ibaranoff, we know the IP is either a sock or someone out to frame Ibaranoff (so we block it either way), but we don't really know if Ibaranoff is a puppeteer or a victim of a frame. I am absolutely not a fan of Ibaranoff's conduct yesterday, and I could easily be wrong, and have nothing to back this up, but something feels wrong about this, and I'd be tempted to reduce the block on Ibaranoff back to the original, or at least I'd request a Checkuser. --barneca (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

A checkuser has already been requested. See his response here to an admin when told he was violating 3RR. This is a sign he just doesn't get it. Landon1980 (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't notice that link above. I'll comment there. And again, to be clear, I'm not defending his behavior, I'm saying that we should be pretty damn positive before blocking for sockpuppetry. --barneca (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Barneca, I know you commented on the RFCU, but I feel that you, and any other involved admins need to comment as well, as Coren has closed the case as not useful, despite the fact how it is noted in the case that such a finding would be useful. We need it confirmed by hard evidence, assumptions based on behavior, no matter how similar, cannot be taken into account, because, as said, someone could be framing this user.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

To throw something in here: his behaviour was indeed brought up at the wikiquette alerts board. And the response I got there only served to lessen my faith in wiki proceedure. His behaviour since then is certainly worse, but even then he was breaking wikiquette guidelines. But no one seemed willing to actually do anything about it. I'm just glad that someone finally has acted on things, and that there seems to be some acknowledgement of his unnacceptable behaviour. My personal take on the issue as it stands: Like I say, I'm glad things have finally gone somewhere. I would support any further action taken regarding his behaviour, since this current block is because of the edit warring, not that. But at the same time, I acknowledge I'm a biased editor in the case, since I was on the receiving end of most of his attacks. But there it is anyway. Prophaniti (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• There is now a new IP in the same range taking over where Ibaranoff left off on the Mudvayne article. Also, see the latest string of personal attacks on this users talk page. A longer block is definitely called for to prevent further disruption, the personal attacks are getting worse instead of better. I'll supply diffs shortly. Landon1980 (talk) 06:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

[15] [16] [17] There are more of these if this is not enough to show a pattern. These are not borderline incivility breeches, they are blatant personal attacks. Landon1980 (talk) 06:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• 65.2.201.118 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 65.11.137.218 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

These are the two new IPs who have begun editing in favor of Ibaranoff's edits.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Since the IPs are picking right up and also harassing users on their talk pages, I've asked for protection on the Mudvayne page. It's time to end this. Dayewalker (talk) 06:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd support a week, or more block total. Ibaranoff's socking and attacks on two editors are ridiculous. He brags of being nominated for adminship three times; I can see why those failed, and he's clearly ruined any future chances for himself. ThuranX (talk) 06:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

About that, I can only find one RFA in the archives. Which he nominated himself. Landon1980 (talk) 06:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, then. Only makes him look worse. Start creating a proposal for a Community ban. Present all this as a flat, dry recitation of his actions, without editorializing. This looks headed for bigger consequences before he cools off. ThuranX (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

And the [18] personal attacks keep coming. His newest unblock request is a personal attack as well, I bet that will be successful. Landon1980 (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to be composing a summery of events, and a request for a lengthened block in regards with what has happened during the past week, in a bit. I need to switch computers from this old windows 98 operating system to my brother's ibook, which has firefox, and all those other nice toys like javascript.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The checkuser request now contains 12 IP socks all engaged in some sort of disruptive editing. However, I'm nearly certain we have missed one, two, three of them. Landon1980 (talk) 08:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

From my email, and I quote:

I've had six featured articles and countless good articles. You do NOT tell me how to edit or accuse me of removing sourced content. My account should NOT be blocked. Prophaniti and Landon repeatedly removed sourced content, changed the article to fit their bias, and frequently vandalize Wikipedia with their nonsense. My edits were fully within my rights. If I were an administrator, I would ban your ass straight up, just for taking the side of these pieces of shit..

For those who may not believe this text, I shall provide a screen capture:

File:Hardevidence.png

I shall be submitting an overview soon, I am currently distracted by socking from this user and others.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Note - I ran the checkuser query requested at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ibaranoff24. Checkuser strongly suggests that the sockpuppets in question belong to Ibaranoff24. Raul654 (talk) 04:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Summary of events

Initially Involved Users

• Landon1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Prophaniti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ibaranoff24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Users who became involved per this ANI thread

• barneca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Daedalus969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SheffieldSteel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ThuranX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lankiveil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Redvers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bwilkins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Apparent IP socks of Ibaranoff24

(as a note, these IPs are listed in order of appearance)

• 65.10.86.155 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 65.2.201.118 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 65.11.137.218 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 65.9.1.128 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 70.149.106.37 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 65.10.86.234 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 70.146.109.106 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 65.10.68.4 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 65.9.1.102 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 65.2.54.200 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 65.10.58.87 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 70.146.109.162 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 65.2.200.221 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

The events started out with a simple edit war, with Ibaranoff24 reverting sourced material from the article Mudvayne, as seen here:[19], [20], [21], [22](also note the personal attack in the edit summery on this last one).

The user Ibaranoff24 was then subsequently blocked for violating 3RR on the aforementioned article.

Not long after Ibaranoff's block, the IP 65.10.86.155 somehow found this noticeboard, and proceeded to defend Ibaranoff's edits. The IP in question argued the same way Ibaranoff did, and signed his or her posts the same way as well, posting a ( before following through with the regular signature. As you are well aware, a ( is not present in the default signature.

This IP was subsequently blocked as a quacking sockpuppet.

A few days later, maybe one or two, I may have time wrong here, a massive amount of disruption was started by all the IPs below the first IP user listed. This disruption consisted of removing sourced information, in light of their own opinion, regarding two articles. The first article was Hed PE, while the second has already been mentioned in this case, but for those not willing to scroll up, it is Mudvayne(as a note, Hed is listed first as that is the first article the IP edited).

For around an hour or less, at least maybe thirty minutes, the IPs noted above continued to delete sourced information on both articles, and when some of them posted messages to talk pages, or notice boards, the style of the messages bore traits in line with Ibaranoff's editing habits. To outline what I consider a significant trait, aside from the prose of the arguments, is that Ibaranoff began his posts with a bullet.

Flashback for a moment, back to when Ibaranoff was blocked for violating 3RR:

I had gone to the editor in question's talk page to see if I could help in solving the dispute. The discussion is still there, you can look, it was not removed, but, to continue on; The editor in question claimed several times that he had been attacked by the other two intially involved users, but, when asked to supply a diffs concerning several attacks, he did not, and instead supplied a single post where Landon thinks that an AFD by Ibaran was made out of spite. The second and third diffs are when Landon removes messages from Ibaran from his talk page(an action which is completely within policy), and when Landon accuses Ibaran of edit-warring.

One thing that I have noticed, and many others have as well, is that even when presented with rock-solid evidence of his edits, he will deny it no matter what. This is as far as I've seen, at least.

As noted far above, the user has also resorted to email-harassment. You can see the quote, and screen capture for yourself. He has emailed me several times calling me a lier, etc.

So far, in regards to personal attacks, this editor has called others vandals, idiots(note the above diff) in edit summeries, liers, and sockpuppets. When asked to support his accusations of sockpuppetry with evidence, the best he can come up with is they don't agree with me(this isn't what he says exactly, it's just the general gist).

As a small last note, this user has also stated that they have been nominated for adminship three times. This is hardly true. He or she nominated himself or herself the first time, which failed. The second two times are users suggesting he or she run for adminship, and are not nominations. He or she uses these three instances to state that they are above another user in a sense.

Proposal

Through all of this socking, personal attacks, email harrasment, and edit warring, not to mention complete denial that he did anything wrong, I do not see a constructive contributor. Aside from the fact that he had five FAs. Sure, it's nice to have articles of good quality, but it is not nice to work in a poisonous environment where one editor is right about everything despite the significant amount of facts presented contrary to what that editor is arguing. My point? Editing the encyclopedia in a constructive manner is as much creating a peaceful environment for others and editing in harmony, then it is getting articles to featured status.

So what if he had five FAs, that is no exuse to treat others the way he has been.

I propose an indefinate block of this user until he can learn to accept the facts and play nicely with others, not to mention learn to play by our rules(re: block evasion, a user is not allowed to edit whilst blocked).— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I probably don't need to say it, but it gets my support, certainly. The above sums up how it has been trying to deal with it all. One other point to note: you mention that the IPs have been editing both Mudvayne and Hed PE. Well this fits in perfectly: Hed PE was the first page I encountered Ibaranoff24 on, and it was much the same thing: I was attempting to add sources for nu metal as the band's genre, and he refused to allow it. In the end I gave up out of sheer frustration and since then he's defended the page rigorously against many other edits. Prophaniti (talk) 10:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• support Landon1980 (talk) 10:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support as an uninvolved party. Blatant block evasion through multiple IPs, personal attacks, disruptive editing, etc. Block until the user in question is willing to acknowledge what they've done and accept mentorship. This does not mean other parties are not at fault, but the level of disruption & evasion by Ibaranoff is unacceptable. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure which "other parties" you are referring to, but I think we all handled this well. We spent a great deal of time gathering evidence, etc., especially Daedalus. Not sure who you are referring to, but I don't see anything wrong with any of our actions. Landon1980 (talk) 04:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - It must be something in the water; people have simply been up and losing their damn minds over the past week or so. :-/ - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:07, 18 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.

74.71.190.163

74.71.190.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - gross anti-semitism, see Talk:Michael Rosenblum page history for background and previously warned/ blocked IPs. Referred here from WP:AIV. WP:RPP also initiated. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It's one edit. Seems somewhat pointless to block for a one-off thing that happened hours ago. Bring it back if there's more. Cheers. lifebaka++ 06:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Block needed: ElectricRush

Could another administrator please take a look at ElectricRush (talk · contribs), especially this discussion and this article creation? He has been spamming user talk pages with invitations to this forum. He also had a link to that forum in his signature. He was asked several times to stop, and he has stopped that spamming, so far as I can tell, but I think that his creation of the article is just a continuation of the problem and warrants the block. Because he seems to think I'm stalking him and "threatening [him] with [my] power," so I'd like another administrator to act here. Thanks, either way (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Not spam. He did post to several user’s talk pages but not more than once — Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, given that he has promised to stop adding the link in the discussion you link: [23], and as near as I can tell, he has kept his word and has stopped, I don't really see any reason to block... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Check Science Debate Forum. He created that as an article just an hour ago. He said "I'll stop promoting the board" and I believe that creating the article about it is "promoting the board." either way (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I've rolled back the pages he spammed it to. (Well, at least the ones where nobody had edited the page since him.) That site is linked from 18 pages, down from 64 before I rolled back the spam. I agree on no block if there are not repeat transgressions. It's worth keeping an eye on it though - if anyone else spams the forum, we can blacklist it. --B (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

either way. It’s a bit funny that you insist to get this user blocked even though he did respect your warrning and did not repeat the vandal act. You as an Admin should know better ;) — Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 02:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

But he did repeat it by creating the article just an hour ago. He said he would not promote it further, but he promoted it further by creating the article just one hour ago. either way (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Does the page he created have any link with the spamming he is doing to other talk pages? — Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes...the article he wrote is about the forum he was spamming to everyone. Additionally, he added a "script" to send out invites to the forum about an hour and a half ago. either way (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wiikkiiwriter, what are you doing exactly? Trying to take the Devil's Advocate position without actually informing yourself on the issue at hand is not constructive. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet another sockpuppet of PoliticianTexas

Resolved

 – QUACK! BANG! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

TrentZee (talk · contribs) certainly appears to be another sockpuppet of community banned editor PoliticianTexas. Exact same MO, same articles, same changes. He removed the sock tag from his page, and laid low after it was posted. He's returned, I request an admin step in. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Specific evidence that TrentZee (talk · contribs) is PoliticianTexas (talk · contribs) (PolTx for short). TrentZee has:

• edited Martin Chavez, an article that in the past few months has been edited primarily by PolTx socks Martinez07 (talk · contribs), Thomasalazar (talk · contribs), Evhs00 (talk · contribs), and BradlyRM (talk · contribs)
• edited Ben R. Luján which was edited by PolTx socks AlbuCrazy (talk · contribs) and Martinez07 (talk · contribs)
• characteristic misspelling "responce": TrentZee diff, LamyQ diff. LamyQ (talk · contribs) is known PolTx sock
• makes abusive edit comments (see edit comment field): TrentZee diff, TrentZee diff, TrentZee diff, DeLaCueva diff. DeLaCueva (talk · contribs) is known PolTx sock

--Uncia (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocking. Very obvious sock, thanks for the evidence. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

user:Kwisso Sockpuppetry

I suspect this user to be a sockmaster. My reasons are because after this article got deleted. The author recreated it which also got deleted. Afterwards, they decided to onsert the same material into an article that was linked to it. After this was reverted by self, another editor started doing the same. This inturn got reverted. I checked the history of the article and noticed that other users had attempted to add the same content.

Evidence

[24] [25] [26]]

Account Creation

On the 18th of Jan

On the 12th of Jan

DFS454 (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Try heading with the same over to WP:SSP, where it'll get more expert attention. Cheers. lifebaka++ 06:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done DFS454 (talk) 09:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Ronz

Please see this diff: [27]

User:Ronz removed my comment from this AfD:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of wiki farms (3rd nomination)

I did not make any personal attacks as stated in Ronz's edit summary. See the diff and the last version of the AfD before the diff.

Also, lengthy discussions are common in AfDs. For example; see the previous 3 AfDs for this article. The last one was decided as "keep" by the way. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

"The goal in most of the AfDs by many of the spam fighters was, and is, to delete most of the article on "notability" grounds". While it isn't exactly bad, that certianly is an attack.--Patton^t/c 22:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The whole thrust of his argument is that those who seek to remove feature-by-feature comparisons of products which are not themselves notable, are evil, whereas those who love and cherish such articles are fearless defenders of the Wiki. Something tells me he has become a little too vested in having a pet article, as opposed to following policy. We seem to be blazing the trail in deciding which features to compare and retrieving them from the primary sources. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• I support the removal of the unnecessary dramatization and slander of individuals on Wikipedia who actually do cleanup (grunt) work on Wikipedia. Not every Pet Article needs to be saved (not in relation to the current AFD), so it would be wise to keep your petty personal remarks to yourself. Kthxbye. seicer | talk | contribs 23:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• I also support this removal. I commented at the AfD before Timeshifter and when he made his comment I felt personally offended as I felt that I was one of the spam fighters he was talking about. Although I voted to keep the article I feel that voting to delete spammy articles on notability grounds is exactly the thing that makes Wikipedia a better place. We need more cleanup around here, not less and attack comments such as Timeshifter's only discourage well-meaning and hard-working editors like Ronz from doing a good job. Themfromspace (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry you were personally offended. I struck out part of my comment:

"The goal in most of the AfDs by many of the spam fighters was, and is, to delete most of the article on "notability" grounds."

The remaining statement is true though. It is not a personal attack. The spam fighters themselves discuss notability of the entries in the article. Just look at the previous 3 AfDs. But I think I may have overgeneralized concerning the goal of the current spam fighters commenting at the AfD. So I struck out and is,.

There is little disagreement, though, as to the notability of the topic of wiki farms. It is notable, and most of the spam fighters agree. I have no problem with deleting articles where the topic of the article itself is not notable.

I have no problem with deleting spam from external links either. The disagreement is about primary sources, inclusion criteria, etc.. But there is no need to discuss this here. This is WP:ANI. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Spam addition of website

Resolved

 – user blocked for 72 hours, link should perhaps be blacklisted? dougweller (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

User:66.177.169.53User talk:66.177.169.53 is a single purpose account that has engaged in repeatedly spamming articles concerning serial killer and related articles with a link to a "Murderabilia" website. The IP has been warned repeatedly about this, with a final warning given here, after which the IP returned the link to three articles here, here and here. I'm asking for a block for violating WP:SPAM and ignoring repeated warnings. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Icsunonove and IP 192.45.72.26

The IP 192.45.72.26 and user:Icsunonove are the same person. Both edit heavily in topics about South Tyrol, mostly to eradicate the name South Tyrol from wikipedia (Icsunonove: 1 2 3 4 5 6 and dozens more)- (IP: 1 2 3 4). For me, being from South Tyrol this is very annoying especially as it follows in the steps of Mussolinis Italianization campaign. But the real issue here is incivility and POV sourcing.

• That is my IP and my username, and how does correcting wikilinks from South Tyrol to Province of Bolzano-Bozen constitute vandalism or an eradication of South Tyrol, or make someone deserving of being compared to Mussolini? Hmm? I do hope an Admin addresses this serious slander, and what amounts to false accusations of infringing Wikipedia editing rules. That this user admits they have let their personal issues of "being from South Tyrol" allow them to be suspicious of every little edit, this is a big red flag to this user's true intentions on this English encyclopedia. It becomes all the more obvious why he targeted me in the first place. Would I have been on "your side" Noclador, if I would have un-corrected wikilinks on here?! Icsunonove (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Lately the aforementioned individual has discovered the article Steinerner Steg (english: Stone bridge) - a little but beautiful bridge in the city of Merano, which the fascist authorities renamed "Ponte Romano" (eng. Roman Bridge) on December 2nd, 1927. Now this had two aims: first to link the old Roman Empire with the beautiful bridge and thus enhance the mythical connection that fascism is a new "Rome" and also to further the fascist claim that South Tyrol has always been a Roman/Italian area (strangely though 90% of the population were German and all locations had only German names,

• "had only German names". Oh dear, how incredibly wrong you are. :) Icsunonove (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

and it was all Austrian until 1919 - and to this day over 67% of the people are German). This renaming of the bridge (revoked in 1943 - since 1945 both names are used equally) has led to the following line in a book about Roman bridges: "Meran lies further east, on the western approach of the Brenner Pass to Austria. A medieval bridge here retains the name, the Ponte Romano sul Passirio (Gazzola, 1963b, no. 281)." But the city says otherwise (the full text would be to long); therefore in short: "bridge built in 1616/1617 by architect Andrä Tanner from Brixen; from this time on all official documents referred to bridge only as “Steinerner Steg”; during the Italianization in the 20ties to be exact on December 2nd, 1927 the name “Ponte Romano” was introduced."the whole pdf document (in Italian) published by the city (point 20). So on one side one line by a Cambridge scholar on the other side the city itself - in my opinion the city (and I hail from there and know the story of bridge) is right, but try to tell that to Icsunonove... [28]. this would be a content dispute if the other party was ready to discuss, alas he isn't... He was warned two days ago to stop insulting other editors by administrator user:John

• ...and as the user below stated, my edits to the article were valid, neutral, and very civil. I'm not an expert on this bridge, but I did my best to add clear references to the citations as they were provided. You again show you are for some bizarre reason making this personal, exemplified by how you write above. We don't need a history lesson. I became angry after you pushed this to become uncivil. I just don't have the time that you apparently have to go and try to blacken editors via the noticeboards. It is really people like you, in these petty "ethnic" fights, that turn Wikipedia into some cultural battleground because of personal issues, and for that, you should be permanently banned -- because it is the absolute worst of what we see on this encyclopedia. You insult all our intelligence when you go and revert links blindly as vandalism, or you keep adding text like "austrian province of south tyrol", when there is no book on this planet that records a history of an austrian province of south tyrol. I'll say this, whatever Mussolini did in the past, it looks like people such as yourself are trying to do exactly the same thing but in another direction. So, in the end you are no better; sorry to break it to you. Lastly, you are not even brave enough to admit that you were the one who actually instigated all of this on the Steinerner Steg article. It does take a strong person to admit they are wrong though... Icsunonove (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

[29] for saying things like:

• You have no idea what you are talking about. I don't know what makes the people in your province so aggressive. Is it so boring in Merano??
• BIZARRE! LOL
• stop Noclador from adding his non-cited ramblings on here
• Oh, never mind, I should of checked first. Swedish being arrogant
• do you have a learning disability?

he said he had learned his lesson, but it was all my fault ([30]) now to today, as he still can't editwar his POV through he gets more agitated by the minute:

• making redirects from Bozen-Bolzano to Bolzano-Bozen is nuts
• @_@ You trying to drive us nuts, right?
• Why the heck did you revert my edit... That is ridiculous.
• Noclador, what is your problem, why are you being so aggressive?
• You are really falling into this pit of politics, Noclador. Are you going to degrade into someone like Martin Se?? But the insinutations you make, are frankly, discusting. Get yourself out of it Noclador.
• Thanks Noclador, I appreciate your insinuations and accusations, I really do.
• I hope this makes you feel more comfortable dear Noclador. In English, my native language and obviously not yours... I'm quite experienced in researching since I have completed a dissertation for a doctorate. How about you? I respected you as an editor and as relaxed and not "ultra" with regard to these pages. You have however shown yourself to be hypersensitive and indeed insecure over this issue. All you've done is accuse me of POV and vandalism as part of this childish issue that people in Bolzano-Bozen seem to spend the majority of their life brewing over
• With your insinuations and accusations that I'm trying to push POV or discredit the mayor of Merano, I learn today that you are an extremely insecure individual Noclador. I sincerely hope you deal with that in some way, because you were much more relaxed and pleasant before. Good luck with that.
• remove discussions with two people who sound and act like teenagers
• and vandalism mimicking the childish behavior that it seems many people
• How dare you. You come on my talk page and spout these amazingly stupid accusations. You have issues dude. You on the other hand seem to have some political theory made up and are here to play soldier. Grow the heck up. And my "petty naming guerilla war"? Are you smoking something? There is no one interested in wars, except maybe you. If I make an incorrect edit, you can point it out politely at least try to be civilized. Invading the article?!?! I didn't know that this article was your kingdom! You have got some major issues Gun Powder Ma, and I don't need your regards. You should evaluate the BS you just spewed on my talk page, and then check yourself. You obviously are a bit too much into "military history".... holy beejeesuz!
• enthusiastically playing Wiki-soldier.

• YOU instigate such edit wars and make such horrible accusations, and then you don't expect editors to become upset and tell you off? Hmm? Icsunonove (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

in short: he demanded sources, I and User:Gun Powder Ma brought sources, he didn't like them he refuses to discuss, he insults and I'm fed up. I request a 7 day block for user:Icsunonove for continuing grave incivility. --noclador (talk) 04:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• and for your actions Noclador, not words, you should be banned for a month. Icsunonove (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Why specifically that number? — neuro^(talk) 08:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

So that he has time to cool down. --noclador (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be checked whether the anonymous IP and the user are identical. Is this technically possible? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not even going to bother arguing with these two, and this will be my only reply. These are the type of individuals that go around being ultra aggressive to editors that disrupt their domain and then blame said editors for finally getting pissed off. If there was any sense of maturity in these two, they would also be men enough to point out the things that they were doing (if they can admit to that). I lost my cool, but it is sure hard not to do so with people like this, who will make this long diatribe above accusing editors of making a new Rome. @_@ I am not going to waste my time to go and pull up the evidence of what they've done and the things they've said. I was trying my best to make some neutral edits to a page about a freakin' bridge (Steinerner Steg), and you can see clearly all the criticism I get and the reverts with a blind of vandalism or pushing a political point of view. I'd like for once to see an Admin go and outright ban uses like Noclador and Gun Powder Ma for just flat out making Wikipedia an unpleasant place to work, and also playing this childish "I'm reporting you" game, whenever they get their pants up in a knot. I asked many times what I could do to make my new edits better, and they simply treat this like a military campaign. I'm going to take my own break, regardless, because as I said -- these sort of people simply ruin Wikipedia for others. Noclador accusing me of an Italianization campaign is about the most insulting thing I've ever read on WIkipedia. I have been at the forefront of trying to record all the languages used in this province. I've NEVER tried to remove any language, much less German. If this individual has deep down insecurities because (as he states) he lives in this province, that is something he must deal with. But calling me a fascist (i.e. equivalent to a nazi), should have him permanently banned. Someone simply look at how he was blindly reverting any edit I tried to make in good faith to Steinerner Steg, and you'll see the behavior. I'd love for an Admin to simply do that, because the edits are there in stone. I think the last version I came up with was quite good, and again.. revert.. vandalism. What is this? He simply categorizes me as "the enemy" and tries to accuse me with every edit I make. I couldn't care less about this idiotic proxy battle of Italian versus German. My history shows VERY WELL, I've always pushed for the neutral, multilingual stance. That I can lose my cool with people who turn Wikipedia into a political joke, well, I think many others would agree with this disgust. Icsunonove (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

for the insults of just the last hour please see: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#user:Icsunonove --noclador (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to the "so that he has time to cool down" comment, please see WP:CDB. What you are asking for is against policy when presented by itself. — neuro^(talk) 16:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The real truth though is, what Noclador describe as insults are usually editors describing what he is doing wrong on here. Funny. Icsunonove (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems these two have a bit of a history, judging by Icsunonove's removal today of a barnstar awarded to him by noclador over a year ago. Icsunonove is certainly bringing incivility to new and exciting heights here, but this seems like one of those "it takes two to tango" situations. Tarc (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

@ neuro: It is absolutely justified as Icsunonove fulfills truly all of the Signs of disruptive an editor and in such cases "an angry user who is also being disruptive can be blocked to prevent further disruption."
@ Tarc: ah, nope I must correct you on that - you will not find a single insult directed by me towards Icsunonove, but tons of them against me, User:Gun Powder Ma, who wrote the original article that led to all this and many more against other users that tried to edit articles about South Tyrol (i.e. user:PhJ, user:Gryffindor and many more) --noclador (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say you insulted him in he same manner, but you're obviously had a long association with this user, and are currently embroiled in edit wars with him. Reverting with edit summaries of "vandalism" is not helpful, and using WP:TWINKLE in edit wars is, I believe, severely frowned upon. Tarc (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No Tarc - I did not have "a long association with this user" The barnstar I gave out to the people who finally agreed on a naming convention for the communes of South Tyrol and since than I did not have any dealings with this user! My last reverts did I label vandalism - AFTER Icsunonove ignored attempts to discuss and find consensus on the talkpage and continued editing against all other editors the article with his POV.--noclador (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• You have been proven wrong by the history of the edits on the article and the page. Your behavior is what is completely against Wikipedia policy. But, I guess to come on here and try to accuse me first is your brilliant idea? You can't back down and admit what you were doing was wrong, right? You never insulted me? See what you even just write at the beginning of this section? There is nothing more insulting than your accusations of italianization and mussolini behavior. How would you like it if someone says you are conducting Germanization and that you are linked genetically with Hitler?! Think about that... Icsunonove (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Noclador, you are a an excellent fit partnering with editors like PhJ and Gryffidor, THIS IS FOR SURE!! :) You didn't insult me??? Look at what you accuse me of above. You really must be flat out clueless. I can't waste my life arguing with people such as you Noclador. I thank you for teaching me this. And disruptive editor? Look at what you are doing on that bridge page, reverting any edit I make and calling it fascism or vandalism. Look at what you do all over the place and now on the Provincial page. Good riddens dude. Icsunonove (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• I broke my promise and am making one last reply before I sign out permanently. If I'm bringing incivility to a new level by removing this guy's name from my user page, so be it. After what he wrote about me above, I have the right to hope not to see his name again. I actually had no problem with Noclador and respected him as an editor in the past. But he apparently has taken a turn into the more divisive ways of one-sided politics. He has a good new partner in Gun Ma, looking at his "free tibet" flags on his user page. *roll eyes* I've noticed they are going wild now also on Province of Bolzano-Bozen; so expect them to cause an edit war there too. These two accusing me of Italianization and fascism and making a new Rome is just the last draw. You can read above that because Noclador lives in this province, he is actually taking this very personally. I've said it again, I've been at the forefront for including ALL names in these provinces. It is a grave insult what he accuses me of, and you better believe it pisses me off. This will indeed be my last post, I do not plan to work on Wikipedia any longer. As well, I hope an Admin goes and see what Noclador and Gun Ma are and were doing. Reverting edits calling them vandalism; labeling people as fascists and pushing Italianization. Then think if you wouldn't also be angry. I sincerely hope people like Noclador GROW UP. He should be utterly ashamed at falling into this ethnic POV trap. Have fun you all... Icsunonove (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The following is a post I made here which I believe should be included in this noticeboard as well: ":::I don't want you to misunderstand me, I am not saying his conduct is flawless by any means. However, looking at the actual sequence of events that led up to this, it seems he had some provocation. I am not trying to turn this on you and say it is your fault, but you should not declare someone's edits as vandalism when they are in fact a content dispute, even if they are editing after you contest the edit on the talk page. I reviewed Talk:Steinerner Steg and see Iscunonove trying to engage in collaboration in a very civil manner. [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] Now you claim a certain IP is this user, but without a check user we cannot say that for certain or treat them as identical, unless you have a diff where one or the other says that is the case. Based on the diffs above it seems Iscunonove was trying to collaborate and work in good faith, but statements such as these [37] [38] [39] [40] upset him. He was trying to work on the article and was actively participating in the discussion on the talk page, and did not become uncivil until the diffs above. It seems his behavior was not entirely unprovoked, and if some users had handled it differently, it would not have come to name calling, demanding bans and resignations from Wikipedia. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)" Theseeker4 (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Forgot this provocative diff [41]. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

After Icsunonove called Gun Powder Ma this; Gun Powder Ma responded. --noclador (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

..and WHAT exactly did I call him Noclador?? "Dude"?!? Icsunonove (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi everyone, who is this IP? Special:Contributions/96.251.10.234

Please have a look on the history of this user talk page (very interesting): User talk:Moroderen

PhJ (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have the feeling, increasing numbers of Icsunonove's/Taalo's former friends are turning their backs to him. 3 years ago, (at least I had the impression) Rarelibra and Noclador were still friends with him, but obviously they have come to the conclusion that his behaviour is kind of crazy.

I know Noclador by his contributions on the English and German Wikipedia, and he is by no means "nationalist" nor has he fallen into an "ethnic POV trap", quite the opposite: He is very critical towards German conservative positions including some of my contributions. Therefore his statements on this page are very trustworthy.

Regarding the so-called "Ponte Romano" or Steinerner Steg, I think it should be no problem to find reliable sources to prove the the bridge's origin in the 16th century (I mean, historical research). Noclador, just find them ;) -- PhJ (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• You should be ashamed of yourself PhJ. You of all people calling others' behavior crazy? That is a personal attack, and your statement that I've had an "increasing number of ... former friends turn their back" is completely false, and you know it. I parted ways with Rarelibra, but that is the only case on here ever. Or, do you have proof that friends turned their back on me, and in (these laughable) increasing numbers? Why don't you back up your words? I'd be pretty embarrassed with myself to make such grand statements in public and not be able to prove them. But, then again, I am capable of shame. What you are insinuating is for your own disgusting purposes, and I think you do not realize how much that says about you. You also prove yourself ignorant in this discussion, because I had no problem what-so-ever with this bridge being from the 16th century. In fact I was attempting to cite the references as accurately (and in a neutral fashion) as possible. Why don't you take some time to see how I was trying to edit that page, without throwing out your slander? That is, if you can. But then again, that is not your purpose coming to this discussion, now is it? It doesn't surprise me that the editors who have shocked me most (you and Gryffindor) come in here to throw stones. You guys know I dislike you, and it is so petty you have to come on here like this, but then it kinda fits you guys, doesn't it? The only thing I agree with you is that Noclador (and he was never a friend) WAS relatively critical and fair in the past. But as Theseeker4 points out very clearly above, it was ridiculous how he came to attack me under some pre-conceived conclusion that I'm on a project to "Italianize". I was being accused of trying to discredit the mayor because I cited references with "according to". I'm sorry, but that is how we cite references in academia and in encyclopedias. Alas, sorry PhJ, but the facts are against you, as usual. I'll always remember you though as the "live and let live" person, one of the greatest hypocritical statements ever made on here. Icsunonove (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

A check should be done in that case. If the user has been using his an I.P. and his account to disrupt discussions or barrage users, that would of course not be acceptable and amounts to sockpuppetry. Gryffindor (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Sure, this from an Administrator who never should of been given such privileges in the first place. I have never witnessed an Admin who has so callously abused their powers as much as you Gryffindor. You have been warned so many times by fellow Admins it is indeed impressive. You are another one I bid a fond good riddance to. Hopefully you will be content, and you can try and go back and make pages as you forced them before. You remember, only Trentino-South Tyrol, South Tyrol, and I believe even the Adige River as simply Eisack. I will not forget how you made Wikipedia a hell with regard to this region. It was people such as myself that brought forth the current multi-lingual compromises that brought relative peace and balance to those pages. It is so glaringly obvious how that affects (drives you mad?) people like you and PhJ. You know what? That is your issue and I truly feel sorry for you. I will always be content to know that I worked to bring about sharing. You instead? Icsunonove (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Warned for personal attacks. — neuro^(talk) 21:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, you are not aware of Gryffindor's intentions and the history of what went down with regard to articles about this province. Note that he is coming into this discussion for no other reason than to make a personal attack, as did PhJ above. I sincerely hope you warn PhJ and Noclador as well. Thanks, Icsunonove (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what your issue is, but leave me out of it ok? Gryffindor (talk) 02:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

note to administrative staff

Again, I would appreciate it if a few Admins can first go and look again at the edit history at Steinerner Steg, as was done by one user already above (Theseaker). I would like to know what I was doing wrong, besides finally getting pissed off at how those users were reverting edits (blindly as vandalism) and making gross accusations of guerilla warfare' (statement by Gun Powder Ma) to Mussolini-Fascist-style "Italianize" articles. @_@ That is outright slander, and I'd like to see the proof. Note that ironically these two are now going all over and adding in all these grand POV statements about this province. Just wait and see the edit wars they will instigate. You can see it coming on Province of Bolzano-Bozen, etc. Second, I'd hope for a clarification towards Noclador about making such horrid personal attacks as he made at the beginning of this post. I thought there were policies against essentially calling people nazis/hitler? I don't think fascist/mussolini is any different. If he has ingrained issues because he lives in this province, that does not need to spill into this encyclopedia. Finally, it would be interesting if some Admin would also focus on the behavior of users (that I admittedly dislike) such as PhJ and Gryffindor popping in to use the Administrator's noticeboard as a soapbox to bash. Is that the purpose of this noticeboard? It would just be refreshing for once to see the slander of above actually be addressed. Ok, a dream of mine has always been for a formal and thorough investigation of the behavior by Gryffindor since he received Adminship. But, that is just asking for a little icing, I admit. :) Icsunonove (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• and in a further grand display of wikistalking :) [42] Noclador is obviously to the point of obsession now. With all the reverts he did on the bridge article, he should of been banned. For making this long diatribe about accusing people of italianization and being like mussolini, he should of been banned. Now, spending hours upon hours of his time trying to justify what he did by trying to dig up past history, again.. he shows his true intent. It looks simply as if Noclador is trying to do a broader attack against an editor, now that his initial "incident" has been proven to been instigated by him and Gun Powder Ma. I can only ask Noclador this: Do you feel somewhat guilty for the slanderous accusations you made above? Do you feel guilty of how you were reverting the article again and again and calling it vandalism, when it has been shown to everyone here that it clearly was not? Is that why you want to try and drive all the accusations towards me, and even though I'm never going to edit on this encyclopedia again, you seem to not even want me to post on here to defend myself against attacks from PhJ/Gryffindor, or notify others what you are doing? That is pretty incredible... Icsunonove (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• AND RIGHT ON CUE: [43] Just as I said. =) Another vindication of the type of behavior we've seen from users like PhJ and Gryffindor for years already, the type of stuff that Noclador has moved towards doing, and his new buddy Gun Powder Ma newly signing up. LOL Also a good reminder of why I need to finally take myself out as an editor here. Wikipedia, I wish you the greatest of luck with such people, who use this encyclopedia as a way to push their own political agendas. I personally feel it is the very worst of human behavior that these editors show us. That they have no shame, is the part that is truly scary. Icsunonove (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Icsunonove has 3x unresolved Wikiquette alerts: one yesterday: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#user:Icsunonove and 2x today Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#user:Icsunonove II, Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#user:Icsunonove III, plus he keeps going and going and the accusations get more ludicrous by the minute ("You know everyone can see now that you and Gun Powder Ma instigated this farce.") --noclador (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've had enough Noclador, please read the message left on your page. Just to note, I could make 30 alerts on someone, and then they would have "30x unresolved Wikiquette alerts". :-) Also, am I getting more ludicrous by the minute by stating that the history of that bridge article does show rather dubious actions by you an Gun Powder Ma? Just, relax, be self-critical for a second, and think about it. :-) I'm not trying to insult you, please realize that, I'm trying to make you think a bit here. Now, I'm tired of this, enough is enough, ok? If you really think I'm out to remove German from BZ, that is really unfortunate -- because you simply couldn't be more wrong. Icsunonove (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

And we've had enough, too; for God's sake stick a cork in it. HalfShadow 23:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the nice personal attack HalfShadow. I believe in karma, and I certainly hope when someone in your life makes such horrible accusations as I went through above, that you get the same "put a cork in it" treatment. Very thoughtful, very civil. This was a horrible experience for me, I appreciate your concern. I know all my text must have been difficult for you. Icsunonove (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

ciao

Can only try [44], but just as my edits on the bridge article, this is also vandalism. I hope this wonderful new friend of mine also is given maybe more rights and respect on here someday. [45]. I give up.. Icsunonove (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

My personal view

Icsunonove is a good guy and what he does in Wikipedia is to balance articles. South Tyrol and Alto Adige are both used in English and, thanks to Icsunonove, we reached a compromise of using both terms. I don't know if the IP and Icsunonove are the same person, but what is sure is that, as far as I know him, Icsunonove is a good editor of Wikipedia. --Checco (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Checco, and it makes it more clear why users such as Noclador, PhJ, Gryffindor want someone like me gone. Because they want only South Tyrol, and never wanted the balance that we brought to the articles. Noclador was the same person who was seen adding edits to articles that stated the old Austrian province of South Tyrol, something that never existed. They were also changing wikilinks from Bolzano-Bozen to Bozen-Bolzano on selected pages. You can see their intention, and childishly calling people fascists because they fix the wikilinks to point to the compromised page Province of Bolzano-Bozen. Then, after they harass, egg on, and infuriate editors who are trying to put that balance into place (or even fix wikilinks!), they cry wolf. I just sincerely hope the Admins don't buy into this, and clamp down on them for once. Icsunonove (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Offer again to Noclador

I've done it many times already, but I'll offer once again to Noclador that we drop this public spat and discuss his and my concerns one-on-one. I'm content to try and convince Noclador he is incorrect with the accusations he made at the top of this page. HalfShadow on the other hand can ____ __ _____ ___.  :) Icsunonove (talk) 07:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Give us a break or not

I don't understand. Does Icsunonove want to give us a break or not (as he announced it)? -- PhJ (talk) 11:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

insincere departure. --noclador (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry you two. :) After reading through the false accusations made from the initiation of this post, not to mention the beligerant slander you added PhJ (and you really just couldn't help to jump in, could you?), I've changed my mind. I will defend myself, and don't be surprised if in the end you are both asked to answer for your actions to incite. I'm positive you dislike this approach, and would love to chase editors such as myself away, but .. oh well. ^_- Icsunonove (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Minimal response from admins

There seems to be minimal response from admins -- All I'm finding is Gryffindor made a note about the username/ip concern. I think this is a sign there are no clear villains or heros here, and no one wants to continually parse all the back and forth rhetoric. I'd suggest all parties take a break, force themselves to assume good faith, no matter how hard that is, resume the discussion on the appropriate talk page, and be meticulous about only discussing content. If ya'll get stuck, try one of article RFC or other Third Opinion or the like. Gerardw (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Gerardw. I was guessing the Admins were more concerned with the real-life stalking incident also going on in another incident report. Your comments are dead on, by the way, and echo what Theseeker tried to say. The thing is, I'm afraid they consider this some monumental battle for "South Tyrol", and a certain school of thought. :) I've said multiple times I'll discuss this all one-on-one, but you see the results I get. I could haev easily asked for formal Administrator action against the initial accusations and slander made by this incident report, but.. why stoop to that level.. Plus, I think the truth becomes more obvious just by the first paragraph of this incident report, and looking through the so-called "fascist" edits I've been accused of... @_@ Icsunonove (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring in Wikipedia:Tendentious editing‎ and Wikipedia talk:Tendentious editing‎

I was advised to bring this situation here after posting it to WP:EAR:

Oh, the ironing of it all!

Background

In WP:TE, editor Colonel Warden made a revert (18:36, 13 January 2009), undoing my own edit 04:21, 10 January 2009 and a new shortcut added by Inclusionist. Colonel Warden's edit summary indicated he objected to the new shortcut.

I reverted Colonel Warden's edit 19:00, 13 January 2009 , requesing that he join the discussions on the talk page.

His response was to start a new discussion 20:12, 13 January 2009 without addressing the actual discussion on the edits he was reverting here or the related discussion here.

I found his response to be a personal attack that did not actually address the merits of the information he restored, so removed the attack and left an uw-npa1 note on his talk page 20:30, 13 January 2009 .

At issue

Since then, two WP:SPA ip's have begun editing Wikipedia. Their sole edits to date are identical other than the edit summaries, and consist of restoring Colonel Warden's edits to both the article and the talk page. I've reverted these edits, and warned both ip's about our WP:NPA policy.

Since I requested for help on this at WP:EAR, another ip address has reverted (22:21, 16 January 2009) WP:TE, this time without an edit summary, while still another ip has reverted (of 22:26, 16 January 2009) the talk page. --Ronz (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(God, I love irony...) HalfShadow 22:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not going to add, "Uses sockpuppetry to edit war and harass other editors" to WP:TE, if that's what you're thinking ;^) --Ronz (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I meant; you have someone edit-warring at a page about edit-warring. HalfShadow 22:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Two of the IP's in question are Tor nodes, and have been blocked as such. Given that there's clearly an attempt to sway the article using IP socks, I've gone ahead and semiprotected it for 3 days, which should make things more manageable. MastCell ^Talk 22:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Being disgusted by Ronz's behaviour in removing my talk page comment, I walked away from the article but made reference to the matter here. As Casliber has many correspondents, it may be that other editors have taken an interest in the matter. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Did someone mention irony? --Ronz (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

93.81.182.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another tor node that has reverted the talk page--Ronz (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Threw it towards an overeager Heavy. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 01:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• In news unrelated to the dispute, does anyone else see the extreme irony with this? NW leaves ANI NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 02:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Surely a candidate for WP:LAME. The irony level is off the scale. 202.12.233.23 (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
    • "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the Edit War Room!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Alll we need now is a few cream pies, and the scene will write itself... 203.35.82.136 (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Actually, I think John M. Ford already did write the scene, at the end of How Much for Just the Planet?. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, but look, isn't this sweet? No only did those nasty anonymous IPs revert the removal of Colonel Warden's edits without his permission and knowledge, now we have an anonymous IP that is one minute kindly requesting Colonel Warden's help and the next minute kindly archiving Colonel Warden's talk page([46][47][48][49]). The amount of unsolicited help that Colonel Warden gets from these completely independent anonymous editors is unbelievable in every sense of the word, isn't it?—Kww(talk) 17:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Doesn't it make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside? On a more serious note, I recommend the punishment for all concerned be a rigorous Ironing. 203.35.82.136 (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

  As helpful as that is, if there are legitimate sock puppet concerns (which seem reasonable) those should be addressed and handled appropriately. Regardless of the ironing, the community shouldn't just laugh that off.--Crossmr (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

  I would like to see others confirm that my suspicions are reasonable ... I certainly have them.—Kww(talk) 15:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

  Forgive me but I don't see Special:Contributions/68.220.175.168 making any edits to pages discussed above (meaning TE). Could be col' logged out. Protonk (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

  Didn't try to imply that it was the same anonymous IP, just that the amount and type of anonymous editing was suspicious.—Kww(talk) 20:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

  It all looks suspicious given the lengths that editors are going to in order to hide their tracks with the edit-warring. However, I think we should AGF here. It's likely just a coincidence. --Ronz (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

  Ok. I see what you mean. I'd say AGF for now. Protonk (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I should mention the irony. Tan | 39 16:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:Admin Abuse?

Resolved

 – And blocked.

Here? OneOffAccount (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. SPA. Black Kite 20:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyway going to slap a block indef to the SPA? D.M.N. (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems a little pointless unless it's actively disruptive. Black Kite 20:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Does this count? _Gb^T/c 21:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Pages deleted. Blocked. Black Kite 21:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone was abusing an admin again? Is the admin ok? First aid applied in time, all that? KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but he's afraid of closets now, for some strange reason. HalfShadow 23:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

And wire clothes-hangers. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

SPA account or not.. secret did feel the need to revert before locking. An admin locking to prevent an edit war shouldn't be reverting anything but blatant vandalism. It appeared that he reverted the two articles to his preferred name and then locked it.--Crossmr (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The revert was probably to keep the article and its edit history together (and where it had been since 2006, with the exception of one quickly reverted move), rather than any preference for either of the titles. —Snigbrook 21:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• No, it's fair in context; the edit reverted made no sense at all - it redirected to a disambiguation page while removing pretty much all the content that the reader was probably looking for - which was one of the entries in the dab list. Almost a circular redirect. And with an egregiously uncivil edit summary, to boot. It was a sound piece of sysoppery. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Not to mention...it was 2 months ago...--Smashville^talk 21:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Hfarmer continued incivility after final warning

Hfarmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps having too much fun with my name; I told her it was getting old, then warned, final warned her, etc., but she persists. These recent events:

• not the first time, but the recent one for which I warned her

(first I reverted it, then warned)

• again in response to my warning
• this was after the warning, too
• again

(then my informal final warning)

• again after informal final warning

(her own ally warns her, too)

• again after final warning tag

For completeness, I should mention that she pokes at my name some more in the user conduct RfC that she filed on me Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dicklyon; it's hard for me to take seriously, so I haven't responded to it.

A number of us have been trying to get to mediation on some disputes, and she seems to just be trying to torpedo the process. I believe a temporary block would help her get back on track. She really wants to make the whole dispute about me, but I'm not the one derailing it with incivility. Dicklyon (talk) 09:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's being from the beginning This is what Dick said to me in the first place in response to my genuine and nice remarks to him "Save your feigned feelings, please." For month's Dicklyon has made these kinds of little remarks towards me. Recently he has even made Some what I feel are homophobic and transphobic remarks calling my filing an RfC against him "theatrical". (Because you see I am a male to female transsexual and he knows this.) This is one. This is where he goes on to call my activities "being theatrical". If that RfC were totally frivolous then it would not have been endorsed in the positive by another user. JamesCantor who dick has also routinely insulted as part of his talk page comments. I suppose it is easy to be calm when you are not the target of his remarks. I have been calm, for many months waiting for the various processes to do something.

As for trying to torpedo Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Man Who Would Be Queen. All I would have to do is disagree with it because I am an involved party. Which is tempting to do (Dickklyon has already withdrawn from another mediated agreement and it is likely he will do that to any new agreement when it suits him). He insulted me and I responded in a heated tone, but not with an actual insult. Unlike his constantly caustic remarks.

Last if citing WP:DICK in the case of a person who just happens to be named Dick is such a huge insult then I don't know what to say. That page is there for a reason and I do not cite it lightly.--Hfarmer (talk) 09:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable conduct that is borderline harassment. I have blocked Hfarmer (talk · contribs) for 24 hours to prevent further disruption. CIreland (talk) 10:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I know some editors cite that essay and have done for a long time, it's an old Wikipedia chestnut from when the community was much smaller and able to be more freewheeling, but I think many editors are likely to take being given a wlink to it as a personal attack and truth be told, it often is. Speaking only for myself, I see it as mildly funny Internet fossil text of the bygone, not at all as a handy help page. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If you read the essay you will find that it has always been liable to backfire, and rightly so. But actually m:DICK is still one of the most important rules we have, and rightly so. Use with care, and never as part of a long-running dispute. Guy (Help!) 19:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Man, this wasn't even a transparent attempt at invoking WP:DICK, or calling a guy by his name. This was straight up calling another person a dick, as an insult, in a really pathetic manner. I'd block for longer due to the sheer blatancy of the personal attack, and the willingness to try any hide it behind policy (albeit poorly). ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 12:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Reporting user Kerr avon for possible trolling.

To whom it may concern,

I am reporting Kerr avon for possible trolling on Sri Lanka civil war related articles here. Since December, this individual has gone on a campaign to push a certain political perspective and to demonize Tamils in particular with regards to the war. For one, he or she has tagged speedy deletion templates to 18 Parliamentarian biographies who are members of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) party of Sri Lanka (See page here). What draws concern is that apart from the speedy deletion tagging of the 18 TNA Parliamentarians, articles on three members of the TNA assassinated in Sri Lanka (here) were left alone by Kerr avon. The TNA is the only elected group in Sri Lanka which has been exposing a lot of human rights abuses by the Government of Sri Lanka to the international community. It seems that Kerr avon does not like that. Wikipedia is not a place for political propaganda, nor is it a place for POV pushing. This individual also used threatening language on another user here. Further, Kerr avon referred to the Tamil diaspora who have fled Sri Lanka due to the war as "diASSpora", on a talk page twice here and on an edit summary here. This individual basically referred to the Tamil community as someone's "posterior" which I find very offensive especially being of Tamil ethnicity. Though others may not understand to which group he was directing this personal attack to, those of the Tamil diaspora get the message as to whom he or she is referring to. This very insulting to my community, just like it will be to any other ethnic community, whether they be Kurds, Irish, Jews, etc. It would be much appreciated if this matter could be looked into and possibly resolved. Thank you. Wiki Raja (talk) 11:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Er, the first diff I clicked that you provided was Kerr avon reverting someone's vandalism to his own user page. And while diASSpora might be offensive and perhaps childish, I don't really see anything wrong with it. He's not appearing to be pushing any POV, nor is he trolling. BTW, the term diaspora can apply to lots of ethnic groups, so I am not sure why you are particular incensed about this. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 12:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that you only actually provided two different diffs: One was reverting vandalism on his on user page, the other is a talk page comment. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 12:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Nominating all the Members of Parliament for a political party that he doesn't agree with is clearly disruptive. I see he has been warned about this already though, so a mere eye on the situation may be best at present. Black Kite 18:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

SWATJester: thanks for replying to my post. Well, the reason for reporting his trolling was on his mass POV edits on Sri Lanka civil war related articles, particularly on the tagging of speedy deletion templates to 18 articles pertaining to individuals belonging to a particular party. Everybody is entitled to their opinions, however, everybody on Wikipedia is not entitled to trolling and disruption of articles. As for the name calling such as "diASSpora", I was not referring to that as trolling, but as an insult to our community and even a personal attack. As stated, "others may not understand as to which group he was directing this personal attack to". I understand that Kerr avon was reverting vandalism on his page, but there was no need for name calling, and especially directed towards a particular community. In his comment he called the individual an Eelamist diASSpora. Obviously there is only one Eelam in the world and that is in the Tamil dominated areas of Northeastern Sri Lanka. And, those that are in dispute with the Sri Lankan government are also that that of the Tamil diaspora. So, it is very clear that this individual was directing this towards the Tamil diaspora. Wiki Raja (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Black Kite: Thanks for your input. As suggested, will keep an eye on this matter. Wiki Raja (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, well let's get some community consensus on twinkle anyway

Like here --> Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Twinkle Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I opined, but is this in the right thread? What does it have to do with Elonka and pseudoscience? --B (talk) 05:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right, B, this is decidely the wrong thread for worrying about twinkle. Or little twinkling stars. ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: when the above comments were left, this was a subthread. They are no longer applicable. --B (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Real life stalking by Ecoleetage

Resolved

 – Ecoleetage/Eco2 blocked indefinitely for off-Wikipedia harassment of another user SirFozzie (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a matter of grave importance. Ecoleetage (after I opposed his failed RfA) has contacted the principal of my school, warning him that I am not a fit teacher, and that I've been "playing computer games" on school computers. Eco also claimed that I was stalking him. My principal was very confused, but also very supportive and said he was worried about me. As I make no secret of my identity, it concerns me that Eco is not very stable it seems, and is attempting to hurt me in real life. I am a big boy, and can take care of myself, but I teach many minor children, and their safety is uppermost in my mind. I will no longer be editing the project regularly at all, and I need to request assistance in seeing that some kind of restraining order is placed on Felipe (Eco's real name, from what I gather) in real life. He needs to be nowhere near myself, my family, or my students. This is a very disconcerting situation, and something needs done straightaway. I think a permaban on Ecoleetage and any account shown to be a sockpuppet of such is a good first step from the project's perspective. This is an absolute first for me. SDJ 20:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Errr, wow. No comment on the real-life stuff, but as far as Wikipedia goes.. if/when you feel the urge to edit again, you could always retire this account, start up a new one, and tell nobody who you are. Friday (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As someone who supported Eco through his RfA I am incredibly disappointed. Eco's userpage revealed that that is indeed his real name, so I'll affirm that part. I'm only sorry it took this kind of behavior to show me what lies underneath the mask. Agree with permaban and sockpuppet ban; right to vanish/return can sod off. Ironholds (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

and I need to request assistance in seeing that some kind of restraining order is placed on Felipe. That is not within Wikipedia's discretion. If you feel you need such a thing you should be taking legal advice. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Eco's already retired, so there's no real reason to block his account, though I suppose if we get consensus here, we can consider him de facto banned. Unfortunately, there's no real way to confirm SDJ's statement here. GlassCobra 20:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, GC?!? I just got out of a meeting with my principal, where he spoke with me about this issue. While he was supportive, my own concern, for my minor students especially, led me to post here. Why would I make this up? At what point during the RfA did I do anything to deserve this? SDJ 20:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No offense was intended, SDJ, but the need for caution and deliberation is especially great in a situation like this. Hasty actions just exascerbate the situation. GlassCobra 20:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm restoring the talk page Ecoleetage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for reference. seicer | talk | contribs 20:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• How did you connect the online user with the real life name? This seems to be missing from the above. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Okay, this is seriously a problem and for the defenders of Eco, if this is true, will cause us to be very, very ashamed of our dogged support. --David Shankbone 20:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I've informed Ecoleetage about this on his now restored talkpage. I note that he has e-mail activated, so someone should probably send him an e-mail informing him of this discussion as well. D.M.N. (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

SDJ, can you explain this? I quote: "I have to request that a crat come in immediately, as per the unacceptable level of drama in this discussion involving SDJ's repeated demands to post off-Wiki material and this posting, with SDJ entertaining a request from Arcayne to send off-Wiki communication" On a side note, this RFA is also being discussed above. D.M.N. (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a lie. I asked for permission to post the chats that proved how he acted about WP stuff in chat. He denied that permission. It's as simple as that. Arcayne asked for the logs, and I told him I'd email him explaining the context, but wasn't comfortable posting them. SDJ 21:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

SDJ - is there a way we can get independent confirmation of this incident? Perhaps have Principle Storie e-mail OTRS with explicit permission to share and/or confirm the caller's identity on this thread? I believe you, but its best to have our ducks in a row.--Tznkai (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I recommend wiping and requesting oversight on any personal details you have on-wiki for the time being. Better safe than sorry - the safety of family and students first.--Tznkai (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As others have said this is not the appropriate place to discuss off-wiki sanctions. Please have your lawyer or your school's representative contact Wikimedia's office. This kind of thing is best handled privately and with the advice of legal counsel. As for on-wiki sanctions, they are fair game for discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Upon some sort of confirmation, I am more than willing to ban and request a CU of Ecoleetage - this kind of crap doesn't fly and pre-empting any sort of transition to on-wiki harassment is more than fair in a significant incident. That is however, all we can from this end.--Tznkai (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If there's a need to verify comments from people (like the principal) or email correspondence, don't overlook OTRS, which may be a useful tool. -Pete (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As of right now, the last edits by Ecoleetage (talk · contribs) were related to his retiring from Wikipedia, so, unless he comes back, there's nothing to do here on Wikipedia. Letting this cool off for a few days seems indicated. --John Nagle (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Why shouldn't Eco be indef blocked, "retired" or not? Grsz¹¹ 21:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Because blocks are preventative, not punative? Pedro :  Chat  21:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

ecx4 Because while as damning as this appears, we only have hearsay... do I believe the allegations? Yes. Can we prove them? Not without the actual email/communications, which past precident says we don't have access to unless both sides agree.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Please e-mail OTRS to verify the comments, as others have indicated. We can move forward once we receive more in-depth information. SJ, do you want your userpage to be deleted for the time being? Thanks. seicer | talk | contribs 21:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Upon the statemement by Rgoodermote, I believe that blocking Ecoloeetage, and checkusering his account to identify any potential socks is justified. Be aware Rgoodermote, that if you've share any personal info with him, he will find you. I spent the last half hour talking to an assistant administrator here, but Mr. Storie had already left for the day, as has his secretary who took the initial call, and was concerned about it as well. We have a long weekend, so email confirmation would take until Tuesday at least. Perhaps Rgoodermote's note above can serve as enough confirmation, at least for now? I'm very concerned now, both for my privacy, but also for my safety. SDJ 21:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

So, since someone complained about you in real life, that justifies criticizing them on Wikipedia, running them through CU, etc, even though your initial entry violates NLT? NLT was created so that off line problems stay off wikipedia. It should not be dragged back onto it. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, Ottava? He didn't like that I opposed his RfA, so he tries to get me fired, and you're okay with that? As for NLT, I was basically asking for advice on how to procede to make certain myself, my family, and my minor students were safe. You have no idea how much this has escalated. SDJ 21:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If I was a judge at your hearing for whatever you would want to press against him, sure, I would probably grant you it. However, Wikipedia is not a legal recourse. If there is an issue about legal matters, OTRS is the only thing that is acceptable. NLT was designed for just this kind of thing, and you are lucky that there is enough sympathy about (or, just no really really gutsy admin about) that you aren't indeffed until it is settled as per the letter of NLT. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't be daft. No way would any admin that wanted to keep their bit block under NLT in these circumstances. tsk. Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No shit. Ottava, when you wonder why people don't like you and have supported bans against you, this is the shit that causes it. Ecoleetage has admitted what he did, so what further proof is needed? Get a clue about things. When your Wikirage leads to real world harrassment, and calling to complain to a person's boss and put their career in jeopardy with who knows what sort of allegations, you have given up all rights to ever edit wikipedia with community acceptance ever again. ThuranX (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous, Ottava. We've had an editor rightfully stunned by a real-world attack on him (that's been admitted by the other party), and your response is to threaten him on legal grounds? Is that how wikipedia protects its editors? Dayewalker (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I did not "threaten him on legal grounds". Clearly, NLT stands for "no legal threats". Your comments appear as absurd as ThuranX's above, and it seems to suggest that you did not actually read what I stated.Ottava Rima (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If you read what I stated, Spartaz, you would see that I made it clear that no admin -would- block, but that the actions were completely wrong and ANI is not the place for such thing. We have OTRS specifically for dealing with such things if anything. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ottava: I think you really have to stretch to turn SDJ's report into an NLT violation. I don't read it that way. NLT does not require you to sit on your hands while someone engages in illegal or improper conduct, off-wiki. It does not require you to disregard your personal safety, or forebear any legal rights ortheir respective remedies. NLT is not a gag order that forbids any discussion of off-wiki legal action. It requires you not to use the threat of off-wiki legal action to gain advantage in an on-wiki discussion, or embroil wikipedia as a mode of communication in an off-wiki dispute that should be handled through off-wiki legal channels. There's no quid-pro-quo here, not even an attempt, so I don't see a threat. I see an honest concern for personal safety, and the seeking of advice. Is my understanding of the policy, or its application, wrong? Non Curat Lex (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I also supported Eco and his RfA bid. Of course, all I was able to judge him on were his efforts and contributions to the project, and am saddened by the controversy and scandle. In the hopes for a peace to come out of this, I wish the best to all involved... the supporters, the opposers, the neutrals... and everyone who reads this discussion in future archives. What a shame. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Eco - more evidence of the broken RfA process

I apologized to Husond on his talk page earnestly, but to me, this is more evidence of the broken RfA system, where accusations are made that nobody else can verify, but that surely would have had a baring on my dogged support of Eco (who confirmed to me privately he did what he is accused of). But seriously - when the hell are we going to fix this system so that people don't over-oppose, and when they have valid strong opposes, the rest of us can judge them? Nobody has come out of this episode smelling great, and I personally feel hurt and betrayed. Stupid RfA process - how can we have a website of super smart people who are so dumb in how they elect the people to run it? --David Shankbone 21:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Please sorry to see Ecoleetage great contributor one of the few from Mozambique and actually his RFA had not failed it was clearly in the discretion area at worst when he withdraw due to the drama rather than it failing as the tally was in his side 119/28/3 sad to good contributor leave due to conflicts and it would extremely harsh to block Ecoleetage a noted contributor without any prior block without getting his version of the events .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Eco already confirmed to me in an e-mail he called the employer. How would you like your employer contacted because you opposed someone's RfA? --David Shankbone 21:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you somehow verify these allegations? From personal experience, I can totally understand if you are unwilling to share real world stalking issues on-wiki, but are you willing to off-wiki present evidence to any trusted admins who can vouche for you on wiki? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Eco here as an intentional sock, because David got the message wrong. I contacted SDJ's principal, only to complain of harassment that I was receiving from him via Wiki. I am NOT stalking him, nor do I have any desire to be in touch with him again. Please delete/protect/block/ban whatever -- I am not returning. Eco2 (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't block editors at their own request. Sorry. The X button at the top of your broswer is they way forward, at least for the moment. Bad times. Pedro :  Chat  21:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

But we do block editors who harass other users off-Wikipedia, and then sock to come back and argue about it. Blocked this sock, and will block the main account as soon as I stop edit conflicting. SirFozzie (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks SirFozzie. What's most upsetting is his sock's rationale - if he was being stalked on-wiki, he should have come here. This was just disgusting revenge. --David Shankbone 21:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Endorse block I recommend SDJ escalates this issue to the appropriate authorities.--Tznkai (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

:::: until we have some form of confirmation - I'll take a confession from a sock who could be anyone as holding very little value. If those sorts of statements come from the main account (which he still have access to?).. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Cameron. Can a checkuser confirm that the sock account is actually Eco and not someone impersonating him, which has of course happened in the past? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

RFA-specific discussion more properly belongs at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Friday (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• To David (Shankbone). I'm confused by your post: are you saying that it's no wonder that Ecoleetage's frustration about his RfA led him to this and that a smoother RfA process would have prevented it?!? I for one am relieved that RfA filters out madmen. If there's any lesson about RfA, it's that people aren't participating responsibly. There was a lot of evidence that Ecoleetage was prone to destructive outbursts but he was very good at making friends (in particular off-wiki) and that was enough for him to quickly garner over a hundred supports despite past incidents that should have disqualified him. What just happened to SDJ is tragic and unacceptable but I hope that those who supported Ecoleetage's RfA will reflect on the fact that they almost made that guy an admin by ignoring all the red flags. (And just for safety I'll sign that comment with an alternate account. Can't be too careful...) Pichpich (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• @Pichpich: No, my point was that this spiraled out of control because people wanted evidence for allegations that were not obvious to on-wiki, and had that evidence been presented (I eventually asked for just one diff), it could have helped all of us make a better decision. Against this backdrop is an RfA community that finds one momentary lapse in judgment a reason to pile on the opposes. Some of us see that, so we start to react in the other direction, defending editors against unsupported and strong allegations with no supporting evidence (such as here). Many of us feel the RfA system is broken for one reason or another. A strange confluence of events created this horrible situation, but most to blame is the system itself, and that we appear to be unwilling to fix (go figure). If you'd like another user's eloquent statement of the problem, here's a diff. --David Shankbone 00:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I see. Sorry I misunderstood what you meant. Nevertheless, I think it's important to realize that not all lapses in judgement are created equal. Forget allegations, the documented past incidents should have been enough for everybody to take pause. We're not talking about a botched CSD nomination or a crappy rationale for a non-free image. The encounters with AniMate and SDJ should have been a deal-breaker for everyone and yet those diffs were met by "out of his thousands of edits, he had 13 bad ones". The biggest problem with RfA is not its structure, it's its participants: people make friends, give each other barnstars (see e.g. this, kid around on irc and then decide that, hey, why should threatening to derail an RfA be a problem? I don't want to single you out David, actually, you seem genuinely interested in understanding how we can avoid such fuck-ups. But I wish people would stop whining about how disappointed they are by Eco and start thinking about why the disturbing incidents didn't stop them from giving him enthusiastic support. Pichpich (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Permanent community ban on Ecoleetage. He's acquiesced to this already, but in order to prevent a 'wait wait i was mad' apology and some puddingheaded admin letting him in again, we need to ban him. This sort of episode cannot be allowed a chance for repetition. this sort of behavior constitutes a clear and present danger to the core community structure of the project, and there can be zero tolerance for attempts to escalate such behaviors to the real world, ever. No slipper slopes of 'it was only call' to ' it was only shouting at him in person' to 'it was only thrown at his feet'. No harassment, of any sort, ever. ThuranX (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Thuran. Eco's contributions to the project have indeed been quite stellar, and I had great respect for him (and his "wrong queue" jokes) up until now, but we've blocked people indefinitely for much less than real-life stalking. We just banned Betacommand (talk · contribs · block log) for less. Endorse community ban, and if appropriate, I will make a formal ban proposal at AN if further support emerges. According to the template at the #top of this page, we're supposed to make ban proposals there. --Dylan620 (Contribs) 02:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with Thuran about Ottava, and agree with him and Dylan that the ban needs to be formal. This was possibly the worst thing one of us could do to the other, especially in this economy. Absolute worst (next to murder). --David Shankbone 02:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• Really? I knew it was an awful thing to do, but that comment just enticed me to propose a community ban much earlier than I originally expected to. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposing a community ban on Ecoleetage. --Dylan620 (Contribs) 03:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• BTW, the "awful thing" is what Eco did to Dean. --Dylan620 (Contribs) 03:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree; the train wreck that was Eco needs to never darken our doorstep again. I get chills thinking about how superlatively he had pulled the wool over a hundred folks' eyes. Another reason why RfA needs some serious fixing. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support community ban. I don't swear very often here, but holy shit, I can't believe I actually gave him the benefit of the doubt on numerous occasions before. Support his permanent expulsion from the community; we just can't have people running around doing this sort of thing. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC).
• Support community ban You do not call someone's employer to try and cause trouble because of legitimate on-Wiki activities. And this person might have gained admin rights. Edison (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Allegations of real-world harassment

Please forward evidence and details concerning any acts of grave real world-harassment, such as communications with employers, to the Arbitration Committee mailing list. In general, it is not helpful to have extensive discussion of such matters take place on-wiki. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• How do I do this, Brad? I can forward you logs from the previous time I opposed his RfA, as well as those from what led up to me opposing from last night. I'm just not sure what steps to take. And as I said above, Mr. Storie had already left for the day when I went up to the front office, so I can't get official email confirmation of the meeting he and I had regarding Eco's accusations until Tuesday at the earliest. SDJ 21:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Forward to the committee such material as you deem probative and appropriate. You can do it c/o me or any active arbitrator, or use the mailing list e-mail address on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• As a side note, can we get a CU against Eco2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? seicer | talk | contribs 21:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I've already asked a member of the Arbitration Committee to have a CheckUser done to confirm this. SirFozzie (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed User:Eco2 is who he says he is. Cool Hand Luke 22:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering Eco/Eco2 has been indeffed, we can wait until Tuesday or later for evidence to come forward. It's not like we're disarming a nuclear weapon at the planet's core here- with apologies to SDJ, is there any point to further discussion right now? Even if that evidence is never submitted, it seems pretty likely that Eco is now and will remain de facto banned- i.e., no admin would be willing to unblock. I further recommend that everyone involved here take a moment to resume their calm. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion and potential oversight of my userpage

I'm considering disappearing this account, but in the meantime I think the least that should happen is that I should have my userpage deleted and oversighted, and my username changed to the less identifiable "SDJ", which I've been signing as lately anyway. The reason I have not dealt with this is in the last several hours is twofold: 1) I was really freaked out, and took some time away fromt he keyboard to chill with some friends and watch a movie; and 2) my connection at the house is completely shot now. I'm at a friend's house, and will be leaving shortly, which is why I'm leaving the request for deletion/oversight here instead of going through the formal channels. I authorize any admin to request oversight of my userpage for me. Someone please just get it done very quickly. I will make a decision within twenty four hours if I wish to disappear this account, and start with a new one, which I would identify to the appropriate channels. Thanks to all who have helped me at various points through this debacle. I have never been through something this disconcerting to my real life based upon totally non-real life activities. Regards, SDJ 03:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Just my .02 (shared with a couple people as well, and they said it sounded reasonable). I don't see any problem with deleting talk and user pages for privacy reasons, but oversighting the whole page is probably a non starter for technical and proceedural reasons. Wikipedia cannot be responsible for stuffing the genie of freely revealed information back into the lamp, and the sheer # of revs needed for oversight is probably a bad idea as well. I am cognizant of the privacy issues, however and encourage SDJ to start a new account away from the existing one. It's probably best to let one or more of the Arbitration Commitee members know the new account. SirFozzie (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I just want to say I'm sorry to SDJ. This is a terrible situation, and one I potentially could have and in hindsight probably should have prevented. Eco's explanation about the threat he left on my talk page in regards to my then upcoming RfA was clearly false. I knew it and chose to accept it for political reasons. Since Eco had been so supportive of my RfA, I also chose to remain silent on his, though I haven't been very active because of work and an upcoming move. Seeing an unfit candidate passing RfA, SDJ posted something I not only considered posting, but had actually typed up and decided to think about some more. I dropped the ball on this, and hope you don't have any more harassment from this clearly unstable user. I'm taking this situation as a lesson in speaking my mind, especially when what I say won't be popular. Sorry.AniMate^talk 04:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

SDJ-you'll probably have to task a trusted admin to dig through your history and e-mail oversight exactly which revs you need oversighted, or have an OS you trust do it directly. Sorry we can't do more, I'll bug I 'crat about the name change if I see one.--Tznkai (talk) 04:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

After private discussion with SDJ, all of the relevant issues here have been addressed. For the record, the pages involved were not oversighted, as they do not meet the criteria for oversight and, once the reasons were explained, SDJ understood that. He has asked me to express his appreciation for the support from so many members of the community. I have extended to him best wishes for the future and assured him that, should he wish, the door will be open to him to return to the project under a username of his choosing. He has agreed to let a member of the Arbitration Committee know of any new username he selects to smooth the path for a return. Risker (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

←In my previous, more hostile confrontations with Felipe, as noted in his RfA support, he placed effort into finding out details about me, and trying to talk over the phone which I did not feel comfortable with. In recent times I truly believed he had left this behaviour behind, as we were on good terms, but sadly it seems this is not the case. The case detailed above is extremely serious, and it's clear that SDJ isn't making it up. I don't know if the OTRS has been done yet, but if not, I fully endorse a community-wide ban of Felipe. I'm saddened, however, that it's come to this. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 12:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

May I ask (general question I guess) if Ecoleetage was "trying to find out details about others" off-Wiki before this incident, why wasn't he blocked indefinitely earlier? D.M.N. (talk) 12:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Because simply requesting details is not an offence, on or off wiki. As a one-off, I did not view his behavior as worrying, merely confusing; and, like so many others, when he apologised after realising what it would do to his RfA, I took that apology and tried to make a fresh start. It is only when you bring all of these cases together that the worrying nature of Felipe's behavior truly becomes noticable. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 12:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I totally concur. In my case I may have been lucky enough to be a Scorpio, whom they say do not forget neither the good nor the evil actions of others. I too accepted his apologies and started fresh once, but from the moment he backstabbed me he could be rest assured I would never believe him again. His attempts to bring me back to his pool of supporters were futile, but at least I got some of my stubs expanded. Húsönd 12:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

copyright violations

Historian19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is copying bulk content from Encyclopedia Britannica Online into Wikipedia. Examples can be found in the last few days of edit history of Greece, Netherlands, and Morocco. This is easy to detect: take sentences from the bulk insertions and do a google search on them. They show up exactly in Britannica. Hmains (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Since you are the one who brought this in, you should provide the admin the evidence of violation of copyrighted material — Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

He did, and the evidence is pretty compelling. If you're using material from a revision that's out of copyright (like eb1911) please cite your sources. Any further submissions of copyrighted, or unsourced public domain material and your account will be blocked. --fvw* 01:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have checked his contribs and I do not find anything that violate the copyright rules but he was in a some ruff discussion with another user and may engage in 3rr. A warning should hold — Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Clearly you did not check thoroughly. [50] and [51]. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wiikkiiwriter...If you have read Historian's replies to fellow editors requests, it must be obvious to you that he does not have the basic grasp of the English Language that would allow him to self-create the edits in question. That alone should be a verification of Hmains claim. His involvement in Netherlands is causing havoc to a quality article. Wikipedia has a nettle in its "shoe" and a valid request has been made to remove it. --Buster7 (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This thread requires the attention of an administrator. Both User and Talk for Wiikkiiwriter are blank. The nettle has become a pebble!--Buster7 (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

There were some bad image uploads too, which I've deleted. This is a well-meaning but rather naive person. They really want to help. They will need a mentor. Any takers? --John (talk) 02:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

He seems to be very weak with english, to the point where it's not unlikely that he doesn't understand what we're trying to tell him. I do think it's been made clear enough that a short block wouldn't be completely uncalled for if he does it again. Anyone else think as much? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

His English is weak enough that he shouldn't be making substantive edits to English Wikipedia. Even edits that don't require strong English have been screwed up -- for instance, changing per capita GNP figures from 2007 numbers to 2008 numbers while leaving other at 2007, and not indicating that a change has been made, or moving the US dollar sign from the left side of a figure to the right side.

Also, note that Wiikkiiwriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who defended Historian19 above, and told him on the talk page that he was "covering his ass", is a brand new account, first edit yesterday to this page Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c}

I don't think there's an issue there, probably just a new user trying to help another user out (though not in the best of ways). They're arguing about the word 'ass' in a post on Historian19's talk page right now. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that almost qualifies as being lame, although it's not an edit war :( seicer | talk | contribs 02:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

CC: Good faith edits by an incompetent editor, if that is the case here, can be indistinguishable from vandalism, and are many times harder to see and stay in articles longer, doing damage.

Don't know that I agree about WW. Smells kinda socky to me.Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Something smells in Denmark...and it ain't da fish! Too rare and almost an impossible occurrance for these two to find each other. Confrontational attitudes are not needed. Ive seen competent, good faith editors banned indefinitely for much less!--Buster7 (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wiikkiiwriter has made 24 edits, 9 of them to this page, only 1 to an article, where the lede of the article Arab was changed from this:

An Arab (Arabic: عربي, ʿarabi) is a person who identifies as such on linguistic or cultural grounds.

to this:

Arab is a hetrogoumous ethnic group widespread thougput middle east and northern africa. allthoug many now has founded thier realt ethnic race. Arab is a term to be used as a generic term of inhibantants of Arab states, thouigh gor people there, they belive they are a part of a large ethnicity

If I AGF, then this is incompetent editing, if I don't, it's vandalistic - and surprisingly similar to the style of Historian19's writing, but unlike WW's writing here and on Historian's talk page.

Just sayin' Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• While I removed copyright material from Morocco and Greece, Netherlands needs more expert help than I can provide. The copyright material has become mixed in with later edits, but still makes makes up several large sections. Help please. Hmains (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

As a regular on the Netherlands, and one of the editors adding some of the "good" edits later on, I have taken the pain and blame here and reverted it to the last version prior to Historian19's addition of material. Arnoutf (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I decided to give this user a one-week timeout--in addition to his cut-and-paste from Britannica, he's also uploaded images that he claims to have created himself when they are actually copyrighted. I nearly made it indef, but he has some constructive contributions--but I warned him that next time, it will very likely be indef. Feel free to review. Blueboy96 16:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks all admins. It is really a larger problem that just the copyright violations that kept occurring up to the time he was blocked. It was also content changing/ adding info with no reference basis. Various editors have had to revert most of the changes that Historian19 made--this is difficult/time consuming when there are many other subsequent edits. This is the same thing he was doing prior to his original blocks and which various others had to repair. Hmains (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wiikkiiwriter again

Wiikkiiwriter (talk · contribs) is bulk-copying text from here [52] into Arab. Whether he's Historian19 (talk · contribs) as posited up the page, I'm not yet prepared to say, but, it's copyright violation nonetheless. Reverted and warned. Acroterion _(talk) 01:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Problematic incivility

Reqluce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Observe the first edit after coming off a one-month block for persistent incivility. It seems this editor is incapable of editing without using profanity of some sort. I have blocked this editor in the past so I would welcome input (or action) from uninvolved admins. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, did some check. He is really using some bad words while editing — Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

He's allowed to blank his talk page; although I agree the edit summary means we should probably keep a very close eye on him. Looking at the block log, I'd say the next block should be indefinite. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's often a harbinger of words/worse to come, if experience serves. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Child advertising dancing

Resolved

Passing this along under protocol - [53]. I think it's innocent but wanted to get some opinions. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved. Prodego ^talk 00:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Over zealous admin on Wiktionary

Resolved

 – No admin action possible - not an EN WP matter

Note: I would post on the admin's talkpage on Wikipedia but he banned me for just asking a simple question on his talkpage on Wikitionary (more on this later) so I am afraid if I ask him a question on WP then he will ban me from here to.

I made my first ever edit on wiktionary tonight on the normalcy article, which you can see here: [54] Pretty harmless right? Well it is reverted within three minutes by User:EncycloPetey [55]. He later says that my edit was "erroneous". I even had a source to support it, which was old granted but I haven't seen anything to dispute it. He says that my source doesn't count and apparently you can't change anything unless you have admin-approved sources, which was the first I've heard of such a strict policy. If that policy is true, and User:EncycloPetey never gave me a link to the policies of Wikitionary or a link to a help guide even though it was my first edit, then it should be scrapped because it basically means that whoever edits first gets their version set in stone. So I ask User:EncycloPetey how my edit was factually incorrect and why it warranted such a swift reversion? He refuses to answer and keeps putting OR back onto the article. We got into a minor edit war and sure enough after his third reversion he immediately locks the article so only admins can edit. Ahh... the benefits of being in power, but that's not really my main gripe with this admin. He tells me to not post on his talkpage again (I had only posted on his talkpage two times before [56]) because I guess he doesn't like answering for his actions. I ask him again without insulting him or anything and he bans me for a day (I had to look up on my own how long I was suspended for because he didn't tell me). He posts on my talkpage [57] that once the ban expires to still avoid posting on his talkpage and to take it to the Tea Room (I guess I am not worthy of being able to ask simple questions). His rationale for my ban is: "Disruptive edits: Harassment after being asked to stay away". Look at all of my edits and you tell me if they are disruptive [58] [59] (I wasn't logged in at first because I didn't anticipate any problems with my simple edit). So basically this admin made no attempt to compromise, restored OR without explaining why, got into an edit war, blocked the article so he could get the last laugh, was heavy-handed and acted too swiftly by banning me for a day for asking a simple question that he kept avoiding, failed to welcome a new user, and failed to post links to the policies that he said I should follow (I still haven't seen them). Sorry if this is in the wrong place. --Tocino 08:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that you've been treated unfairly. Even if others felt your edits didn't contribute to the encyclopedia, they should have told you why and what policies you were breaking. If you never got a warning for breaking the 3RR, then being a new user I think you should have been fairly warned about it before being blocked. Themfromspace (talk) 08:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's rules don't apply to Wiktionary, Themfromspace. Tocino, you'll need to contact Wiktionary's unblock/complaints mechanism. Administrators on EN Wikipedia have no power over other projects. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 08:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh true, I didn't see that the diffs linked off-wiki. My bad. Themfromspace (talk) 08:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

As others have said, this isn't a matter for here really, but for what it's worth, EncycloPetey being rather less than welcoming on Wikitionary has come up before here for some reason I can't remember and the general consensus was that yes, he was a bit over the top. They are a lot stricter than here. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 09:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking from personal experience, few admins on wiktionary actually give a damn about new or anonymous users. They're a closely-bound anal-retentive bunch and I'm afraid your best recourse is to let them fester over their pet project. I've looked over your changes, they were correct. Harding's "normalcy" debacle is often discussed in US history courses and a number of prescriptivists still disavow the undeniably common occurrence of the word in modern American English. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Italian editor with poor English skills corrupting articles

Resolved

 – Jobe 87 blocked indef by Sandstein for vandalism masquerading as good faith poor English skills. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Jobe 87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This is a new editor who, going by his/her user page, is Italian. Unfortunately this editor's English language skills are very poor and almost all of his/her edits have had to be reverted. Those that haven't been reverted have still had to be edited to correct the English. I've left warnings on the editor's talk page but he/she has either ignored them or, more likely, doesn't understand that his/her grasp of English is not as good as he/she probably thinks it is. Unfortunately I don't speak Italian so I can't effectively make this person understand how bad his/her English is and as a result, it has been necessary to follow this editor around to correct the mistakes that are being made. I've been trying to compose a warning/notice but I'm concerned it will be misinterpreted and I really don't want to offend an editor who I don't think is deliberately screwing up articles. Nevertheless, this editor needs to be stopped. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend that you ask one of these users to help explain things to him. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

in the meantime if he is continuing to edit, he should be blocked until someone becomes available to have a conversation with him in italian. Good intentions or not, its disruptive. You know when people go to hospitals and can't speak the language they have a little card you can point at to say what language you speak and get a translator. We should create some kind of a page that has some basic messages in it, in a variety of languages. For example something like, "please stop, your action are disruptive, please write the name of your language on your user page and the users will try to find someone who speaks your language to translate" in 150 languages with each language name in the TOC. People could click whatever language they speak and instantly get a heads up.--Crossmr (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and good idea. One does see these editors occasionally. What about a block message template that says something like: "Because your edits are disruptive or in very poor English, and because you have not reacted to requests to stop, your account has been blocked from editing. You might be more comfortable contributing to the <language> Wikipedia instead." The language in which this message is displayed could be selected through a template parameter.  Sandstein  19:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The nature of Jobe 87's contributions and the message on his user page lead me to suspect that we're not dealing with a genuine Italian at all, but a vandal trying to pass himself off as one. I'm not sufficiently confident of my own italian to be certain, but the message on the user page appears to me to contain grammatical errors and word choices typically indicative of a non-native speaker. It would be worth getting a speaker of native proficiency to check it out.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 19:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have asked Angelo.romano, a native speaker, to check the message and let us know if he thinks it could have been written by a native speaker.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 20:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the userpage content is definitely not by a native Italian, but instead comes from an automatic translation from English, with all of the possible false friends around. --Angelo (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Blocked indef as a vandalism/troll account using the little-known "fake Italian" approach :-) Review welcome.  Sandstein  22:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

nice cach but are we still going forwar dwith the whole "template in multiple lanbguages" thing necasue i think that this mightr be a good ide ain case of any genuine cases of editors who speak diff languages but are really do acting in good faith we should have htat available for thos einstances Smith Jones (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The irony is inescapable, but I think we would need so many different templates for different languages, or switches within each template, as to make it unmanageable from a maintenance point of view. Occam's Razor should apply here as it is the English language Wikipedia. --Rodhullandemu 23:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

thats a good point. still, it seems like someting we could have, for at least the languages that wikipedia is currently produced in case Smith Jones (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen how many languages Wikipedia is produced in? m:List of Wikipedias — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

lol iof you dont want to do my idea then thats okay dont knock something toegheter just to prove me wrong. anywa, this is the wrong venue for suggesting someone else new arm if anyone is interested in hashing out a similar proposal with regards to communicating with foreigno editores then they should take it ot the Village Pump where it belangs. Smith Jones (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

With the best will in the world, Smith Jones, we are still the English language Wikipedia and (perhaps optimistically) assume a basic command of the language, even from Americans. Now when push comes to shove I have managed to converse in basic German, Swedish and Dutch to some editors, but to go any further should not be necessary. I am not suggesting some inflexibility, just that English is the lingua franca here and widely accepted as the norm, and your argument seems to be a slippery slope towards an unmanageable Tower of Babel. --Rodhullandemu 01:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

My suggestions is more or less a single page that would have a short message in as many languages as possible simply saying "please stop until someone can talk to you". We don't need to put editors in a position of guessing which language the person speaks, just direct them to a single page (with a link, perhaps with an obvious icon that would indicate they should click there) once on the page it should be a short message saying "One or more editors has a problem with your edits and is having trouble communicating with you. Please copy and paste this english name "insert english name" for your language on to your talk page and the editors will try to find someone who can talk with you". That is it. We could create a giant table at the top of all the languages we've collected and encourage people to add the warning in a language they understand.--Crossmr (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I pray that when I begin editing the Italian Wikipedia -- that I can be hand fed, toilet trained, and cuddled in a language that I have no vague clue about. seicer | talk | contribs 01:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

i have no idea what you are brabbling about. i have not mentioned feeding, shit, or coddling anyone. all i suggested was that there be a templated warning for users who ave clearly editing the wrong wikiepida (a language for which they are not able to speak at all) and they failed to realize this. its not to facilitate ther editing, but merely to give them a wanring that they are doing something wrong. Smith Jones (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't see the water because of the rain. seicer | talk | contribs 03:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

i know your right. sorry for attempting to get any sort of fedback on a suggestion that it hought might make this place easy to grovern. Smith Jones (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Mass move of films with Spanish titles

Resolved

 – (I think - see comment below.) Black Kite 00:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

See blocking section below-- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

NWill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be mass-moving articles on films with Spanish titles to their English title. This came to my attention when he or she moved Michael Powell's Luna de Miel – a film made in Spain, with Spanish funding, and released there first – to its UK-release name Honeymoon (ignoring its American-release name The Lovers of Turuel). Whether the other films he or she has moved are being moved to translations of the Spanish name or to actual release names, I don't know, but all these moves are being done without discussion, and as far as I can tell without consensus.

In the case of Luna de Miel, it's been requested that the article be moved back, but it's been pointed out to me that the editor has been here since 2005, has made 25,000+ edits, and yet has never posted to a user talk page, including his or her own – so I'm not optimistic about getting a response. Also, the editor's talk page is full of notices about orphaned images and AfDs, which gives me pause.

Can someone look into this and determine if this editor's actions and unwillingness to communicate are beneficial to the project, and if their moves need to be reverted? I've notified WikiProject Films and its Spanish Cinema task force, but I think this is going to need adminstrator action. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 03:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

What a mess. I hate it when people do stuff like this with no explanation before, and none to come after. These need moved back, and I'll probably start a few now. Grsz¹¹ 03:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

My lack of knowledge of romance languages is showing: at least some of the films have Italian titles, not Spanish. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It worse than that - a quick glance reveals that many of the films he is moving, (as far as I can tell)were never released overseas, so he'd translating the title and moving the article to that title - but that's original research and misleading because the film was never released under that name. If he persists and will not communicate, he should be blocked - his actions are actively damaging the reliability of articles. --Cameron Scott (talk) 05:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've warned the user that they need to discuss before acting further. A lack of communication is not helpful at all and creating a ton of work for others is really not appreciated. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It's times like these when we need a tool less strong than a block, like limiting edits to 1 every minute or two or moves to a few an hour or a few a day. Throttling people who are making unintentionally-disruptive edits will get their attention yet still allow them to contribute. Should I throw this idea out at WP:PUMP or is it unnecessary? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking through the move log of User:NWill, it seems as if they've made a fair number of questionable moves in the past. The editor seems rather obsessed with awards, and has moved the titles of a number of awards, changing "TV" in a title, for instance into "Television", or changing an award name from "...Television Series (hyphen) Drama" to "... (hyphen) Television Series Drama". I don't see any particular system behind the changes, nor do I know if the editor was moving things into compliance with policy or out of it. I do know that they've moved these awards away from their actual real-world title into something different. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't look extensively, although now I suspect I should have, as I've recently come across some awards links that suddenly go to a redirect. He moved Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Supporting Role - Motion Picture to "Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Supporting Female Actor - Motion Picture" with no explanation. The problem was, the first title is the correct name of the award, not the one to which he moved it. I fixed this one, but I haven't ventured in any further because it gives me a headache just thinking about doing it. This is an issue. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) He did the same with a German film and a series of French films. Gwen has reverted most of these. Dr.K. logos 17:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've left a warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's hope this unilateral campaign stops. Thanks Gwen. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 18:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC))

I'm new to this issue, but it's an area that interests me so I'll be following this user's edits. They seem to have stopped the foreign language moves (at least temporarily). -AKeen (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• There are lots more in the history. I've fixed everything back to 15 April 2008 (Sobreviviré) so far, but I'm going out for a while now. Anyone feels like fixing anything before that, be my guest. Note that you probably won't have to fix fair-use rationales in infoboxes, because NWill didn't change them. However, I have removed spurious non-free images where I found them (i.e. two different DVD covers, screencaps from the film that are there for decoration, etc). Black Kite 18:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh and if you do have a go at this, remember to fix the leads! NWill changed them from "Foreignlanguagefilmtitle (English: Englishtitle)" to the opposite. The article's lead in should always match its title. Black Kite 19:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he seems to have changed all the leads. I fixed a few but not all. How odd, I dare say how very careless, he moved these articles to his own, straight (or "literal") title translations (this almost always being the wrong thing to do, since title translations are more often than not heavily tweaked, or given other names altogether, following what is thought to be most fit for a given market), while the true UK/US/English release title was already in the lead. This is where the paths of utter heedlessness and vandalism/disruption meet. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Some of the English "translations" were clearly wrong as well. I'm going to try and clear any remaining ones up now. Black Kite 23:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If there were some that he redirected to an English title, despite the film never being released in English, then the redirects from the made-up English title to the article need deleted. Grsz¹¹ 23:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• OK. I think I've reverted everything that needed to be, and I've deleted all the spurious redirects. I've left them in place where there were multiple incoming links, though. I think we can mark this resolved? (I will also keep an eye on the editor from now on). Black Kite 00:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It is resolved. Good work Black Kite finalising this. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 01:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

On the issue of fixing the leads, wouldn't it be simpler to just restore the pages to the states they were in before they were moved? You would need to check that there had been no subsequent good-faith edits to the pages, but as far as I can tell that was the case.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 02:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Grsz11, Gwen Gale and Black Kite for their work on getting this mess cleaned up -- what an odd editor! Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 03:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

quick question -- its has been pointed out tha this editor has never posted on another page / or on his talk page own before, but have his other edits been constructiv e? and also dhad anyone ever posted to his own page before (apart from notifacitons that is) Smith Jones (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Judging his/her latest edits s/he does more harm than good. The editor keeps switching "original titles" so far.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

And as I just saw is moving pages again without discussion.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

And still not a peep from the editor. Is there a person behind the moniker? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 23:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I've only glanced at this editor's contributions, but I noticed quite a few page moves relating to TV miniseries which appear to be in line with naming conventions (WP:NC-TV). PC78 (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

And the edits I looked at inside awards articles seemed fine (although I did not look at a great number of them). The editor's unwillingness to discuss is disturbing, though, and probably the major issue at this point. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the major issue (at this time) is his/her unwillingness to respond and discuss but I also find his/her changes of original movie titles quite destructive.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a week

I've blocked the user for a week. They continued to move pages (and now creating loads of articles) after both Gwen and I both issued warnings days ago. Frankly, I can't tell if the edits to List of Black Golden Globe Award winners and nominees were good or bad (this is a lot of work and looks contrary to what is standard) but a complete refusal to even respond to basic requests is enough. While harsh, the user has been here over 3 years and in fact I'd consider an indefinite block if the user just continues afterwards. If they refuse to even bother to post a comment to their talk page asking to be unblocked, should we really care? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

user:Amake

Resolved

 – Admins are still not your mommy

This user has been engaging in some pretty egregious violations of wiki policies concerning civility. For example, in one particular thread he/she stated "I have never before had the displeasure of dealing with an asshole as repugnant as you on Wikipedia"[60]. This user seems to have a distinct problem maintaining a polite attitude towards others, to say the least. 75.165.115.149 (talk) 09:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You're both as bad as each other, judging by the edit summary you left here under your account. There's nothing admins can do if people are going to get into such childish name-calling, other than to advise the pair of you to disengage from each other and seek other help if you can't. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 09:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I beleive you are mistaken. I am not the individual who has been responded to- in fact I am in no way in the least involved at all in whatever argument is taking place. Feel free to do a checkuser if you wish- from my understanding, both of the involved parties reside in Japan, whereas I am demonstratably in Seattle. This has *not* been resolved, so I have taken the liberty of removing said tag from the page. 75.165.115.149 (talk) 09:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd be very surprised if you're not Vernon; nevertheless, admins are not your mommy and can't come running to help because you boys are calling each other childish names. You - or Vernon - can seek dispute resolution about the content issue at hand, or you can leave each other alone. Admins slapping the backs of legs won't be happening, so there's nothing for us to do here. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 09:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, I am not "Vernon", I am a user on a rotating IP that changes frequently. Go do a checkuser if you are so convinced I am "Vernon". I posted this noticed because Amake seems to be a user who frequently engages in this sort of behavior; if you feel they have both been in violation then by all means, they both should be blocked. I posted to this page because, at least from what I read, this seemed to be, I don't know... the place designated by Wikipedia to report incidents of users violating Wikipedia policy. I was unawares that it was instead Wikipedia's "Place of Sarcastic Dismissive People". Apologies. 75.165.115.149 (talk) 09:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

A game everyone can play. If you're going to accuse a user of "frequently engag[ing]" in poor behaviour, we need diffs to substantiate the allegation. If you're randomly finding completely unrelated users and making accusations with your first edit from a dynamic IP, you can expect us to suspect socking at the very least. And if you think that we'll block to punish a user for any reason, you've misread not only the purpose of this page but also Wikipedia's policies in this regard. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 09:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Creating article in talk page

I don't know if I've come to the right place, but couldn't think where else to raise this. I've be trying to flag some recent talk page only creations for speedy deletions and came across this anon's contributions - 189.148.8.91 (talk · contribs). Seems this anon has been creating his article in a couple of talk pages, without there being any actual article pages. I was about to flag it with {{db-nonsense}} but was very surprised to find this place really exists. Perhaps the talk page contents should be shifted to the main article space, but then again perhaps it should be speedied anyway. What is the right thingto do in this case? Astronaut (talk) 07:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hehehe - build a fence and people will go around it --NE2 07:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I have moved the article (Dzidzantún) to the mainspace from the talk page, left a welcome message for the IP, created redirects (including from the duplicated version of the article name that the IP had created under another page name) and will now pop along to WP:MEXICO to ask them to take a look at the article. Bencherlite^Talk 10:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles for Creation is a way for anonymous editors to create articles without having to register an account. I'm glad you stumbled across it. We're always looking for more volunteers! Also, you may be interested in our article improvement drive, which can be found at here. Improve an article and get points. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 12:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Federica Sicignano

This user is making translations from a book. Is this within policy or a copyvio? --DFS454 (talk) 11:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC) Contribs --DFS454 (talk) 11:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirected all of them to Sport as they were dicdefs and not of much use. I've also welcomed and tapped the author with the a gentle cluestick: the translations are derivative works and are not something we can accept, although s/he wasn't to know that per se. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 12:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Requesting permanent deletion of a revision that violates my IP rights

Resolved

 – Revisions in question deleted (not oversighted) as they contained unintentional copyvios. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I recently sent User:TheJazzFan an unpublished essay that I wrote a while ago, because I thought he might be interested. After a somewhat wearisome debate, Jazz proceeded to post the essay on his talk page. I'm assuming he just wanted to provide people context, and I don't believe there was malicious intent. However, that essay is my intellectual property, and while I deleted it from his talk page and posted a notice explaining why, I should like to see it removed from the revision history so that it is no longer accessible. This is not a case for oversight, as it does not include any personal information. I simply wish to maintain my intellectual property rights, as I did not at any point give Jazz or anyone else permission to disseminate it publicly. TallNapoleon (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Diffs:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheJazzFan&diff=265054980&oldid=265054353

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheJazzFan&diff=265055214&oldid=265054980

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheJazzFan&diff=265055646&oldid=265055214

I suggest you read the notice under the edit box when you edit a page: "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the terms of the GFDL*. " D.M.N. (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the original poster placed the text on Wikipedia... --NE2 17:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

He didn't, as is clear both from his post here and the diffs supplied. DuncanHill (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think TN's point is that he himself never posted it on Wiki; TJF did. It was probably sent via email or other off-wiki means. (edit conflict; agree with NE2) Tan | 39 17:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was sent via private email. I never posted it on Wiki, and since it's my intellectual property TJF didn't have the right to release it under the GFDL. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not covered in the oversight policy. --Deskana (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a copyvio, what is usually done with them? DuncanHill (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What does it matter what the oversight policy says - if it's still present in the history, we are still hosting copyright vios - just delete the revision. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree, I don't think we need to find a verbatim policy on this one. Perhaps the oversighter would need to have agreement from TheJazzFan, I suppose. Tan | 39 17:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Would deleting the revisions be sufficient? Xenocidic (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

  He did say " I should like to see it removed from the revision history so that it is no longer accessible. This is not a case for oversight..." so yes, deleting the revisions seems like the way to go. The diff in which TheJazzFan added it does make clear that it is an essay by TallNapoleon. DuncanHill (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Yes, simple deletion would be sufficient. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I'd do it but my admin buttons aren't showing up , I think due to my rename being all funky. Xenocidic (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Any other admin can feel free to revert this action without consulting me if it is deemed inappropriate. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 17:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) TallNapoleon (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, he (?) says it's his, I certainly have no proof. Anonymous poster sending an uncredited paper. I don't even know for sure what their gender is. All I can say for sure is whoever signs in under that username purports to agree with the contents. At any rate they've already publicly repeated the essence of it numerous times, it made sense to provide some context and show what I was referencing and let people make up their own minds about it in context, rather than just the parts I cherry-picked. If they don't want it up, whatever - I'm not that invested in it. I certainly won't be claiming it as my own.TheJazzFan (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that even if it isn't his, you can't publish anyone else's essay under GFDL without permission. So it doesn't really matter. Ale_Jrb^talk 20:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, this brings up an issue - strictly as an academic point, whether I'm entitled to make the demand in the first place without demonstrating it's actually my work? Is there no further proof required than simply saying it's mine when I've taken none of the typical steps to link my name to the work? TheJazzFan (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a side-issue. Technically? No, we can't just take his word for it. This time? We might as well, because the content belonged to someone beside you, and you did not have the rights to release it under GDFL. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

WP policy is that all copyvio is to be removed immediately and on sight. The copyright holder does not need to ask for this to be done, but if he does removal certainly needs to happen immediately, because otherwise WP could face legitimate legal threats. Had you posted, for instance, one of Ayn Rand's essays my reaction would be identical despite the fact that it is not my IP. Incidentally, to suggest that the paper is not mine is fairly ridiculous--it exists nowhere on the Internet (at least according to my Google searches), it was sent to you via a private email as a Word document, and per WP:AGF my word that it is mine should be sufficient barring evidence to the contrary. I certainly could not prove this, however, without identifying myself beyond doubt--which I don't particularly care to do--and getting an affidavit from the professor for whom I wrote the essay affirming my authorship (and even then, he could be lying!). The only time such a case could be necessary would be if one editor posted an article for which he claimed authorship, and another editor also claimed authorship and demanded its removal. If the article was not published there would be no way of establishing ownership without affidavits, and even then the non-owner could lie, although it would be perjury. Such a case would be extremely tricky, would probably end up in Arbcom, and might well wind up in the courts. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The question here is, "Did TheJazzFan have the right to post it?" Not who originated the work. When I acquire a book, either by purchase, or loan, or as a gift, I have a right to read it. The book clearly states that I do not have the right to publish it and lists the copy right holder. Does the paper say it cannot be published? TallNapoleon states above that it had never been published - it does not appear to me to be a copyrighted work at the time of this incident. Nor did he claim that he recieved any assurances that it would not be posted before he sent it. And he deleted a copy from the TheJazzMan's talk page when that copy was a post made by TheJazzMan. He should not be allowed to delete the posts of others from their talk page without their permission (unless it is established that he held a copyright and that it was violated). I don't know what he finds so embarressing about the paper, but there are times when we open pandora's box and wishing and whining won't close it again. I say that TallNapoleon has the burden of proof firmly upon his/her shoulders to prove that it's copyrighted material and that it was clear to TheJazzMan that his perusal did not include a right to post it on his talk page. --Steve (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Please read Copyright#Obtaining_and_enforcing_copyright -- since the US is a signatory to the Berne Convention, all material is copyrighted by default. From a technical standpoint, TheJazzMan didn't have the right to release it under the GFDL by posting it into a talk page without attribution unless it was his or he is claiming fair use -- if it isn't his, he doesn't have any right to release it under the GFDL. Since it's been deleted, though, there's not really a need to carry this on. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• The relevant quote from the article is In all countries where the Berne Convention standards apply, copyright is automatic, and need not be obtained through official registration with any government office, so I fail to see whatever point SteveWolfer above is making. TheJazzFan makes no claim to having written the text--near as I can tell from his rather obfuscatory reply--so he has no entitlement to publish it. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• You needed to read further. There are several issues. TheJazzMan gave attribution. There is the issue of copyrights not attaching to unpublished material volunarily given away. No understanding that it couldn't be shown as part of the lengthy discussion on TheJazzMan's talk page when this word document was voluntarily sent to TheJazzMan. And, the real kicker: Fair Use. Take a look at this (emphasis mine):

Title 17 Section 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

the nature of the copyrighted work;

the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

• All of the conditions of fair use are more than met. It was posted for nonprofit educational purposes (to illustrate the context of the discussion about it), It is a word document of a school paper that was discussed extensively on that talk page, the amount in use was appropriate to the discussions range, there is no viable commercial interest at risk. It is the voluntary relinquishment of a word document that conveyed rights, it is the lack of substance on the issue of it even holding a copyright (first publication was on that talk page where it aquired a copyleft via WP), and being unpublished before that is no bar to fair use. I think it should be restored. --Steve (talk) 05:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Except the governing policy is WP:NFC, not US Fair Use law. NFC is deliberately more strict than fair use law for a number of reasons. Consequently, restrictions on non-free content (that essay) prohibit its use here prior to publication elsewhere and prohibit it outside of the article space. Protonk (talk) 06:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• I do not believe for a number of reasons that even a free use case exists for total reproduction of the paper. There is a potential commercial impact. At some point I may hope to have it published, or alternatively I may publish it on a personal blog that receives income from ads, and in either case it would require editing. For another person to post this without my permission could severely damage the marketable value of the work. The amount used is also a consideration under free use. Just because one is reviewing a book does not mean that one is allowed to post the entire work online. Furthermore free use does not include relicensing, and posting to WP implicitly license content under the GFDL. Finally there is the matter of common courtesy. As the author of the work I do not believe that a fair use case exists for it to be reproduced, and would therefore ask that any users who retain a copy of the essay refrain from reproducing it, as I have not given anyone the right to do so. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Steve, you're making even less sense: what part of more term 'entitlement'--especially when the person objects--is giving you difficulty? More to the point, what possible rationale do you have for over-riding an author's expressed wishes? What peculiar point are you hoping to prove? What battle are you fighting? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Have a look on talk:Ayn Rand and you will see the battle(s) being fought and maybe get a better context to what is going on here. --Snowded TALK 13:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve, while the legal issue may or may not be murky – I make no claim to be an expert in intellectual property law – the ethical issue is not. Don't go publishing someone else's work without explicit permission. Period. Where such work is posted, it will be removed from Wikipedia on request, or as soon as an administrator notices. If you do it again, Steve, then you will be subject to extended blocks, which I expect will stand up regardless of whatever lawyering you try to do.

While I think that the obvious ethical problem more than justifies our position here, I will also observe that there is a long-standing tradition on Wikipedia that personal, private emails between users are generally considered privileged; see Wikipedia:E-mailing users#Abuse handling. Wikilawyers in the crowd should take note of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova#Private correspondence and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova#Removal of private correspondence. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Problem with new editor

Pomeroy historian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems intent on using Pomeroy, County Tyrone‎ as a soapbox. Examples of his grossly point of view additions include "Liam was justly rearrested that same year", "As part of this demonstration these republicans attempted to have a protest parade down Pomeroy street where they were met by members of the Crown forces including the Ulster Special Constabulary and local loyalists who gallantly beat them back up Pomeroy Street. As there was only approximately 60 loyalists this caused humiliation within the republican community forcing some those involved to hide away in shame, and the battle scar’s were said to be so severe that many local republicans took the wounds to the grave", "Yet again they were foiled by one local loyalist and our British Crown Forces who battened them back up Pomeroy Street once more", "local republican criminal Seamus Woods who got his comeuppance from the lord when he attempted to blow up Pomeroy Police station and all personnel in it in 1988 (The lord works in mysterious ways)" and so on. Help and more eyes needed please. O Fenian (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Local victim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Fgau1912 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seem to be the same editor too. O Fenian (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I have temporarily fully-protected (24h) the article to call a halt to the edit war whilst this is discussed here. (Recusing myself from discussion as to what should be done.) Bencherlite^Talk 13:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Should have said - any admin is free to lift or downgrade the protection without asking me first. Bencherlite^Talk 13:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Also anon IP 86.131.120.50 andy (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't take more than a cursory examination of the edits to see how dire they are "who got his comeuppance from the lord", The lord works in mysterious ways, "this clearly shows that those who objected to the Republican parade cannot be bought by the thirty pieces of silver." should be reverted on sight and blocked if he doesn't quickly and firmly grasp NPOV (which I doubt from those edits). --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I found this also reported on AIV but referred here.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing the edits, he is well beyond the three revert rule not even counting the single-edit users who are likely socks. That justifies blocking him for edit warring; while blocked, someone can explain why his edits are POV and have no place here, and if he refuses to contribute productively after the block expires, he should face an indefinite block until he agrees to edit productively. At the same time, a checkuser should be run on those two single-edit accounts to see if they are really socks like they seem to be. Theseeker4 (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well right now it is quite and I don't think we need a checkuser to disable the additional accounts as they have been used together to disrupt/edit war. On the other hand an autoblock and IP block and some clear message might be as effective as a short block for Pomeroy historian.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on the editing histories,

• Pomeroy historian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) began editing at 13:39, 19 January 2009.
• 86.131.120.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) began editing at 18:03, 19 January 2009.
• Fgau1912 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) began editing at 10:29, 20 January 2009.
• Local victim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) began editing at 10:32, 20 January 2009.

As such, I've given Pomeroy historian a block for edit warring and for abusing multiple accounts. The other accounts have been indef'ed, and the IP address has been blocked. seicer | talk | contribs 14:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I've unprotected the page, then.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Protection is still in order, see this diff. He is still at it with a new account. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Indef'ed Pomeroy historian and the new account, and protected the page. seicer | talk | contribs 16:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ebay

Resolved

 – Auction listing appears to have been taken down. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Somebody is advertising a Wikipedia administrator account on Ebay. Is this allowed? JohnBeelam23 (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)— JohnBeelam23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Can you post a link please. Theresa Knott | token threats 19:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is on the Japanese Ebay - http://www.sekaimon.com/ItemDetailView.do?sekaimon=true&item_id=13028843567&category_id=1&page_mode=srch JohnBeelam23 (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Aye, because I can't find anything (unless it's on a non-English Ebay). Black Kite 19:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

What wonderful reviews that guy is going to get. 'item turned up damaged, with long history of use and was soon blocked. Would not buy again.' Ironholds (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Lawl (Assuming this is real). I'm happy to let the sale go through then indef the account. :P Protonk (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, ADMIN....guess I'll have to wheel war. :) Protonk (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Searching Ebay for "Wikipedia" does bring up "Wikipedia cosplay costume", however. The mind boggles. – iridescent 20:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

While I suspect that it's probably just a case of adding keywords to try to improve search results, we do have File:Wikipe-tan (Cosplay).jpg. Incidentally, JohnBeelam23's link now gives a "not found"-style page, so it looks like it's no longer there. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious how the japanese ebay is at a website entitled sekaimon.com Wouldn't it be ebay.co.jp? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 12:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It was probably a local business that eBay bought and kept it for its localized name recognition. Realize that Half.com is owned by eBay. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Eyes needed...

I guess it's because I edit kids' educational TV articles that I keep finding this type of editor...the probably-too-young-to-be-here, well-meaning-but-in-over-their-head user. First it was my goodbuddy Sim12, and now we have Mayme08. I have just de-watchlisted Betsy's Kindergarten Adventures rather than have my head asplode as I try to explain what's wrong with edits such as this (hint--take a peek at the airdate) and then, when I attempt to explain what the problems are, receive this as a response. I have enough to do in real life--among several other Sisyphean tasks, I'm currently teaching my 79-year-old mother how to use a computer for the first time--so I'm going to have to ask that others deal with this user. Please and thank you...GJC 05:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I've done some format-changing and posted some info on her talk page, but this article should be heavily watchlisted for the next few weeks. I left the episode summaries and the season 2 info she added in. I started a discussion about the episode summaries on the article talk page and tagged the "season 2" with a {{crystal}} tag. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 06:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's safe to still watch it, GJC> I just stopped in and removed more cruft. ThuranX (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone considered the idea that Mayme08 might be a sockpuppet of Simulation12? The edits are about the same. I filed for a sockpuppet investigation but it hasn't even been noticed yet. Elbutler (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you asked for a CheckUser yet? that would help with that. ThuranX (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

IP hopping vandal

What is the appropriate course of action to track/stop IP hopping vandals? For instance, 72.251.44.191 made a vandalism edit and got a level 1 warning. Then a few hours later 72.251.44.154 made an almost identical edit. I left a level 2 warning, but I'm afraid that this user could hop to other IPs and start over at level 1 again and not get blocked. Should I file a sock puppet report to link the accounts? AIV right away? Or just let it go? swaq 20:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Short-term rangeblock maybe? Dunno how "collateral" that would be... D.M.N. (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I softblocked 72.251.44.0-256 for 24 hours. Tan | 39 20:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tanthalas. I come across IP hopping vandals every now and then. Should I bring it up on ANI every time like this or is there a better way to go about it? swaq 22:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is probably fine. Just make sure there are several edits; this one went back even further than you listed. Two edits probably isn't enough to warrant a rangeblock; just keep an eye on them until you're pretty sure we can take action. Tan | 39 22:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If all else fails, semi-protecting the page will bring 'em to a screeching halt. HalfShadow 22:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This is true. And an argument could be made that semi-protecting the page is a much better solution than a rangeblock; thanks HalfShadow. I think I might have used the opportunity to learn about and implement rangeblocks :-) Tan | 39 22:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting sometimes you don't have to do rangeblocks, too (sometimes they just don't take 'no' for an answer), but SP tends to be less 'messy'. HalfShadow 22:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

In this case, given how small the range is (256 IPs) the rangeblock is likely to be pretty specific. I'd probably have picked the range-block in this case, but obviously there'd be a big difference if we were talking about a larger range. ~ mazca ^t|c 00:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the rangeblock the better solution because the likelihood of collateral damage is much smaller than to the remainder of anon-space being unable to edit the article in question. Just my $0.02. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hence why I prefer them to a semi on my talk page - honestly, do you know how often an anon makes a good-faith edit on there in the midst of a wether stampede, and do you know how much of the wether vandalism JA/G orders would be prevented if there were rangeblocks implemented even for at least 12 hours? -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 02:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Rangeblock expired and the vandal went right back to work: 1, 2. swaq 22:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Blatant personal attack and racism

Resolved

 – indef-blocked troll. Horologium (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I have just been the subject of a rather obvious and unsubtle personal attack in an edit summary.

The edit summary was as follows

Sennen goroshi FUCK OFF you stinking JAPANESE, u have broken the 3-revert rule TWICE already and VANDALIZING Korean related articles for NO REASON. You are the BIGGEST VANDALIST I HAVE EVER SEEN.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Korea&diff=prev&oldid=265317312

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wondergirls

The above account is a likely sock puppet

The puppet master account is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ziggymaster

another sock is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Lakshmix

and an IP they have been using to edit is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/92.233.108.66

I don't know what course of action to request, as the above account has been pretty dormant since I have voiced my suspicions about sock puppets, perhaps someone who is more experienced than I could take a look at all accounts, the articles edited and the time/dates of edits, and see if they could all be dealt with.

Either way the account that was responsible for that little outburst surely deserves some form of sanction.

カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I dropped the banhammer on the wonder girls. Horologium (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: I just noticed that CIreland had given out a 72 hour block for the same incident. I really think that it's indef-worthy, but I won't squawk too loudly if someone reduces it back to the original block length. Horologium (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Threat by User:DePiep

User:DePiep just threatened me by saying, "I wish you a white phosfor [sic."] He/she was referring to white phosphorus. --GHcool (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Notified Depeip. Isn't that a component of the rockets used in the conflict? ThuranX (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems more like a joke than a threat to me, but what do I know.--[[User:|Atlan]] (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Atlan, you're right, and you know enough. GHcool phantasises a tshread, and his friend ThuranX raises the dust. Both waive the Israel flag. Jew-1 helps jew-2 to make a row, and/or vice versa. Interestingly, at this same time GHcool is losing the dabate on renaming the article Israeli-Palestinian conflict (into Israel-..., the state. The state that drops WP). Changing his arguments and subject every line. I pointed this out to him. Of course he feels threatened. He is. In fact, he is already been hit. Doesn't want to know. Bad for Wikipedia. -User:DePiep 20:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Untruthful behaviour by User:GHcool and his friend User:ThuranX. Smearing my name. User:DePiep 20:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Refactor and redact that. I only know of either of you two by YOUR actions as reported here by HIM. You can add another layer of tinfoil, but there's no conspiracy here. If you want to continue the personal attacks and antisemitism, there are other places for it. ThuranX (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Still awaiting refactoring. ThuranX (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

After looking at the thread at Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this is part of a heated dispute over a fairly minor point -- whether to call the article "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" or "Israel-Palestinian conflict". (Somewhere in Wikipedia someone must have observed that as the matter of a dispute in Wikipedia approaches lameness, so the disputants are inversely passionate over the matter.) Both sides need to calm down & work harder to find a consensus than to give the article the "right" name: this is why we have redirects. And if wishing people "white phosfor" is your idea of humor, DePiep, I suggest you save your humor for other discussions. -- llywrch (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

RE ThuranX: Both you and GHCool have the Israel flag in your User-page. Why disallow me calling you jews?

RE Llywrch: I did not call it humour. Atlan did.

RE Llywrch: why a fairly minor point? I truly think and write it is to be named different. Why not discuss it (be it minor or major)?

RE Llywrch: Why cool down? Why not read that GHcool is changing topic, every line he/she writes?

RE: ThuranX: What do you mean by refacor and redact?

RE: ThuranX: I am ON topic. Why make it personal? What is personal? Why follow GHCool?

RE: ThuranX: fuck off introducing antismuumitsm.

RE: GHCool: where are you? Israel is throwing white fosfor.

--DePiep (talk)

Your antisemitism is excessively problematic, and you made it personal by bringing MY Judaism into this. I saw this because it was posted here. I didn't look at GHCool's page to see if he's Jewish, that's not how I decide who's right or wrong. Refactor your antisemitic nonsense NOW. ThuranX (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not antisnmuttreiscx. -DePiep (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't even type out the word, thus allowing you to appear to be protesting, while neither admitting your behavior nor denying it. Such mockery is just perpetuating your attitude and behavior. By the ways 'you Jews' is far more likely to be used in an insulting manner than 'jewish editors' is. I note that you had no ability to actually address any of the actual problems raised ,though, nor have you removed your Personal Attacks. ThuranX (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I asked/stated five questions above (see RE ThuranX's). Not one reply. Your reply is saying excessively problematic. Sure. For someone.

I note that you had no ability to actually address any of the actual problems , you write. Actually, I am still adressing & discussing GHCool's on/offtopic-remarks in the talek. I suggest you help GHCool in reacting in-topic. GHCool needs help. The title should be Israel-Palestinian conflict.

By introducing antisesrlketyrip here you are degrading Wikipedia's quality. -DePiep (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What the fuck is "antisesrlketyrip"? As for the questions you asked ,let's see. You use Jew as an insult, and tie to to me acting as part of a Jew Conspiracy, which is a paranoid personal attack, and antisemitism. I did not say anything about a 'minor point', that's another editor, go insult them for an answer. i answered the 'personal' issues: Your bigoted attacks makes it personal. What the fuck is "antismuumitsm"? As for white "fosfor<sic>", you talked about other editors beign attacked by it, whether or not Israel uses it is irrelevant. The title of the article is irrelevant, because your actions on that talk page are the subject of examination here, not the title, which should be worked out on the page (But since you asked, your proposal reflects a viewpoint that an entire nation is making war on individuals, when it's individuals attacking individuals, and the title should reflect such.). Now try to say "antisemitism", instead of mocking it with your smacking of the keyboard. ThuranX (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

@llywrch, I personally don't care if its "Israel-Palestinian conflict" or "Israeli-Palestinian conflict." It makes no difference to me whatsoever and I am not passionate about this extremely minor, virtually meaningless point. I simply object to editors "wishing" violence against me (particularly editors who appear to have an irrational hatred of Jews). --GHcool (talk) 06:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair 'nuff. I was merely practicing "assume good faith" by entertaining the possibility that DePiep's comment was humor. Offer a bit of gentle advice & maybe all parties involved will step back from the cliff's edge. Too bad he said he wasn't joking. -- llywrch (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• 24-hour block. I've reviewed User:DePiep's conduct; it's clear that the comment was meant as a threat in User:DePiep's own words: "Of course he feels threatened. He is." Afterward, Depiep vandalized User:GHcool's user page, apparently retaliation or following through on the threat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Carlos. ThuranX (talk) 06:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, Carlos. --GHcool (talk) 06:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• 72-hour block. I have also reviewed User:DePiep's conduct in response to an WP:RFU request he filed. He was obnoxious, unapologetic and had written what had to be among the top three or four inflammatory and disruptive unblock requests I have ever read. I liked it so much that I upped his block duration to 72 hour. Maybe a few days to reflect on Wikipedia policy might make him a little more willing to cooperate. Trusilver 07:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Even better. ThuranX (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Trusilver's comment. I've seen more than 3-4 unblock requests which were worse that that one; it was pretty run-of-the-mill, to be honest. But I agree it deserves at least a 72-hour block -- which is what matters. -- llywrch (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Shannon_Rose

Shannon Rose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is using offensive edit summaries. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Shannon_Rose -- Eastmain (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Left warning on talk page, admin may see fit to take further action. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Judging from the response to Theseeker4's warning, I think this editor needs some "thinking time", so I have blocked Shannon Rose for 48 hours. caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 23:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Editor improperly changing my comments

I made an edit to my own comment under the Ayn Rand talk page under the section Ayn Rand and the Native Americans.[[61]] deleting a sentence in the final paragraph that begins "So, you come across territory that's being disputed by warring tribes..." User Snowded TALK has taken it upon himself to change the nature of my edit changing to a strikethrough, using the pretext - if I understand his regional jargon - that he feels one shouldn't delete sentences from a comment that's been responded to. As of the time of my original edit 17:32, 20 January 2009 there had been no direct response to that particular comment directly below it or in the vicinity (the comment directly below it is from the previous day) nor even by the time of Snowded's change to my edit at 17:43 or at the time of his subsequent revert he made after I changed it back. Or even as of approx 16:00 EST.

And who is he to say? Snowded is clearly in disagreement with me, his motive appears to be clearly harassing. I left a comment on his talk page to knock it off, his response to which has been to continue it.TheJazzFan (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, when I say Snowded is in disagreement with me, I mean regarding the Ayn Rand issue, not just this editing issue. TheJazzFan (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Can you provide some diffs, please? Protonk (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Here is where JazzFan edited his/her own comment, and here is wehere Snowded restored the removed portion as a stricken portion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Is there any special reason why you would prefer not to have it left in strikethrough? It is confusing when someone is arguing a point which no longer exists in the text; strikethrough is a simple and common way of dealing with that. Incidentally, you don't WP:OWN anything, not even your own comments. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, there was *no one* arguing the point from that particular comment at the time of my edit or even now last I looked. Snowded's "rationale" that he left in the edit comment was patent b.s. There was no quotation of it, it *hadn't* been responded to. I decided it would need more development and wasn't necessary for the paragraph and got rid of it. Is there a special reason Snowded would continue to revert a comment when his alleged rationale is shown to be false other than as some kind of antagonistic nose-thumbing? TheJazzFan (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to give a fair bit of latitude to users editing their own comments, unless they do so in a fashion meant to deceive or confound. This appears to be a case where the user refactoring another's comments (User:Snowded) should not do so. Protonk (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Snowded refactored a section on the Ayn Rand talk page a while back. It was upsetting at the time because it was a heated debate that was rearranged in mid-stream. There was NO intent to decieve or confound - he was tiding up. But it wasn't a good move at that time and given the nature of the debate, it warranted a short prior notification ("If you guys don't mind, I'll..."). As an editor Snowded tends to be civil, yet infuriating. His comments make him look like a model editor, but his actions tend to result in a lot of conflict. There are a number of Admin requests that have him featured prominently, and from my experience, I'd say he tends to be the instigator. (It has just begun, and will take a while to flesh out, but look at the Admin request on the Ayn Rand article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveWolfer (talk • contribs) 23:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

My Life Would Suck Without You

I'm backing away before I get whacked for edit-warring. My Life Would Suck Without You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted due to WP:Articles for deletion/My Life Would Suck Without You. The reason given was that it hadn't charted, received an award, or been covered by multiple artists. It has been reposted today, and editors keep removing the {{db-repost}} tag, despite the fact that it still hasn't charted, received an award, or been covered by multiple artists. I've requested that they go to WP:DRV if they wish to overturn a previous AFD result, but they don't seem to be inclined to actually follow processes or guidelines.

I don't mind people arguing that the original AFD was flawed, and perhaps should be overturned. I do object to people not following the AFD/DRV process that you cannot repost essentially the same article without addressing the original AFD concerns without going through DRV.—Kww(talk) 21:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree. They can go to DRV if they like. Guy (Help!) 21:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Since even the quickest google reveals that multiple reliable sources cover the single, can someone recreate it so I can add the sources? DRV covers the judgement of the administrator not the merits of the article doesn't it? We could do DVR or I could write an article from scratch - but really what's the point? (NOTE: Never involved with the original article or the afd). --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I can userify it for you and you can add sources there if you like, moving the resulting article into mainspace when you are done (assuming you eliminate the reason for deletion). Protonk (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

if you don't mind, that would be great. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Cameron Scott/My Life Would Suck Without You. Done. Protonk (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

And I've let the people know (as if it wasn't blindingly obvious) that if they don't like the closure of the AFD, then DRV is their friend - but simply ignoring the result and carrying on anyway is unlikely to win them friends. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

← This needs protection, it was already recreated after the userfication, while it's being discussed at DRV. --Amalthea 23:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. It went through AFD, was deleted, then recreated five times before and while DRV was occurring. I've salted it. Let the DRV go through its process. Further recreations is only discounting its validity. seicer | talk | contribs 23:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_January_19#Phone_Call_to_Putin

Resolved

 – Errand errandified. — neuro^(talk) 02:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The article has been relisted by the closer, but we need a warm-blooded uninvolved admin to close the DRV debate. I'm both cold blooded and involved. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• I create energy through photosynthesis, so I cannot. Protonk (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I have closed the deletion review. Davewild (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama-related articles probation

Resolved

 – (not really resolved... but we'll call it ended) JBarta (talk) 06:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little unclear about the probation and have a few questions if someone would oblige me...

1) Other than the general "Obama related-pages (broadly construed)", is there an actual list of which specific articles are covered under this probation?

2) Is there a specific length of time for the probation?

3) What specifically must happen (or not happen) to get the probation lifted?

4) What additional specific remedies are available to an article when it's put on probation, and how are they different from remedies available to an article not on probation?

Thanks. JBarta (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

In order:

1. No. In order to prevent gaming of the system, a list of articles is intentionally not created. If a user is edit warring on any topic about Obama, in any article or talk page, it is taken as part of the probation.
2. No.
3. Nothing. Article probation is mostly designed as a heigtened state of alert for administrators to issue swifter warnings and blocks to stop repeated edit wars. There does not seem to be any compelling reason to allow more edit warring at Obama related topics. Ideally, the concepts of article probation (i.e. Don't Edit War And This Time We Really Mean It!) should apply across all articles. The probation exists more for admins to know to keep a special watch and a short leash on problematic edits; it is not a punishment for anyone. Positive editing and constructive discussions are not stifled or harmed by the probation, only edit warring and tendentious editing (see WP:EW and WP:TE for more info).
4. See Number 3.

This is my interpretation of the situation, I assume other admins will weigh in with their opinions on the matter. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

So just to be clear, article probation is nothing more than a notice that the article is being monitored more closely. There are no special remedies and other than heightened awareness and less toleration of undesirable editing practices. There is no difference between the way an article on probation is administered vs. an article not on probation. Is that correct?

I mention this because I'm concerned that minority or unpopular viewpoints may be eagerly shut out in the name of keeping things running smoothly. I'm also a little disappointed that this probation is of unlimited time length with no "exit strategy" if you will. I'm getting the idea that such a probation is a foggy thing determined more by the whims of a majority of editors rather than some actual definable policy. Is that correct? JBarta (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Jayron is correct. Article probation means "We are watching this article more closely than usual, if you're disruptive you may be yelled at or banhammered a little quicker than usual and possibly without warning." The application of administrative actions is left up to the judgement of administrators; there is relatively little difference except in the fact we may take less time to explain why edit warring is bad. Editors who are not being disruptive have nothing to worry about. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's becoming more clear to me, thank-you. I'm still unclear as to the length of time such probation is in effect. Maybe I'm confused because of the term "probation". A usual characteristic of probation is that it's imposed for a certain period of time or until certain conditions are met. Let me approach it this way... I would imagine that topics in the past have been put on, and subsequently taken off probation. If that's true, what were the circumstances that led to the probation being lifted? Or, should I assume that in Wikipedia "probation" is a permanent state? (I'm really not trying to be troublesome... just trying to understand and pin some of this stuff down a little.) JBarta (talk) 05:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

With the possible exception of the Obama probation, in my memory at Wikipedia, ALL of the other topics put on Article Probation have either been ethnic conflicts OR pseudoscience topics. Since none of these topics seems to have become less, um, conflicted in the real world there is probably little hope of them becoming less in need of probation at Wikipedia. When the Palestinian/Israeli conflict gets solved, it will probably become less necessary to watch the topic as closely. I don't see that happening in our lifetimes.

Now, I am conflicted by the purpose of your question... Is there some action being prevented by article probation that you think needs to occur, but cannot because of article probation? I am at a loss as to what reason an article probation should be lifted... Again, as I stated before, ideally ALL articles should be treated by the standards of article probation; but for practical reasons we can't watch them ALL that well. What would be the compelling reason to allow people to edit war or misrepresent sources or push outrageous points of view ever?!? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The Obama article has quieted down significantly since the edit wars and POV campaigns of the election. It turns out that a large part of the disruption was caused by a single group of related sockpuppet accounts, and article probation arguably helped uncover and deal with them faster than had administrators not been minding the article. It is possible that article probation has reached the end of its usefulness. On the other hand, it may be too soon. It is a (twice) featured article about a person who arguably holds one of the few most important and public jobs in the world, so a heightened state of attention may be in order. Certain bad edits like vandalism, race and racism, soapboxing, etc., are bound to continue, and will have to be dealt with summarily if the article is to remain stable. At a minimum I would wait until after the inauguration to consider lifting probation. Yet I share the concern that keeping an article on probation sends a message that moves us away from normal editing process. I would take a wait and see approach. Wikidemon (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the "probation" may augment the already evident "group bias" in the Obama articles by eagerly dismissing persistant unpopular views or positions as disruptive. The "probation" may transmit the message "this is Obama country... go along to get along". I'm sure that's not the intent, but in a way, I fear that's one of the effects. I understand that extreme circumstances require more stringent policy, but when the trouble subsides, I hope we are as eager to roll back the stringent policy as we were to implement it. JBarta (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI, Sarah Palin-related articles are on essentially the same conditions of article probation as Obama-related articles. Kelly ^hi! 18:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez is also on article probation. Horologium (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jayron32's take on this, and I would also like to say that I'm not sure what precisely this thread is about. Jbarta's posts imply that article probation is a Bad Thing, something to be removed as soon as possible - like, say, page protection. But page protection, while offering protection against vandalism and edit-warring, also prevents good contributions. Article probation does not have such negative effects. It simply tells editors that they are not going to get away with disruptive conduct so easily, or for so long, as they might at other articles. From my experience at Talk:Barack Obama and Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, I do not think it is time to remove this probation. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It IS a bad thing in that it is a label that says "this article is special, beware". (See my post above regarding the negative consequences of this.) Given that there has not been a sanction in over two months and except for one, hasn't even been a post to the probation talk page in nearly a month, I would say the probation is not needed anymore. (If it was, there would still be a trickle of sanctions at the very least.) There may have been a good reason in the past leading up up to the election to take more extreme measures, but things have quieted down and there is no reason to single the Obama articles out for special treatment any longer. There are plenty of editors involved in the articles and normal remedies and procedures should be the rule as in any other article. JBarta (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the probation affecting the way you would normally edit? As you said, no one has been sanctioned in awhile and the probation page is basically dead, so why not edit in a manner that you normally would, and act like the probation is no longer there. I'm not sure what more you would want. Especially with the inauguration tomorrow, there are still going to be admins watching this article. In fact, I bet a number of admins have watchlisted this article. We can't tell all admins to unwatch the article, and we shouldn't encourage admins to turn a blind eye to a high profile topic or disruptive editing, period. I'm not sure what you think ending the probation would entail. Perhaps you could explain what you would expect? And perhaps explain how the probation is affecting the way you would like to edit those articles? If you are on good behavior, the probation shouldn't affect you, so I hope you understand my confusion on why you have brought up this issue as problematic.-Andrew c ^[talk] 04:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many ways I can say the same thing. I was as clear as I could be. After a while I'm just repeating myself. Bottom line, if administrators see merit or value in my thoughts above, that's great... I hope they'll take the appropriate action. If not... I'm not sure what else I can say to be clearer.

I guess the closest parallel I can think of are reduced speed limit signs that come down after road construction is over. Does anyone make the argument that the reduced speed limit should be in place indefinitely until a nameless group of people get together at some unknown time in the future and if they feel like it, they might maybe consider raising the speed limit back up to normal as long as it doesn't cause them too much inconvienence?

You also ask how does it limit one from editing. I've addressed this above in that it reinforces the bias of editors already involved in the pages... even if it's just a notice of probation or the threat of blocking. Possibly in the past there wasn't much choice due to massive disruptions, but now there IS a choice. In the absence of serious problems, I believe nothing good comes from this probation... only bad. And there are (and will be) plenty of eyes on the articles in case vandals should happen by and the article can be administered like any other article without the additional implied threat of being more quickly "banhammered" for "misbehavior".

Well, I've done it... I've repeated myself again. And if I recall, at least two people suggested it might be good to lift the probation after inauguration... well today is inauguration day. I hope those folks will speak up and suggest the probation should be lifted.

One last thing... my argument is not about my editing and how it may be limited, but a broader argument on how Wikipedia is administered and how these decisions (and the foggy nature of this probation specifically) can limit vigorous discussion and reinforce systemic bias in the name of peace or making things easier. I think it better if restrictions (or implied threats) were more eagerly lifted than imposed and minority or unpopular viewpoints were welcomed into the mix without undue fear of repercussions. Is this an encyclopedia of knowledge or a country club? JBarta (talk) 05:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well scanning this weird debate, I can say that the probation has helped and that there is no reason to remove it. Like others have said, if you are editing without disruption, then you have nothing to worry about the probation. I think the core issue is that the editor who started this thread is equating the probation to suppression of his/her POV that they would like to add to the Obama articles against consensus without anyone challenging them. Sadly, that is not the function of the probation and even if it was lifted would not change. As long as an editor follows the editing policies of Wikipedia, then they would have never noticed the probation. Simple as that. Brothejr (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've made my case the best way I know how. Either I'm not agreed with or not understood or my intentions are considered suspect. At any rate, thank you all for your consideration. JBarta (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

One last comment for anyone who is interested. My experiences here have inspired me to spend a little time looking around at various criticisms of Wikipedia. It would seem that issues becomming apparent to me have been swirling around and talked about long before I came around. I hate always being the last to know ;-) Anyhow, while a little disenchanted and disappointed by realizing that I may have put Wikipedia on a little too high of a pedestal, I still think it's a worthwile endeavor, the good far outweighs the bad and I'd still like to contribute. I also realize that I'm probably about the five thousanth person to post a statement such as this. Why do I bother? Probably for the same reasons I bother with anything else on Wikipedia... because Wikipedia is a wonderful resource and not bothering would be worse. JBarta (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad-faith user at White Brazilian

I'm again having problems with user Donadio at article White Brazilian. The user was already blocked because of his behavior in that article, but it seems he won't stop until he gets blocked again. He keeps creating an edit-war, removes sourced information and is now including his personal opinions about the subject.

For example: The Italian Embassy in Brazil claims there are 25 million people of Italian descent in Brazil[62]. Other reliable sources also claim 25 million [63][64]. The user Donadio is now claiming the Embassy and the other sources are lying and "exaggerating", and he is citing the imaginary number of "15 million", a number that he created in his mind. Moreover, he seems obsessed with Portugal and tries to diminish importance of the German and Italian communitis of the country. He's not assuming good-faith. Opinoso (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If he has violated 3RR again, you could go to the 3RR noticeboard, or (slight stretch) AIV noticeboard. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Browncom

This user page is clearly problematic, but I'm not sure of the right way to handle it. Note that Browncom (talk · contribs) is currently operating as Jraugustine (talk · contribs), but this isn't sock-puppetry because he hasn't edited with the Browncom account since starting to work with the new one. Even so, the sole purpose of the account, in whatever guise, seems to be promotional; see Ageless Fantasy (which I have just AfD'ed) and NetSpend Corporation. I will notify Jraugustine of this discussion. (For the record, I am not an admin.) Looie496 (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The editor in question appears to be a marketing/SEO professional, which suggests some conflict of interest problems here. I'd suggest popping over to that noticeboard and getting some editors involved from there. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

MfD under 'Wikipedia is not a webhost' 'Wikipedia is not a soapbox' and 'Userspace is not a place for extensive personal essays' would be my advice. Ironholds (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Socking vandal

Resolved

 – Sock farm uprooted, users blocked

This is not much yet (the individual has only made 3 edits), but just in case someone thinks it's time to block anyway:

User:Bansark4 and User:UpmenUKK, both new accounts, are pretty clearly socks of the same guy. Bansark4 started off with vandalism to a certain article (diff), then disappeared after I warned him; a day later, UpmenUKK registered an account, and his edits consisted of removing the warning from Bansark4, and making the same vandalism to the same article (contribs). Again, it's not the end of the world or anything, but might be worth blocking if anyone wants to. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 04:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just started a checkuser (well, at least tried to - the new system's on a similar level to navigating the phone company's automated phone system) on this, as I noted the same thing - there's a half-dozen other editors who have made the same edits to Lorenzo Lamas previously. The article's semi'd for a while, too, just to keep it from being sullied again. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Users violating WP:MYSPACE

Resolved

 – contributions and contributions blocked indef by dougweller. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Contributions from Geezer1022 (talk · contribs) and Sexy red 20 (talk · contribs) consist only of posting chat messages in each others userspace. Both editors were informed ([65], [66]) that their behavior is unacceptable, but this has not deterred them to the least. ^LeaveSleaves 18:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As Geezer1022 (talk · contribs) blanked the warnings and it was clear was going to ignore them, I've blanked him/her indefinitely (anyone who wants to modify that may). Sexy red 20 then blanked the blocking notice, so I've blocked Sexy red 20 as well. dougweller (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

User:The Rowan Giddens!!!

Can someone please take care of User:The Rowan Giddens!!! per WP:CHILD? Thank you. --Closedmouth (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. It appeared actually to be an attack on someone called Rowan Giddens rather than a posting by the person in question. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 09:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah well, either way it needed to be gone. --Closedmouth (talk) 09:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate userbox

I came across this a few days ago but have waited for the user to respond. Unfortunately they seem to have been away for a while (no edits since 31st December) or alternatively have chosen to ignore me. Either way, I feel this is important enough to bring up somewhere and here seemed best. While I know we don't really have a policy on userboxes and we generally allow people wide latitude to express their opinions in them even if we discourage it, I feel that one of the boxes of User:EmpMac crosses the line. In particular (although I would hope most people noticed it themselves) "This user doesn't enjoy dealing with black people". Whether serious or not, it isn't in any way conducive to building an encylopaedia or user to user interaction and is likely to offend many. (Some of the other boxes aren't perhaps much better but perhaps still borderline acceptable.) I could remove it myself, but making sure I'm doing the right thing first. Nil Einne (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. The impression I get from the set of userboxes on display isn't good. WP:NPA implies I shouldn't say more. As to that specific box, I suggest you nominate it for WP:MfD. You may get a good deal of support. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Also the homophobic ones. Yuck. //roux   18:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The "Black people" box and the Albanian unfair box are both user created, hardcoded to that specific page, and not templated so there is nothing to take to MfD. I'm going to be bold and delete both of them. The "black people" one for obvious personal attack, and the Albania unfair one for the sole purpose of advancing a geopolitical ethnic and/or religious conflict. The homophobia ones are actual userboxes that have been MfD before and kept. I do not intend to do anything with those and ask other users to read the past discussion and consider whether another MfD is appropriate or not. -Andrew c ^[talk] 18:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link to the old mfd Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tezkag72/Userboxes/Homophobe. I was going to do exactly what Andrew C is going to do. Be bold and delete them. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Kept with two votes? Should have been relisted for greater consensus. Discrimination has no place on Wikipedia, and I am accordingly putting up the three homophobic boxes for MfD again, here. //roux   18:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. How dare he have an opinion that you don't like. HalfShadow 21:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of userboxes with opinions I don't agree with. However, most of those don't tell people that their marriages are invalid or that they themselves are immoral. This is supposed to be a collegial environment. Get rid of them. Black Kite 21:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Then get rid of the pro-gay ones too, otherwise you're being unfair. HalfShadow 21:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, the pro-gay ones aren't actually discriminating against anything. Unless, of course, I've missed some out there that say "heterosexual relationships are immoral" or something? --.:Alex:. 21:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but you're essentially only allowing one opinion: The opinion you like/won't get us in trouble. That's unfair. HalfShadow 21:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

So we should ban anti-racism userboxes, too? — Jake Wartenberg 22:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• If I remember the great userbox wars, the litmus test was being divisive and inflammatory, or some such wording. Thus: this user is an atheist would be perfectly acceptable, but "keep your imaginary friends to yourself" is gratuitously offensive to those of faith. I also fail to see why he needs quite so many boxes telling us that he is a bigot. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

  Arguably, one would do. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 21:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

  (Ahem) {{User:Hexagon1/Imagfriend}} Black Kite 22:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• I would argue that this user is going after shock tactics to get their views across. --.:Alex:. 22:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

EmpMac doesn't seem to be here to cooperate with other users. AnyPerson (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

EmpMac was blocked for a short time for edit warring and was also guilty of personal attacks (well directed towards a specific user I mean). However the good news is he/she hasn't been back since late last year. Let's hope it stays that way. Of course, if they do come back, I would suggest a short leash. Nil Einne (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring, personal attacks, etc., at John G. Roberts‎

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

Is at least 10RR violation and against consensus on the notion that Roberts' flub of the Obama oath of office will somehow stain his career and thus belongs in the lead. I already reported him at the 3RR page, but maybe someone will see it here first. He's also now accusing us all of being meatpuppets, and worse yet, of being REPUBLICANS!!! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I blocked him for 12 hours, if only to reinforce the vast right wing conspiracy. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That's roughly 1 hour for each of his reverts. I'll leave the edit-warring item open unless you or another admin decides to close it. But the guy is either a troll or is clueless, so I suspect he'll be right back after the block is up. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And if you want a good laugh, check out his unblock request. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, he should teach a seminar on unblock requests. That's nice, sanity-reaffirming work. Dayewalker (talk) 07:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And since he himself brought up the subject of puppets, check this guy out:

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

-- Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Fangz doesn't quite quack for me. He's was rather persistant in trying to get the flub into the lede earlier today, but he's been much more reasonable since. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 09:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, and there doesn't seem to be any other crossover. Farang also appears to be a high schooler, while Fangz has been on here 4 or 5 years. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that these two are obviously related, either.  Sandstein  12:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, user is a few hours away from unblock and demonstrates no likelihood of any improvement in behavior: [67] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

He'll have the opportunity to try again, as I've issued another 24h block for this.  Sandstein  12:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

His talk page has been protected. seicer | talk | contribs 12:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Help. An editor Wolfkeeper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is in clear violation of editwarring, Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, Refusal to get the point and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. This boils down to arguing against obvious facts, citing a book that says he is wrong, and asserting that it actually supports his view. He refuses to recognize the obviously or is just being stubborn, or isn’t even reading what he is citing.

As of this writing, the article g-force, properly says that accelerometers can not distinguish between gravitational acceleration and inertial acceleration. Specifically the article properly says

It [an accelerometer] responds to both gravitational and inertial acceleration.

The book he is trying to cite here says the very same thing:

[An accelerometer] cannot distinguish between inertial acceleration [a-bar] and gravitational acceleration

Yet Wolfkeeper twists the logic of a formula on the page and asserts that the book supports his contention that accelerometers can not measure gravitational acceleration—which is just beyond absurd because that’s the first thing accelerometers do when you turn them on. The hard part for designers of inertial measurement units is trying to subtract the gravity signal from the readings. Wolfkeeper has held onto this incorrect view since the beginning of the article three years ago and just will not go of it.

Further, he doesn’t even care that his citation is completely broken and leaves a big red Cite error: Invalid alert (here). Even after I warned him [68] that his citation doesn’t even work, he puts it back twice again (#2 and #3). This is just disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and refusal to get the point.

This is what the article looked like before I started fixing it. And this is where I’m trying to take it. I’ve got 15 patents to my name and am an R&D engineer. Accelerometers are simple devices and are not at all hard to understand. It shouldn’t be this hard. Wolkeeper is simply exhibiting WP:OWN issues since he is the one who first wrote several utterly false things in the article and (of course) didn’t cite any of it simply because there is no way to cite falsehoods. Now he wading back in and is citing stuff that says he is wrong and he cites it anyway and claims that black is white.

I can not prove that he is lying. It may simply be that he is colossally mistaken on things. But a few days ago, he cited a “Canadian Government manual of style (Dundham press)” (here) as a citation purporting to support his long-held notion (long un-cited) of how the unit symbol is supposed to be italicized. Then another editor found the Google Book evidence that it said no such thing. This sort of stuff, whether intentional or not, just can’t go on here on Wikipedia. When Wolfkeeper asserts things that are wildly contrary to world-wide practices, and he then cites a book that doesn’t even address the issue he says it does, it makes it *look* like he fabricates things on purpose. At the very least, it is awfully sloppy work and does Wikipedia a great disservice.

Can I please get some help. The facts are absolutely indisputable on this point of fact. Wolfkeeper refuses to accept the obvious and doesn’t seem to care if he messes Wikipiedia up. It is simply wrong to leave the article so broken like that. Greg L (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Greg_L is simply edit warring and repeatedly removing reliably sourced material that disagrees with his completely unsourced OR position. My material is well sourced, and is added in good faith. I have even verified it with domain-specific experts off wiki, and I have found several other sources that say the same thing. I hope it doesn't take many seconds of reading Greg_L's screed above to see that he is not editing in good faith, and brings up many irrelevancies, and I believe that overall he is simply wasting admins and editors time.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 08:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've requested a few people likely to be capable of understanding the source to look it over, but they haven't commented yet.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 08:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• No, that is not at all true. You have a chronic problem citing material that says no such thing. Your material is NOT well sourced. The last source didn’t even discuss what you said it discussed (let alone say what you wanted it to say). Even worse, this new citation says the truth and then you say it says something else. This is unacceptable. Greg L (talk) 08:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've asked several editors to comment, including User:Georgewilliamherbert who is an admin here and a professional aerospace engineer. I'm very confident indeed that they will agree with my position, and I see no point in further discussion in this venue about what is simply a content dispute.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 08:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• That’s nice. And the first editor, Georgewilliamherbert, came back to say this [69]: In clear terms: There is no difference between a gravitational and an inertial acceleration, per Einstein. We're sitting in a 1-G static gravitational field. This is just what I wrote in the g-force article. This is just what I wrote over and over on the Talk:g-force page.

  And I finally found this little, very simple citation that no one but no one could misconstrue. The hard part is finding a Web site that explains the drop-dead obvious, since most accelerometer manufacturers assume people understand that all accelerometers respond to gravity, just like inertial accelerations. This is from MEMSIC.com. They make sensors for “consumer, automotive, medical or industrial product applications”. It is titled, not surprisingly, ACCELEROMETER PRIMER. And it begins with this:

Accelerometers are used to convert an acceleration from gravity or motion into an electrical signal.

(My emphasis). I really do hope this is clear enough. You owe me for dragging this out for so long. And please stop messing up Accelerometer with your wild notions. That article had been correct all along for years (without any of my help whatsoever), it got all screwed up this evening with your notions (entirely your doing), and has now been restored (my doing). And since it didn’t previously cite the drop-dead obvious, I cited it to the aforementioned “primer”. We shouldn’t have to cite the obvious. Greg L (talk) 09:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, as it says in verifiability: As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.. That cartoonlike advertising material would not be especially reliable. On the other hand the source that you have repeatedly removing for dubious reasons is a published textbook on the use of accelerometers. Additionally, JRSpriggs has just confirmed that what I wrote was confirmed by the source I used.[70][71].- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 11:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

So you've been repeatedly been removing verifiable, and now verified material, and replacing it with unsourced OR and then claiming that I've been 'disruptive'!!!!!- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 11:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

On the content issue I agree with George that we are in danger of "tak[ing] articles off into long pedantic fights" with this dispute. As I have said in talk the two of you have over-personalized this dispute. With George, I think "Wikipedia articles are part of a general encyclopedia. They have to explain things so that normal people have some chance of understanding." --John (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This is a content dispute and belongs either at WP:DR, talk page, WP:RfC, or WP:EA. Also, you can always file a 3RR report. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 15:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Bizarre warning from IP

"Art, I'll take the Daily Double Play for 1.000" Baseball Bugs is in Jeopardy! from this moderator: "What is a Smart Alex?"

Some things are unexplainable: [72] I'm not sure if the "all five of us" he refers to are five user ID's, or simply a multiple-personality disorder. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No big deal - he's got the wrong end of the stick and hasn't been reading the time stamps. Remove the warning from your talk page and I'll have a chat with the IP. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This edit suggests to me that the IP believes s/he is Doctor Who. Or maybe Doctor WTF? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know Dr. Who all that well, so I'll take your word for it. The odd thing is that the tone of that IP's so-called warning does have a familiar ring to it, from some weeks or months ago. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Bugs, can't talk to you now that you've been reported. Good luck evading the "moderators". Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

OMG run for it, the "moderators" are coming after you! :D Brothejr (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, it's the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland! Hide! Bencherlite^Talk 12:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, when I hear "moderator", I think of something close to "game show host". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Something tells me were dealing with either a troll, or a mentally unstable person. I think it's the latter, a 24 hour block seems in order. Elbutler (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Scratch that, he/she's already been blocked for 31 hours. Elbutler (talk) 14:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editors

Again, i bring to your attention highly disruptive editor PASD08 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pasd08)

He has been warned, in every language and way, but still continues do remove links, references and other info (loan signs in infobox, pcupdates, etc).

I bring to you two examples of such behaviour: Elias Alves da Silva (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elias_Alves_da_Silva&diff=prev&oldid=265310035), and Pawel Kieszek (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pawe%C5%82_Kieszek&diff=prev&oldid=265304604)

He is active as of NOW, so you can witness more of this examples in "contributing".

Attentively, VASCO AMARAL, PORTUGAL, - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You should ask him to propose changes at the discussion page — Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The editor has already received dozens of messages (and countless warnings) and never replied to any. His original account has been blocked, so this is a case of sock-puppeting. He's causing a lot of damage and has shown unwilling to engage in any dialog. I urge you to take action. --Waldir ^talk 20:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Pasd08, in his entire career, has never left an edit summary or posted to a Talk page. I've left him a notice of this discussion. If he doesn't respond, I suggest that he be blocked indef for abuse of multiple accounts. If he responds here, or if he posts an understandable unblock request, then we might consider his case in more detail. Though there is no formal WP:Sockpuppet investigations report, the evidence is pretty good. (See the four ANI threads that link to User:Pararubbas for more). EdJohnston (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Update: User:Pasd08 has not responded to the "challenge" provided via talkpage, and has continued to removed LINKS, as seen here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portuguese_Second_Division:_Serie_A&diff=prev&oldid=265550228)

Urgent action needed, i believe, VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Since he has continued to remove sources from articles on Portuguese football, without responding to this complaint, I have blocked Pasd08 indef as a sock of Pararubbas. EdJohnston (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Defaming statements on living person article

User:Hubert Lup keeps adding defaming comments to the article Gesine Schwan. This woman is running for the federal presidency of Germany as the candidate of the labor part (SPD) this year. I warned the user not do so and informed them about the sensitivity of articles related to living persons. Without comment the contentious claims were re-added with a source (that does not back the statements).

The original post claimed that Schwan (the German presidential candidate) was a Polish nationalist. (Admittedly, Schwan enjoys good relations with the Republic of Poland.) Furthermore, the claim is made that Schwan justifies ethnic cleansing. These two statements are, in my opinion, extreme negative POV, and should not be tolerated at a biography. At last, the user claims the Schwan's family was Polish. This is simply wrong and, I can just guess, this claim is made to give more support to the defamation made before.

Here are the two relevant diffs: 1st set of edits and 2nd set of edits.

I would appreciate if an administrator ensured that the article remains free of insults. Tomeasy _{T C} 17:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well at one point, the editor in question added this German-language reference. Of course, as I cannot understand German, I cannot check exactly what this reference says. Of course, it looks like a blog post, and I doubt it's good enough to support the claims in question as this is a WP:BLP. In any case, considering the user's low edit count both here and at German WP, I don't think it's unreasonable to continue making an assumption of good faith. Particularly as the user hasn't continued to revert. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I also think we can assume good faith, and indeed they stopped introducing the infamous statements.

With respect to the reference, I would like to add that it is absolutely OK. The source is critical about Schwan, but in the normal way of a political discussion. Not at all does the source claim any of the three statements. It is absurd to think that Schwan justifies genocide, and accordingly the source does not make this claim. Branding a German politician a Polish nationalist is equally infamous, and of course the source does not say so. Likewise, nothing written about her family backgrounds (but this was anyway introduced in a different paragraph).

Anyway, I think we are fine at this point. If this problem resumes, I will let you know. Tomeasy _{T C} 21:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Odd editing pattern.

Over at Barack Obama, which I watchlisted after a reuqest either at AN or AN/I, I noticed user:Linda_Mancia was involved in the old and annoying editing conflict about if Obama's a sekrit muzlin terarismist. Inspecting her contribs, I found that her only contribs are to user talks and to this issue. If not for the familiar way she introduces herself to some editors, I'd call her out as a SPA, and a tendentious one at that, but I'm not sure what to make of it. contribs in question. Admins, is this a problem or not? ThuranX (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you look closely at her Talk page, her biggest issue has been the attempt to create articles about characters in an unknown series of books, by an unknown artist, all of which have been deleted. AnyPerson (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Glad I asked. I'll let her dig her own hole over at the BO page, then. thansk, and mark it resolved, i guess. ThuranX (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) To my slightly jaundiced eye, this is a problem editor in the early stages. On her user page there is a long discussion in which she twists and turns and twists again to avoid providing ISBNs for some allegedly notable books about which she has a conflict of interest (claims to be the author's editor), in spite of the truly spectacular efforts of a number of editors to help her, assuming good faith all the while. Then, giving up on that, she came to the Barack Obama page to push the Barack-is-hiding-something-about-his-origins conspiracy stuff that spreads like kudzu every time we have a presidential election. These kinds of editors waste a lot of our time. Just my opinion. Antandrus (talk) 05:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've now notified Mancia of this discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

She has also repeatedly added unsourced, inflammatory information about Obama on Talk:Barack Obama in violation of WP:BLP. When asked to stop, she dredges up even more inflammatory information and adds it. Some of it is still on the page (apparently permanently because it was archived). As Mendaliv says, this clearly is a problematic, POV-pushing editor in the early stages. Ward3001 (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty concerned about the tone of all of her posts. She has so far proved that she is unwilling to read or understand many of our policies, even when they have been explained ad nauseum by some pretty patient people. I think she needs to be kept on a very short leash. Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

More users violating WP:Myspace & legal threat by sockpuppet

The original issue was marked resolved and I'm not sure if I reopen it or, as I'm doing now, start a new one. AuntEntropy found some more: Donnawood123 (talk · contribs), Laneyboi (talk · contribs), DANHOWARD2K9 (talk · contribs) and Geezer1003 (talk · contribs) who seems to be Geezer1022 that I blocked -- see his talk page. Blocking him indef for legal threats. dougweller (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Schools of Philosophy (an Ayn Rand issue)

Advice/action would be appreciated to avoid an edit war. There has been prior discussion on Objectivism (Ayn Rand) about renaming the article Objectivism. Objections were raised that while Ayn Rand's philosophy is called objectivism, it does not define that word; there are for example objectivist approaches to ethics which are the antithesis of Rand's approach. There was no consensus for the move. Shortly afterwards the same group of editors attempted to change Criticisms of Objectivism (Ayn Rand) to Criticisms of Objectivism. The same argument took place and the consensus was to leave it unchanged.

We then get a third attempt. At Schools of Philosophy Objectivism was created as a school with a pipelink to Objectivism (Ayn Rand). Attempts to get this to conform with the page name, ie Objectivism (Ayn Rand) or to simply use Objectivism which takes you to the disambiguation page have resulted in more or less instant reversal by two editors User:SteveWolfer and User:Kjaer. The latter has already received a ban for edit warring on Ayn Rand which is currently frozen and both the named editors are refusing mediation (this may well come here as an issue too). The have a history of working together as seen [here].

In December I left a reasoned note and today made the change back to Objectivism (Ayn Rand), it was reverted with some fairly intemperate language by [User:Kjaer]] a short while ago.

Now this is a minor article, with some really esoteric "schools" and in the overall scheme of things I am tempted to just let it go. However the pattern of persistent pursuit over different pages (I suspect attempting to create a precedent) is disturbing. Both editors seem to be taking a line that anyone who disagrees with Rand who edits is taking a POV position. In the case of User:Kjaer he at one point reverted an actual quotation from a cited source to his more accurate summary. Trying to introduce any type of balance results in abuse, edit wars and the whole thing is exhausting.

Any advice or action would be appreciated. --Snowded TALK 23:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Please link to a page about an alternate form of Objectivism. I tried to find one, and the disambig links to only pages about her ideas, except for hte case of one synonym. ThuranX (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well (Moral) Objectivism is a widely understood concept outside (well depending on your education) outside of the US and I guess that most people would be looking for that than the wackjob version that Rand pushes - a series of em.. ideas that have never got much traction outside of the US. I had a quick scan of the various academic databases I have access to and it pops up all over the place but none are references to the wackjob version. We don't have an article on Objectivism? really? (runs away to look). --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

These squabbles are so distasteful... I really hate seeing my name pushed into this or that strange little disagreement. My suggestion would be to ignore Mr. Scott's comment (I suspect that "wackjob" is an indication of bias and that kind of approach has never gone far in bringing reason or agreement to the forefront :-) - and in any case it doesn't address the issue. Snowded has misrepresented my part in this as well as the issue. He appears to be painting some kind of ominous picture of a conspiracy that just isn't there. Look at the history. Read to see if what he says is really what is happening. So far as Wikipedia goes, I'm an open book. Look at my edits, look at my comments. What you see is what you get. I'm just going to suggest that anyone interested in this issue should read the arguments made on the talk page of that article - My comments there are quite adequate in representing my view of what makes the best choice for this encyclopedia. If anyone has any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. As to why I did not participate in the mediation, I answered that on the talk page of that request. --Steve (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Steve that we need someone to look at the history. ThuranX, if you want the merge discussion it is here and the key thing is do look at the google scholar search. Very simply the citation evidence shows that Objectivism is not encompassed by Rand's position. Objectivism is a common concept in the philosophy of science as well as ethics and elsewhere. The google scholar search supports the comment made by Cameron Scott. To be honest the real issue is a policy one. Consensus to rename was not achieved on the main articles, so the schools insertion is a back door attempt to avoid accepting a prior consensus. On a related issue mediation on the Ayn Rand page will now be rejected as Steve has just refused to accept it, so a referral here is more or less inevitable. This is an issue which affects several articles. --Snowded TALK 03:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Pay careful attention to the fact that Snowded is directing everyone to a history that is about a totally different page. He is talking about the article for Objectivism and NOT the article that is a List of schools of philosophy. They are similar squabbles, but with an important differences. When one is at the List of schools of philosophy article less disambiguation is needed, for one thing. If there were a school of philosophy named "Moral Objectivism," which there isn't, and if it had an article (it doesn't), one could just add that school name and link to that article. Take a look at the arguments that are actually about the article in question: List of schools philosophy talk page. There is no attempt to backdoor anything, and it is a deflection to make that or process or mediation on another article or me the issue. --Steve (talk) 03:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, There was talk that we had articles on other forms of Objectivism. I asked for links. None have been provided yet. Moral Objectivity is different, and I, an American with that above-impled inferior education, wouldn't confuse the two as 'moral' is an intergral part of the terminology. If there is no other philosophy of government and self-determination and so on, then I don't see why we need to distinguish Objectivism as you seek to do.ThuranX (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX, the question you raised was previously discussed on the talk page of Objectivism (Ayn Rand) and I have given you those links. The most telling is a search of `google scholar on "Objectivism" in which Rand hardly features. However what I brought here was a question of process. Edit warring has broken out with two editors determined on one solution. It's that issue of process I brought here, content discussions on this issue have (as I said) already taken place. I have not idea why you should think that any inferiority of education is implied by the way. --Snowded TALK 10:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Snowded talks about edit warring and darkly alludes to "two editors determined on one solution." This is the process issue that he holds to be the prime issue. Take a look at the recent history links. This issue came to life in December 29th when the link was set to Objectivism by Kjaer rather than the disambiguation page. Since then, NO one has done more reversions than Snowded - he leads the pack, he is his own process issue. --Steve (talk) 11:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX, you misunderstand my point when I say Well (Moral) Objectivism is a widely understood concept outside (well depending on your education) the US - I'm not commenting in the slightest about the american education system - I'm saying it's a widely understood concepts by those who have studied higher degrees in other nations in the right subjects - especially the UK where I was a prof. So I wouldn't automatically expect someone from London who didn't go to university to have come across any of the concepts. It's not really an either/or for us because Rand's stuff isn't widely taught at universities, well it's not taught at all really except as a footnote to say "not to be confused with..." --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I understand 'insult' quite well. I'm an American. We're stupid, but good at hearing insults. That said, Objectivism, in this country of stupid people, refers to Rand's extremist libertarian/anarchy theory. Moral objectivism is different, and not referred to as objectivism, but 'moral objectivism', both terms being needed. But hey, I'm just another stupid American, right? Cause we never have any people here in Dumbfuckistan who've studied, and hold any sort of higher degrees, and certainly not in the right subjects. And our universities which do talk about Objectivism certainly aren't worth bringing up, cause hey, this is just Retardania. ThuranX (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your gracious understanding, it's much appreciated. Looking further into this, I can't find any evidence that it's taught in American universities either or at least not any where the staff publish in international journals. (but that's just a quick skim so I could be wrong). --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Objectivism is taught in some US Universities and academics have attended seminars. From the evidence today the bulk of this is funded by Rand Institutions of various types. The issue is not anti-americanism (although the comments of ThuranX are indicative of the problems with this subject) but that Rand has little notability outside of America. In a European context (and in the majority of Academic philosophers not matter where they come from including America) "Objectivism" does not mean the doctrines of Ayn Rand. This is a simple fact, and the process issue I raised in respect of the article. Some editors believe that Objectivism should be uniquely associated with the ideas of Ayn Rand, in the main that seems to be from declared supporters. Other editors (including all the non US participants) are arguing for a wider more objective (sic) interpretation. The Wikipedia is meant to be a resource for the World (or at least the English speaking world) and it is therefore inappropriate to define things by their use in popular culture in the USA. This is especially true in a page which purports to show schools of philosophy. --Snowded TALK 15:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It was discussed in one of my classes, as an examination of how my field would change under different governmental philosophies. But I'm just an ignorant dumbfuck american, so what the fuck do we know, right? ThuranX (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No one has said anything that would remotely support the self-abusive language you are using. Please calm down. --Snowded TALK 16:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well (Moral) Objectivism is a widely understood concept outside (well depending on your education) the US. So in the US, we don't teach Moral Objectivism, and if we did, it would depend our your education. Speaking of Education: it's a widely understood concepts by those who have studied higher degrees in other nations in the right subjects - especially the UK where I was a prof.. So people in OTHER nations get it, Americans don't, and people with Higher Degrees, who xist only in nations NOT America, get it, but Americans don't. Such ridiculous arrogance. Excuse me, us imbecilic Americans are busy installing one of those... Presidents, today. I'm going to go watch other stupid americans, instead of wasting the time of such laudatory fellows as yourselves. ThuranX (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX, you're reading more into the statement than actually existed. There was no "Americanz iz stoopid" comment anywhere (although, George W has which degrees again??) Nobody was using "holier than thou" here ... it was a "X appears more recognized elsewhere". (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. It was a 'the whole educated world thinks it's something other than what uneducated Americans think' statement. ThuranX (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Please examine Cameron Scott's statement again. Xe only said that in non-American (particularly academic) settings, "Objectivism" means something different than it does in the US. It's just a dialectical difference, like "stone" or "football". That Ayn Rand's Objectivism hasn't spread to non-American academic settings doesn't mean Americans are stupid (though some of us are, of course). -kotra (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute so I don't see how any Admin action is needed. Does anyone else want to weigh in with their personal opinions on Rand before it's closed? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

She was silly. -kotra (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

15 year olds really like her. Badger Drink (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• While I will not couch my argument in the same tone as ThuranX, there is most definitely a strong whiff of anti-Americanism in some of the statements that some of the non-American editors have advanced, and such sentiments are offensive to those of us who are American (like it or not, there are a lot of us out here). The statement The Wikipedia is meant to be a resource for the World (or at least the English speaking world) and it is therefore inappropriate to define things by their use in popular culture in the USA is so incredibly condescending and sanctimonious that that I find it difficult to formulate a calm and measured response. The main argument I am seeing here is an attempt to make "moral objectivism" the same as "objectivism", forcing the Randian philosophy to a disambiguation page, despite the fact that "moral objectivism" needs the adjective for identification. And while it may be true that Objectivism is most common in North America (Nathaniel Branden and Leonard Peikoff are both Canadians, and they are certainly conversant in the philosophy), the 330 million+ people in Canada and the US make it easy to construct an argument that the Randian term is the one that belongs on the main page, with a hatnote linking Moral objectivism and a link to the disambiguation page for all of the other terms, most of which relate to the Randian concept. Horologium (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And yet, oddly enough, Football continues to be about the thing those pesky non-northern-NAFTAs do in their spare time. Badger Drink (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you find condescension or sanctimony in the statement you quote. It's just a more specific paraphrasing of our guideline. If Ayn Rand's Objectivism is the more common meaning of "Objectivism" worldwide, and evidence supports that, then their mistake can be chalked up to their own, different experience with the word "Objectivism". No need to assume it's "anti-Americanism". -kotra (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to mention: I, an American, wasn't offended. -kotra (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"When you're losing the argument, create a smoke-screen" - in this case, by doing one's best to insure that anybody taking a contrary opinion is so busy doing their best to make sure utterly no offense can be taken at their statement that their points become hazy, and their souls, weary. Badger Drink (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "The Wikipedia is meant to be a resource for the World (or at least the English speaking world) and it is therefore inappropriate to define things by their use in popular culture in the USA" is exactly right, with the obvious qualification that if the term is used only in specifically American culture that's how we define it. But that's not the case here. Regardless of his view about Ayn Rand, Cameron was correct about the particular point at issue. DGG (talk) 03:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have proposed a compromise on the talk page in question to allow the use of "Objectivism" but with a qualifying note (help on syntax appreciated by the way). I can't say I am happy with it, but if it reduces conflict on a minor page so be it. Kotra, a simple search of Google Scholar on "Objectivism" will show you the degree to which the term is not associated with Rand in the academic world (and this is after all a list of schools of philosophy). As I said when I started this any advice would be appreciated and some engagement on page itself might help. Overall on Rand an RFA has now been raised which looks likely to be accepted so the conduct of individual editors and the general issue of bias may now be addressed. Given that if this can be closed on an acceptable compromise it would be good news. --Snowded TALK 11:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't making any judgment on which usage is more common, I was just saying that if Ayn Rand's is more common, one can still assume good faith. I don't know which is more common, though I don't think the academic usage alone should be considered; the general public needs to be able to find what they want easily too (as per the same guideline I quoted earlier). -kotra (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is this other school of philosophy's article that the disambiguation page so urgently is pointing at? The RfA that Snowded mentions is titled "Ayn Rand Article" but it is about the editors and allegations of POV. It is my hope that Wikipedia can make a solid step forwards in dealing with those whose edits tend to favor a pro or con bias more than they due a neutral truthful article. Rabid fans of a particular ideology, nationalism, sports team or celebrity cause problems, but so do those who are rabid haters in those areas and who cloak their intentions in pretentious WP claims. --Steve (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at the disambiguation page for Objectivism Steve, or the previous debate on renaming Objectivism (Ayn Rand), or do a google scholar search on objectivism. You will find that objectivism is used extensively in philosophy of science, ethics and more recently in epistemology and other areas. Also this article is NOT a list of Wikipedia pages, it is a list of schools of Philosophy. The point I am making is simple and supported by other editors with a background in philosophy; calling me a "rabid hater" for making this point is yet another breech of WP:Civil. --Snowded TALK 20:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing

External objectivist web sites are canvassing people to edit this article and also that on Ayn Rand. Post 17 is interesting. Details here. Can we please have some admin involvement. --Snowded TALK 19:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer states here that he edits on external sites as Ted Keer. Here we see Ted Keer actively canvassing for people to edit WIkipedia in support of his views. Kjaer is one of the active protagonists on the various Ayn Rand disputes and has at least two blocks for edit wars. --Snowded TALK 19:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This certainly is inappropriate conduct, but it looks like there wasn't a whole lot of impact resulting from it. Thanks for finding this, though, it puts the edit warring into better perspective. -kotra (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The edit history of the editor reporting the canvassing is interseting I think [73]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I spotted the canvassing, came and made an account specifically to report it. I wasn't sure how to go about it exactly, but the initial canvasser spoke of "several objectivist articles," so I figured I'd just drop a note on the major ones, which I got from the bottom of the Ayn Rand article. That'll most likely be the extent of my editing unless I find more canvassing. (I edit as an IP but I didn't want those people to know where I live.) Hope that clears everything up. If not, ask on my talk, I'll log in a few more times over the next couple days, as I follow the repercussions. (My intent wasn't to create drama, but I'm certainly interested to see how canvassing is dealt with.) --Turnsmoney (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help in this. -kotra (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Not so sure on the impact Kotra, A quick glance shows new editors coming into play (and two one time IPs) when Kjaer advertises for involvement. This is especially true around the RfC that he called and then closed quickly and used as an excuse to revert to a December version. --Snowded TALK 21:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

SPA = much higher likelihood of edit warring outside the bounds of WP:UNDUE. Also, the canvassing could call for admin action on the talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I based my conclusion on the forum post happening on December 30, and only a couple extra editors editing Ayn Rand and List of schools of philosophy (and their talk pages) in the week that followed. I'm not excusing his behavior, I'm just saying it doesn't look to me like it disrupted those two pages much. -kotra (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the only example of a one sided discussion of the dispute on other sites. What is and isn't allowed? If, to pose a hypothetical example, a professor brings up an article issue with colleagues and encourages them to edit is that inappropriate? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say that's inappropriate too, though it might depend on the circumstances. In this case, I feel it's inappropriate because it was intended to give undue weight to Kjaer's point of view. -kotra (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)