I don’t know what this guy has against fictional characters and television episodes, but every day he makes a spurt of deletion nominations with literally the same wording (see here). Surely the exact same wording cannot apply to every single article on a fictional character or television episode? I find this style insulting to those who wrote the articles as it says, “Sorry, but I don’t have to consider the individual merits of the articles you worked on or help look for sources as every character or episode article I see is the same and must be redirected or deleted.” And to top things off the only edits to actual articles I see (see here) are slapping on deletion boxes, merge boxes, or just going ahead and redirecting them. WTH? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.1.130 (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it has been 6 months since TTN has been placed on editing restrictions by ArbCom, and because he obviously feels that he now has the right to go back to the exact same behavior that led to the arbcom sanctions listed here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2#Remedies Based on the return of the exact behavior that led to these sanctions I propose, formally, that the community decides to return the same sanctions that recently expired, and to extend those sanctions indefinately. What does everyone else think? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Doug Weller (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block him immediately. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that most of those articles have no merits on their own and should be merged or deleted, I think his nominations are excessively pointy; there's got to be a more constructive way to try and establish notability guidelines for works of fiction. Considering that this is only the repetition of behavior that caused a restriction in the past, I would consider it appropriate to return those restrictions (per WP:GAMING). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I didn't do so because he is not currently under restrictions. They technically expired 6 months after the ArbCom ruling, which was March 10, 2008, so he has been "free" from sanctions since September 10, 2008. Therefore, I wanted to get a clear go ahead from the community before blocking, so that we have covered all of the bases, and we are sure that we are ready to take the next step. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC) :::::Just to clarify, the reason for the restriction was edit warring over redirects, not the actual actions of merging, redirecting, or nominating AfDs. TTN (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a request for extension here. TTN (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block and extend sanctions immediately. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 17:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has already requested an extension of TTN's prohibitions, but its been pointed out that what TTN is doing is not the same as his actions before: he has followed WP:BRD appropriately for all of these and is neither edit warring nor using fait accompli tactics that he was admonished for. This is not the same behavior, and even a prelim review of the extension suggests that its the fact that this is not TTN's fault, but instead those that cannot compromise in defining better standards for fictional elements (My attempt to get a compromise WP:FICT in place failed because 25% thought it too harse, the other 25% too loose). TTN is being used as a scapegoat and easy target in light of the case, which also noted a general community sanction to get people to work towards compromise and that has not happened. --MASEM 17:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Going right back to the same behavior you just got out of proverbial "jail" for when your sanctions expire isn't a sign of being here to benefit Wikipedia, if the old behavior was judged to be harmful to the encyclopedia (hence the sanctions). If TTN is here for Wikipedia he should immediately stop doing these until the current RFAR request is closed one way or the other. If not, an enforced community break from deletion and redirection is probably a good idea. The stupid massive ongoing drama he triggers is too destructive. rootology (C)(T) 17:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, happen to agree with TNN's philosophy on these sort of crufty, fictional articles. TNN isn't breaking policy and his restriction was over redirects, as stated above. Unless someone can show how this is against current policy, no action should be taken. Tan | 39 17:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Are we serious? There is an ongoing request for extension where at least one arb has said he isn't doing the same behavior that lead to sanctions. the previous request for clarification was archived with the same outcome. Don't block him. Protonk (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of the specific tools being used, TTN is attempting to use the availible tools to force his own, personal view of what Wikipedia policy should be towards articles such as these. The volume and number of the nominations and the obvious fact that each nomination is not carefully considered shows that TTN is simply looking to eliminate an entire class of articles. Now, it is true that the community has not made any consensus one way or the other on how to deal with these articles, and there may be good reasons for most of these to be deleted, however the act of making policy through massive AFDs, which is what this ammounts to, is exactly the same as making policies through massive redirects. The redirect tactic didn't work for TTN last time, so he is trying a new route. However, the actual behavior, which is attempting to personally create Wikipedia policy where the community has not done so, is the main problem. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no mandate that we are forced to consider and contemplate one bit of trivia and plot summary differently from another bit of trivia and plot summary. What do you suggest he do? Write an individual summary noting the nuances separating Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Maya_Gallo from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nina_Van_Horn? Honestly, if people don't like this behavior of nomination they can file an RfC to see the community input, not ask for a bad from An/I because articles that are outside our inclusion criteria are being considered for deletion. Protonk (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find it very difficult to accept the use of BRD and AFD as means to "force" one's views. These are all means to discussion. Now, I will admit that a step that usually is considered (but by no means required) is to discuss a redirect or a possibility of deletion on the article talk page. The problem is that when you deal with fiction you will encounter mini-cabals of editors that will defend such articles, making it impossible to get consensus even if the article fails policies. Bringing such articles to AFD as a first step may seem aggressive, but it also gets the participation of a much larger group of editors involved thus getting better consensus of the issues. Unfortunately, we lack any other type of process that is meant to gain larger input than just those that watch an article's page regularly (which is why AFD is sometimes called Articles for Discussion). There's no required process that TTN is violating here, it just may speak badly of the lack of process that we have for better discussion of such articles. Should TTN be blocked for that? Not unless everyone else that uses them is too. --MASEM 18:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's sad to see this kind of thing coming to ANI, especially being supported an admin that I generally respect. It is not TTN's fault that there are tens of thousands of bad articles on Wikipedia. His AFD nominations are generally on target, and the results of his AFDs are generally to merge, redirect, or delete. If the only way that policy can be formed in this area is by running enought stuff through AFD to generate changes to WP:OUTCOMES, that's sad, but nothing to block an editor for. TTN is not violating any policies or guidelines, and is not deserving of even a short block, much less a ban.—Kww(talk) 17:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, or has this board (perhaps others) become tattle boards to try to get TTN in trouble? I've seen many of his video game nominations: and the articles are indeed cruft, clutter, game guide content, etc...in many cases. He can't redirect: because people will just undo it, and then tattle on him. But he can't put them in AFD either apparently, because people have had issues with him in the past. Frankly, I think people need to settle down. Other people nominate numerous articles for deletion, but they don't get tattled on. I believe this is a matter of "TTN has past issues, so let's just report it everytime he nominates things", which is a bit wrong. Also to comment about what Jayron said: I highly doubt TTN is trying to make up policies. There is already policies that back up what he nominates. He states what policies the article violates, and in most cases he is right. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not just you at all. I really think that we need to consider establishing some kind of sanction for filing ANI or Arbcom reports on this topic. The block and sanction requests cause more trouble than the AFDs.—Kww(talk) 18:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In my humble opinion, the suggested sanctions in this thread are slightly excessive. If TTN is going to be restricted, it should be to limit the number of AfDs he is allowed to file in any 24 hour period to a reasonable number, perhaps 5 or 6. Similarly, the number of redirects could also be limited, if deemed necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• It's worth noting that, aside from these AfDs, TTN continues to continue his pattern of willy-nilly, discussion-free merging. [1] (an article he had previously made into a redirect and was specifically named in the last arbcom decision against him) [2] [3] [4] &c. &c. &c. Ford MF (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to waste my time counting any more, but it looks like in the last 24 hours alone, he's redirected over two dozen articles without a word of discussion on any. Ford MF (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A good chuck of which, now that I'm checking, recently went through AfD as kept from lack of consensus. Ford MF (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm having trouble finding the policy that says redirection is a crime. Can you point it out for me? Protonk (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • TTN has been blocked in the past for disruptive patterns of behavior, which continue unabated. Ford MF (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's apparently a crime to redirect, because TTN has had issues in the past. If it was any other editor: it would probably go unnoticed. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nearly all of my hundreds (over a thousand?) of bold-mergers and bold-redirects went unnoticed, so it really must be TTN's name that makes bold-mergers and bold-redirects a crime. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects aren't a crime, obviously, but the mass removal of content that targets a very narrow range of communities is disruptive--particularly when it is an editor's entire raison d'être. I might feel differently if I had ever seen TTN do the work to provide references for any article or series of articles, anywhere, but he takes advantage of the fact that improving articles is quite a bit harder than blanking it with a redirect template, and keeping up with his redirects and AfDs would be a full time Wiki-job, leaving little left to actually do the work. Ford MF (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Especially if the redirected articles already had a consensus to keep at AfD discussion at AfD with no consensus to delete.Rlendog (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So one editor imposes his will, and everyone cries, "What shall we do? What shall we do?" This is an all-too familiar theme in wikipedia. Bullies get their way. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, you and I agree on a lot, but you're WAY off base here. I suggest everybody read Thebainer's suggestion of where the fault lies at WP:RfArb, where this issue is currently. This smacks of forum shopping and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I suggest the editors on the eternal crusade stop asking Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest? and start working WITH TTN, not against him. 19:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That's great, except TTN's pattern of behavior is essentially one of directing the work of other editors, not even remotely in any way "working with them". As I said, if TTN ever worked to improve an article in a way that wasn't deleting something, or nominating it for deletion, or pointing out that someone (someone else, naturally) needs to come in and provide references, not in time, but NOW, then yeah, there would be grounds for that, but there isn't. Working "with" TTN is essentially agreeing to work "for" him. Ford MF (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically the Betacommand approach: "I'm following policy, therefore no discussion is needed - nor wanted, as that will slow me down from my appointed deletionist mission." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The AfDs I spot checked looked ok, didn't see a snowy keep (or more than one or two keep comments throughout), lots of delete comments, sometimes merge comments instead. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I honestly feel that we would benefit from a RFC/U on TTN. Enough people feel that his behavior (rather than the underlying content dispute) is unacceptable that we should provide a venue for them to give feedback. I'm wholeheartedly against (and so, evidently, are the arbs who commented on the requests for clarification/extension) just using AN/I to thwack TTN for what some editors feel is bad behavior, but that doesn't mean I'm blind to the underlying problems with his methods. the place to sort out a thorny content/conduct dispute is RFC, not Arbcom and not here. I don't want this to turn into an inclusionist/deletionist back and forth, because that benefits NO ONE. But I don't want to dismiss the concerns here as "content dispute". the right answer is an RFC. Protonk (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that we'll get any new insight into TTN/deletionist/inclusionist conflict, but we can certainly try. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better than coming here and riling up people with the Scarlet "D" on his chest from that arbcom case. Protonk (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There is finally an effective means to rid wikipedia of bad fiction articles with community consensus (AfD), and people are still badmouthing TTN to arbcom and AN/I in the hope to get him sanctioned again (even the first sanction was not as widely supported as some editors wish to believe). Is there also the possibility that not TTN is the problem, but the unwillingness of editors to collaborate outside of AfD (accept mergers and redirects or improve the articles to justify as a WP:SPINOUT) to prevent TTN's need to take those bad articles to AfD to get them merged/redirected/deleted just the same? Oh, by the way, wikipedia is a voluntary projects, and just like everyone has the right to add content only, all editors have the right to concentrate on removing content that is not inline with policies and guidelines. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If TTN has an issue with "bad" articles, he should note his legitimate concerns on the articles' talk pages. If the editors who created the content (or otherwise wish to retain it) don't respond to those legitimate concerns, TTN should be free to nominate for AfD without being sanctioned. On the other hand, if TNN is not attempting to engage the editors of the content he obhects to before mass nominating for AfD, that is a different story...Rlendog (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A modest proposal: if TTN is mass-nominating articles for deletion, and most of these are ending up being kept, then he's being disruptive, wasting a lot of editor time, and he should be asked to stop. (I find it a little strange that the community doesn't seem to agree that what he's doing is a problem, yet the proposed solution is to block him. If we aren't agreed, his behavior is marginal, not clearly offensive, and so response should be measured, not abrupt.) On the other hand, if most of these AfDs result in delete, he's serving the project, as long as the AfDs themselves don't show disruptive behavior. I find it a bit refreshing if the nominator sits back and doesn't comment any more, beyond his original reason, letting the community decide. It's tendentious argument at AfD that can be so poisonous. I'll note that if the nominator can mass-nominate with identical reason given, surely !voters can comment with the same comment. Lots of complaints were registered about User:Kmweber for that, but it was always found to be acceptable.

As to redirects, they are less disruptive than AfDs. It's an ordinary editorial decision. Again, his behavior in that process would be the issue: does he edit war (and BRD isn't edit warring)? Is he uncivil? Being "unresponsive," as some charged, is not offensive in itself. He puts his time where he thinks it's important. No response is not an uncivil response. If he reverts repeated without discussion, that's not lack of responsiveness, it's edit warring. --Abd (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being unresponsive is uncivil. It's the same as saying "F.U." to the questioner. The non-response says the questioner is inferior and thus unworthy of spending time responding to. "He puts his time where he thinks it's important." Responding to a question thus is "not important" - because the questioner is "not important" - because only TTN's view matters. How is that kind of behavior "civil"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've noted that topics concerning TTN tend to get somewhat lengthy, if not heated. Perhaps a page concerning this should be created and a redirect placed here if only to give everyone more elbow room? HalfShadow 20:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is nowhere near the size of the CENSEI megillah that developed here and stayed on this page.

• I opened some of these AfDs at random. Many are unanimous "delete"s so far (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Roysten Merchant, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Tyrell, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Beebe). Based on these and on what I have read here, I see no problems with TTN's nominations. If people disagree with them they can say so in the AfDs. I don't understand what all the fuss is about and I am, frankly, most astonished about Baseball Bugs' "Block him immediately" comment.  Sandstein  20:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was stated that he was doing something he had been warned not to do. If that is true, then he should be blocked immediately for misbehavior. If not, then that's another story. The opinion on whether he's behaving properly seems to be mixed. However, if he won't answer fair questions, then he's being uncivil, and a block might effect an attitude adjustment - or at least get him to answer. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's got a pretty big chain of unrevealed assumptions there. We have to assume that he was actually doing what he was warned not to do. We have to assume the warning came in good faith and from a neutral party. We have to assume that the matter at hand is something worth blocking. And, frankly, I don't agree with the "block because I think he has a 'tude" viewpoint. He isn't 13. We aren't effecting discipline here. I don't think a bold "block him immediately" was the right response to the stated complaint. Protonk (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the contrary, he should be nominated for adminship, since he apparently knows what's best. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't make this worse. He doesn't need a nobel prize. I'm just suggesting that coming to AN/I and treating his malfeasance as a certainty isn't the way to go. Protonk (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also note that TTN is not only nominating for deletion and redirecting, he's also placing merge tags (example from today) which is hardly unilateral. As Sandstein says above, most of the AfDs seem to be reasonable, and as for the redirects - well, when I see TTN redirecting well-sourced articles with good third-party references and real-world notability, then I'll agree with the editors who repeatedly bring this to the drama boards. Black Kite 21:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is his exactly samely worded noms suggest that he is just indiscriminately nominating articles on fictional characters and television episodes which clearly he and a few others just do not like and that can/should be merged redirected instead. He is also nominating so many articles that it is overwhelming the deletion debate area. And he is showing no signs of actually checking for sources first. It actually takes some time to search for sources and incorporate them into articles. When he has done that? When he found sources and added them to articles? If people revert his redirects, gee, than maybe it’s because the consensus is that the articles are worthy and hey it seems only a portion of us even know about and find the deletion debates that only seem to last for a few days anyway. How does his cookie cutter nominations followed bye the same handful of others that flock to his discussions who slap down similarly repetitive “delete per TTN” or “delete as fancruft” nonsense rapidly across whatever debates this guy starts actually reflect what the community wants? At least the Protonk has the occasional keep worked in or when he argues to delete shows evidence of having looked for sources, but few of those who agree with him seem to make that effort to be objective and treat these discussions as individuals. What “contribution” do we get from [5], [6], [7], and so on? The same rapid fire posts that show no evidence of actually trying to find sources or offering anything new to the conversation. It’s like that from most of TTN’s defenders. He makes the same copy and paste nomination; a few of his allies show up and make the same copy and paste agreements with him (and what‘s classic is I get warned by someone who himself made a handful of copy and paste deletes not to make copy and paste keeps--what a farce!), maybe someone offers a counterpoint and actually provides sources or makes an effort to improve the article, but otherwise the same big brothers deciding for us is simply not right. Are we here to build an encyclopedia or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.1.2 (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you forgot that you should be on 63.3.1.130, right? Because there isn't a connection between those two IP's, right?  :) Protonk (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this "vanishing" business is trickier than one would think. Deor (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone can prove this particular shitstorm was caused by our vanished friend, I think it's a good argument for a nice long rangeblock.—Kww(talk) 22:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I don't know. Someone was going to raise the issue eventually. Like I said above, if people are pissed about TTN's conduct, then we should have a RFC/U, not a backdoor attempt at a topic ban because he used to edit war over redirects and mergers. Protonk (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any numbers about how his AFDs shake out? if they are 90% KEEP then he needs to reconsider what he's doing but if they are 90% delete, well.... --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I looked over the articles he put up for AfD, and they seem to deem that treatment. Most of the articles IMHO fail WP:Notability. What TTN does is another segment of keep WP clean. I, for example hit new articles with speedy delete tags, TTN just catches the articles further along the process, and puts them up for AfD. So, TTN is a cleanup warrior, not a vandal. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redact my original proposal for sanctions After spending lots of time reviewing the entire situation, and reading people's comments, I no longer believe that TTN is commiting any real disruption worth sanctions at this time. I find his single-minded obsession with deleting the episode and character articles perplexing, but all of his nominations I agree should probably be deleted or merged into their parent articles. In the end, even though he is on this extensive mission, he has not as yet really done anything that I don't end up agreeing with. I think its easy to, given the history of this conflict, misinterpret the situation, but none of the individual actions he has taken has crossed the line. I apologize for perhaps starting the controversy this time, but I have carefully reconsidered my position. I don't really support his mission, but I also don't see any harm in it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're OK with it, then that's the end of it. Leave him unblocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• No reason to block him. I've taken part in a few AfDs he has nominated. I found the nominations appropriate, and common closure is usually merge/redirect, sometimes delete. Examples:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Baby_Doll_(Batman:_The_Animated_Series), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cad_Lackey, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dana_Tan, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Defensor_(Transformers), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Doz, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hexadecimal_(character), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LarryBoy, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marty_Funkhouser, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ro_Rowen, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tasp. The inclusionists that disagree with him are tying to subvert the AfD process by blocking or banning him, a typical kill the messenger reaction. VG ☎ 01:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I might not see eye to eye with User:TTN, but I feel someone should offer a little balance. Disagree with his content decisions, but he isn't doing anything wrong. It would be different if he were breaking policy, ignoring warnings, and playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT... or abusing the WP:3RR. But he isn't. Moreover, he's using the WP:BRD process as designed. First he boldly merges or boldly redirects. If someone reverts, he starts a merge or deletion discussion. Even if I don't agree with him all of the time, there's usually a consensus for deleting, redirecting, or merging... suggesting that he's not being reckless, let alone malicious. I think we should assume good faith. And there is no damage. People are entirely free to contest his edits, or his suggestions at discussion pages, and they often do. If he's acting in good faith and doing no damage, then what's the problem? Randomran (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• To be honest, this was one of the reasons that I started the original Request for Clarification shortly after his restriction ended. I was concerned that TTN was ramping up activity in the arena of content removal again, and was hoping to get a clear indication from Arbcom on this, as they put the original restriction in place. First let me be clear that each action that TTN does, in isolation, I don't have a problem with. The mechanisms of raising AfDs, suggesting redirects and tagging potential mergis is part of the article peer review that makes WP work as a content development mechanism. Most of his statements are sensible, and most of his AfD suggestions are sound. So where does the trouble lie? Well, as I've always said, it's in the throughput. TTN does a lot of work in the content cleanup space, raising a large number of AfDs (I think it's been 30 in 24 hours, but I could be wrong) doing a lot of tagging and creating large numbers of redirects. It's this large volume of work that causes concern with other editors, and which I'd really encourage him to ease up on. To be clear, I don't see blocking as a solution here, because I don't think it's the appropriate tool. Instead, I'd ask TTN to slow down, to feed his work into the system at a slower rate and to be willing to liase with other editors to ensure that he works at a pace everyone feels comfortable with. Many thanks, Gazimoff 15:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lolwut? Telling him to slow down the article cleaning process is akin to asking a vandal-guardian to slow down the reverts he/she does, or a new-page patroller to slow down on the db-taging of articles. I know on an average day I tag 20 articles for speedy delete, and revert another 40 changes. Should I slow down? Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a like-for-like comparison. Recent changes/New pages patrol is one area, with a high level of continuous edits happening. Merges, reverts and AfDs have a much lower volume. In a WP workday, I can easily raise 30 or 40 CSDs on NPP. I'd be alarmed if I was raising the same volume of AfDs, and I'd be concerned that I was flooding the process if I did. Hope this makes sense. Gazimoff 17:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I just would like to see him follow BLD and discuss things more. When someone undoes a redirect of his, he generally just moves to AfD without discussion. When I merged more into an article than he did after a merge AfD result, he undid it without comment. BLD indicates its worth being bold if you think it's not controversial. If you know it's controversial (and undoing a good faith edit likely is) then discussion is the right thing.... Hobit (talk) 03:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But AFD is a discussion mechanism; it just opens it up to more people than just those who watch the page (which will generally have a bias against deletion). --MASEM 04:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bingo. To reinforce Masem's point, it's right there in the first ten words of WP:AFD: "AFD is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted". If the AFD reaches a consensus for deletion, there's no harm because everyone agrees the article doesn't belong here. And if the AFD doesn't reach a consensus, then there's no harm because the article continues to exist. For that reason, AFD is generally a good process, and it generally achieves a good result. Randomran (talk) 07:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • So are you all saying that AfD is the right place to bring redirect disputes? Really? I trust you both, but I've seen people dragged through the mud for bringing a redirect discussion (where they want to undo the redirect) to AfD. But I'll try it and point to this discussion if you both think that's how it is supposed to work. Let me know. Hobit (talk) 14:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You should only bring an article to AFD if you believe in good faith that the article fails our content guidelines and policies. But if you do, remember that it begins a discussion. It doesn't always mean deletion. Randomran (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • So one side of the discussion has a mechanism to involve others, even when their (apparent) prefered outcome isn't to delete. But the other part of this discussion doesn't have that outlet? Ick. Historically not a problem because people don't normally bring a redirect discussion straight to AfD. But TTN is doing it on a massive scale... Hobit (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • You don't need to have a discussion to keep an article. That happens naturally, with dozens of editors improving it to meet our guidelines and policies, to rule out any sound reason for deletion. I'm not sure I understand what an "article for keep" discussion would accomplish, although there are mechanisms like peer review and the rescue tag to help improve articles that are in trouble. Randomran (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination reason TTN keeps using is sometimes outright incorrect. Typically, he will state that the article consists of nothing but plot summary and original research. Well, for most of the articles he nominates, the plot summary may make up the majority of the article. But sentences regarding which actor played the character, are neither. An AFD nominator has an obligation to check that the assertions in the nomination are true, and TTN is not doing that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• However, for the most part, his nominations are decent. If he merges or redirects it just gets reverted, so he needs something to demonstrate a consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to beat the dead horse: Other editorial decisions (to merge, delete, etc.) don't go to AfD. Why does the "I want to redirect but I keep getting reverted" go to AfD? Isn't there something wrong with doing that without any attempt at communication? Hobit (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because it's the only avenue available. Generally the people that restore these redirects are anonymous IPs, and, no matter how you feel about anons, they are very difficult to communicate with. It's rarely possible to tell if messages on their talk pages are being read and ignored or simply going to some other cable modem user. Discussing a redirect on the talk page of an article is futile, as the people that read the talk page are generally restricted to those people that think its a worthwhile article. It's unfair to characterize the discussion as I want to redirect but I keep getting reverted. It's generally more like This article is completely lacking in any characteristic that would permit it to be kept, but there is a group of editors that refuses to recognize that. Should there be a better mechanism than AFD for getting a larger group of editors to discuss this? Certainly. Is it fair to criticize TTN for using the only effective mechanism that exists? Certainly not.—Kww(talk) 18:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's two sides to every dispute. For the "you keep reverting my redirect", there's the "you keep reverting my keep". AFD is "we can't agree whether to keep or redirect. can we get an independent opinion?" Usually the consensus will decide to keep or delete the article on its merits. Randomran (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed 100%. But I ask again, is it acceptable to bring an article to AfD if you are on the "keep" side of that argument? My understanding is that it isn't. Heck, I don't think bringing it to AfD to try to pick between redirect and keep is considered acceptable. Do you disagree? I'm happy to try it. (note: I need to read kww's proposal which I haven't gotten to yet) Hobit (talk) 04:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it's kind of general knowledge that AFDs are a good way to solicit feedback from a wide variety of people, and the arbcom decision reflects that. But at the same time, I think it's reserved for situations when someone has a good faith belief that the article should be deleted. I myself have PRODed articles, and had someone revert saying "take it to AFD". That was a reasonable way to settle it. If it really is inappropriate to nominate an article for AFD that you really just want to keep (which I'm pretty sure it is), then I think it's entirely fair to revert a redirect and say "take it to AFD". After all, it would be pretty WP:POINTy for someone to redirect *again* after someone said "if you insist this article shouldn't exist, let's have an AFD". (A merge is a different story though.) Some of that might just be my opinion though. Randomran (talk) 05:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that's largely fair, and will take that approach in the future. Hobit (talk) 01:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Anthony has blocked Xasha for 48 hours and extended his topic ban to all matters Eastern European; a site ban has been seriously considered but we agreed to try and see whether this topic ban works out. Gutza ^{T T+} 09:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not long ago, I complained here that User:Xasha is causing serious disruption and harm to the project, and that I believe meaningful action should be taken against him. Following my report, Xasha was blocked - his eighth block in the last four months. Unfortunately, he is right back to violating his topic ban regarding "all edits touching on the historical and ethnic relation between Moldova and Romania".

Right after returning from his block, Xasha immediately made several edits violating his topic ban. User:Gutza, an administrator, warned him and Xasha acknowledged receiving the warning. (I should add that he had a "very serious warning" on September 15.) However, since Gutza's warning, Xasha has only increased his edit-warring, every time violating his topic ban: see here, here and here for clear examples.

The implication is clear. Xasha is indeed, as I noted two weeks ago to his displeasure, "the prototypical Eastern European nationalist POV-pusher...He's never written an article, and hardly contributed content", instead disrupting the project time and again. He has proven beyond any doubt (if such doubt ever existed) that he is not here to build an encyclopedia but to tear down others' work and use the project as a battleground. His repeated, brazen violation of his topic ban is galling. Will he be served up yet another "final warning" and continue to be allowed to thumb his nose at the community, or will the curtain finally come down on this charade? Biruitorul ^Talk 20:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I see Biruitorul is trying to remove sources like The American Journal of International Law, The Hague Academy of International Law and Charles Upson Clark because they don't support his POV, and since he doesn't have any real argument to dismiss them, he has to secure a block for me to make sure nobody will contest his buddies removal of those sources. Two of the linked pages (Balti and MASSR) are clearly outside the scope of the topic ban, and the inclusion of the addition of the sources mentioned above in History of Moldavia is disputable.Xasha (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to block you for a month when I was interrupted by your message on my talkpage - which has enabled me to consider this further. Biruitorul, I think you need to open a request at WP:RfAR regarding this matter and see if the Arbs are willing to consider expanding/broadening the topic ban. While I think that a short block per the existing topic ban is legitimate it does not seem to have the deterring effect, so perhaps it should go back to ArbCom to see if further sanctions are worthwhile. As Xasha would need participate in any discussion I shall not block in this instance - but if another admin feels differently then I have no objection. (Please note that Xasha will request block exemption for his ip - since it is used by other editors. I understand this has been granted before, Xasha can supply the details.)

ps. Xasha, it doesn't matter about the quality of your references - you are violating your topic ban. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: I never did in fact remove those sources, though of course they're being used to support a fringe POV, which is itself troubling. Biruitorul ^Talk 01:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did support the version that excluded them by fixing its grammar. Also, what would be the motivation of two undeniably reputable Western institution and a US Romania-expert to support a POV? (which is no way fringe, just that is opposed by a large part of the often politically controlled Romanian historiography)Xasha (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. I didn't remove them and that's that. If you must know, a 1944 source may (may) be biased because the US and USSR were still allies, while Sinclair's "bilateral agreement" phrasing completely misses the point that it was done by force. However, that is not the point. What is the point is that you continue to brazenly defy your topic ban in the face of ArbCom consensus - and that is intolerable. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict, but I want to say this for the record.) In my opinion Xasha has proven time and again that he's a POV-pushing revert warrior who follows an agenda irrespective to Wikipedia etiquette, rules or policies, and that temporary measures fail to change anything. As such, I would even endorse a ban on this user, since it's obvious to me that nothing works as a deterrent. --Gutza ^{T T+} 21:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which may be the case, but there is an existing ArbCom decision on this matter and if there needs to be a different remedy then it needs to go through that procedure first. However, if there is no desire for this then it is a case of escalating blocks until the topic ban runs out... I have no position in this matter other than to advise the options. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unaware of this case here, I broough it over here. Dc76\^talk 22:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: users can be community banned, even if they've been through, or are going through an ArbCom case. Alternatively, ArbCom can modify the restrictions and/or impose a Committee ban on the user too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have to look at the opportunity of a ban. Would such reputable sources as the above ever be added to a topic otherwise dominated by a few opinionated Romanian users (cause not all Romanian users on en.WP are so)? Was Wikipedia improved by the addition of those sources? (isn't this rhetorical?) Is the aversion of those few users to the reputable source-supported perspective introduced by me enough to prevent me from further increasing the quality of Moldova-related Wikipedia articles?Xasha (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're only proving you still don't understand that you're under a topic ban, and that you shouldn't have touched those topics no matter what; you're further proving that you cannot follow the rules of this project, regardless of how many warnings and blocks you receive -- after several blocks, under a topic ban, on the administrators' noticeboard, you're still discussing editorial issues and making counter-accusations involving a Romanian cabal. --Gutza ^{T T+} 09:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be advised that so far there is consensus for banning this user, since I haven't seen anyone opposing that. I'm not saying this will necessarily remain so, I just want to prevent this from being silently archived; if that happens at this point of the discussion, or before there is any opposition, then I will ban the user myself as per said consensus. --Gutza ^{T T+} 18:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There no such thing. 3 opinionated Romanian users don't make a consensus.Xasha (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they do. But again, I'm not saying this consensus will necessarily stand until this section is archived, I'm only making sure everybody is aware of what will happen if there is no opposition. This is neither a warning nor a threat, I'm just making sure we all know where we currently stand. And incidentally that's very much in your favor, since an abrupt announcement of this sort is usually followed by rebuttals -- the alternative would have been quietly proceeding to banning you on the same grounds, but without this announcement. --Gutza ^{T T+} 19:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to ban an opponent in a content dispute you're involved in based on an essay. Great! Xasha (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, great idea, wikilawyering is the best thing you can do at this point! --Gutza ^{T T+} 19:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noting the prospective abuse of administrative powers is just sensible, and warning admins against such thing can't be reasonably construed as wikilawyering.Xasha (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'm following your rationale, aren't we writing on the same page? How exactly is your warning towards admins supposed to work when it's just next to the very announcement of said prospective abuse? Either you're assuming all admins reading the Administrators' noticeboard are plain stupid and need your explicit warning to figure out an abuse announced in plain view, or you're wikilawyering -- I don't see other options (but hey, I'm an admin, what do I know). --Gutza ^{T T+} 19:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This wouldn't be the first time you ignore the part about admins not using admin powers in content disputes they take part in, so by "admins" I was talking about you. Also your choice of options isn't the most civil one.Xasha (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't answer to this particular thread of the conversation anymore, but I want to point out a few things for the record:

• I cannot, have not and will not use my admin powers within content disputes (feel free to prove otherwise). However, that is related to taking unilateral action by the admin's own accord -- this is totally different, I would simply enforce a community consensus. Incidentally, bans are never unilateral, so I couldn't have banned you on my own accord anyway (that would be an inexcusable policy breach).
• The essay I linked to above is explicitly "intended to supplement WP:Consensus"; as such, it is mentioned within the very body of WP:Consensus. Also, for anyone familiar with the policies in place that essay is not really necessary (the spirit of the Consensus policy is clear enough for experimented users). You are an experienced Wikipedian, therefore your clinging to that material's status as an essay is obvious wikilawyering.
• Finally, your last reply is fallacious in its entirety. This would actually be the first time I'd ignore the part about admins not using admin powers in content disputes they take part in, and in addition I'm not in this case either. And my choice of options is actually not only civil, but indeed gentlemanly -- I chose to assume we admins were the stupid ones.

As I said, I will try not to follow up on this particular thread, unless I find your next answer erroneous enough to merit further clarifications. --Gutza ^{T T+} 21:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

← The point is that Xasha has continued to post on WP in violation of his topic ban. Whether the additions made to the article(s) were reliable or not, does not void this fact. Then to come and comment on this ANI about other editors, using phrases such as "since he doesn't have any real argument to dismiss them" and "make sure nobody will contest his buddies removal of those sources" or "a topic otherwise dominated by a few opinionated Romanian users", continues to enforce the Arbcom decision of the necessity of imposing a topic ban of certain editors. When you consider the number of blocks placed on Xasha and his return each time to once again violate the topic ban, you can only conclude that he is not willing to abide by the communities decisions and will not change his editing habits. The only conclusion I can make from this activity is that a ban is indeed warranted and has been postponed longer than necessary. Blocking the user is not working to prevent his revisiting his topic ban once the block expires. It has become a pattern of disruption and abuse that needs to be stopped, not delayed for a short time, to once again start anew.--JavierMC 20:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In September 2008 the User Xasha hurt again his topic ban hurt (see this discussion), but the administrators were very generous with him and he was not punished (though it was not the first time he hurt his topic ban). Xasha also showed no signs of remorse and he refused to revert his disputed and forbidden edit. He only wrote that "You can't change the past. What is done is done." Now seeing that he carried forward his behavior (especially regarding his topic ban), my conclusion about this user is clear: Xasha is incorrigible. From this reason I request a full ban for Xasha. Regards, --Olahus (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to comment to this remark by Xasha: "You have to look at the opportunity of a ban. Would such reputable sources as the above ever be added to a topic otherwise dominated by a few opinionated Romanian users (cause not all Romanian users on en.WP are so)? Was Wikipedia improved by the addition of those sources?" Yes, those sourses not only will but are already being added by Illythr. Except that he does that in a completely different manner from Xasha. And yes, Wikipedia would be improved by the addition of anything, even "Adolf Hitler/Joseph Stalin once said "..." ". Absolutely noone prevented Xasha to add the sources in the talk pages. Talk page activity on the banned subjects is ok. But, hey, that does not give internal satisfaction of a pinch just delievered in the face. Dc76\^talk 04:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have blocked Xasha for 48 hours, and additionally, banned him from editing all articles relating to Eastern Europe, indefinitely. I'm not sure whether this would be a justification for closing this thread and "waiting to see" how that topic ban works, perhaps? Anthøny (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, no, unless someone wants to take it personally upon themselves to follow Xasha for a couple of months or so. Xasha has been topic banned and subsequently blocked several times, and even in this section he's still having editorial arguments and accusing people. Your extended topic ban doesn't change anything -- if he was unable to abide by a more narrow topic ban I don't see how a broader topic ban could work better. Personally I don't have anything against your conditions, should Xasha respect them -- but I know that won't happen, and we'll all have to go through this process several times more before reaching the same unavoidable result. --Gutza ^{T T+} 17:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. One good indicator regarding Xasha's inclination to abide by topic bans is the fact that he has never agreed to abide by them. He was blocked several times for breaching the old topic ban, he has contested or discussed several of the blocks, but he never said he wouldn't do it again or shown any sort of remorse for the actions which led to his being blocked (e.g. here, here, here, here, here, and most recently here). --Gutza ^{T T+} 19:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree with Gutza (although I am sure that in view of my boldness when I edit I am much more of a Nemesis to Xasha than Gutza, who edits almost politically correctly - I am not implying that is good or bad, just observing that as an admin Gutza is 10 times more careful than me). I think if sysop X issues a ban, he generally follows through with what is going on after that. So, if Xasha returns to his behavior, Anthony would be there to witness first hand. All we need to do is give to Anthony a list of the articles Xasha attacks and let him follow for some time (some weeks) the developments there. Dc76\^talk 22:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators are volunteers like everybody else, Anthony is by no means obligated to follow up on anything unless he chooses to. Also, please note he has only asked a question, he didn't make any personal assertions in this matter. As I said above, if he -- or any other admin for that matter -- voluntarily chooses to take this upon themselves then I for one have no problem with that solution. And even if that doesn't happen, if there are any voices against Xasha's ban for any reasonable reasons (i.e. not a vandal having fun) then there is no consensus on banning him, and that option drops altogether regardless of whether someone wants to watch him or not. --Gutza ^{T T+} 23:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would of course keep an eye on Xasha, but that's a different ball game entirely from taking him personally under my wing and watching his every edit. Having said that, I don't think we should rubbish the value of a topic ban altogether; to date, Xasha has been a source of irritation mainly in the Eastern Europe topic area. My topic ban has effectively eliminated that source of irritation; perhaps Xasha will start to constructively contribute? In all honesty, I prefer this course of action to a site ban; if, 2-3 months down the line, the topic ban has clearly failed to stem Xasha's disruption, then yes, a formal community ban could be looked into. But let's not jump the gun. Anthøny (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm going to regret this, but ok, let's try that and see how it goes. --Gutza ^{T T+} 07:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/Marshall_Williams2

1. 15:56, 14 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Nm User talk:Sexual vanilla ‎ (Added welcome template to user talk page. using Friendly) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]
2. 15:55, 14 October 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Girly1024 ‎ (Added welcome template to user talk page. using Friendly) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]
3. 15:54, 14 October 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Pussy wetter ‎ (Added welcome template to user talk page. using Friendly) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]
4. 15:54, 14 October 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Hooker5 ‎ (Added welcome template to user talk page. using Friendly) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]
5. 15:53, 14 October 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Pussyboy ‎ (Added welcome template to user talk page. using Friendly) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]
6. 15:52, 14 October 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Hooker kitten ‎ (Added welcome template to user talk page. using Friendly) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]
7. 15:52, 14 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Nm User talk:Hooker kitten ‎ (Added welcome template to user talk page. using Friendly)

I welcomed all of these users. That's all. Marshall T. Williams (talk) 12:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously a kid, uploading blurry pictures of stuff around his house, making rather useless contributions to articles, spamming user talk pages, and using welcome templates on series of sexually themed usernames who last edited months ago. If we AGF, this is where an experienced user should channel this persons energy into being useful. If we don't AGF, this is a waste of a lot of peoples time. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I'm more concern about this incomplete prod of his. His work in mainspace is not that helpful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On another, unrelated note, shouldn't four and possibly five of those users be blocked for violating the username policy? None of them are, as far as I can see...Gladys J Cortez 07:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Crap. Nevermind. I has the dumb. (Aaaand--forgot to sign. I am going to sleep now before I make a further ass of myself in public.) Gladys J Cortez 07:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, yeah, another overzealous kid. It's clear from his edits that he's in middle school, and while this gave me a bit of a chuckle (It's really not.), and he does make some decent edits, he should be told that WP isn't primarily for socializing. IFD all his images, and maybe take away access to automated tools so that it's not easy for him to try to delete Barack Obama and Stain. GlassCobra 07:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. If this person continues to disrupt the community then they should be blocked. JBsupreme (talk) 07:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And we need more pictures of dishwasher baskets on this site. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know he was from San Jose ... he has a picture of the HP Pavillion on his userpage ... BMW(drive) 12:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing like telegraphing your whereabouts. Presumably he'll have the good sense not to list his parents' address and phone number on his user page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Especially since I already know what their truck and dishwasher basket look like...--Smashville^talk 13:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There can't be all that many red Ford trucks in San Jose, right? At least the photo did not include (1) the license plate and (2) the photographer's reflection. I could go there myself to investigate, but I don't know the way to San Jose. I may go wrong and lose my way. :( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know the way to use ebay, though...does that count? --Smashville^talk 13:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I wonder if I could get a red Ford pickup on eBay? I could make it a bundle of contradictions, with a gunrack in the back and a rebel flag license plate in front, and peace symbols and rainbow stickers everywhere. The perfect vehicle for any "California Redneck". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or the average Eagles fan. — CharlotteWebb 16:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Note: I hope the humour in my HP Pavillion comment didn't go to far over anyone's head. It was a picture of an HP Pavillion computer, and not the HP Pavillion where the San Jose Sharks play ... :P BMW(drive) 17:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Here's your red pickup on eBay[8] BMW(drive) 17:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shazam! Thanks fer the tip! Now all I gotta do is see if they'll take a personal check. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think your check has to be delivered in a dishwasher basket. --Smashville^talk 19:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Money laundering? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that why the last CEO of HP was canned? BMW(drive) 23:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! The plot thickens. Or something's thickening. Maybe it's the dishwasher detergent. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Staying on topic, I notified him about this. Perhaps someone would be willing to adopt him? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I welcomed all of these users. That's all. Marshall T. Williams (talk) 12:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason you chose those users? If you want to welcome actual new users, click the "my contributions" link at the top of the screen, click the "Show contributions of new accounts only" button and voila!...you have new users. It's considered good practice to wait until they edit to welcome them...and not to add welcome templates to obvious username violations. If you need help...feel free to contact me or anyone else on this thread... --Smashville^talk 20:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RonCram (talk · contribs) has repeated several legal threats against Wikimedia and against the editors involved. The issue arose over his attempt to use Worldnetdaily as source for fringe claims in a WP:BLP. In response to consensus that Worldnetdaily could not be considered a reliable source for these claims he said "If the official position of Wikipedia is that WorldNetDaily is not RS, I will notify Joe Farah immediately. I don't know for certain but it would not surprise me if he chose to pursue legal action." [9] Following that statement, he was warned [10] about making legal threats. However he continued and escalated these threats: [11] [12] [13] [14] And this very specific threat: [15]

He seems to think that because he's not saying he will sue, rather he'll inform the owners of that website who will then sue, that he is off the hook for legal threats. My understanding is that this is not true. I know, of course, that his legal threats are ridiculous, but the worry is that it will have a chilling effect on other, less experienced, editors who are questioning his edits. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we just need to have a "bring it on" attitude and ignore such threats? If some Admins here declare that whatever Ron plans to do in his life outside of wikipedia is irrelevant and then post a link on the talk page to this decision then it seems to me that the matter would be settled. Count Iblis (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Strikes me that his statements rather blatantly violate WP:NLT/WP:NPLT, if not in the wording of the policy, than certainly in the spirit thereof- NLT exists (at least in part) to prevent the very chilling effects that Loonymonkey speaks of from occurring, and threats to instigate another party to taking legal action shouldn't be treated any differently than direct legal threats. And in response to Count Iblis, we shouldn't overlook legal threats. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(font reduced to clarify RomCram isn't new) I'm against blocking relatively new accounts that don't know any better for making legal threats, but I'm in favor of blocking accounts of editors who have been here long enough to know better and who are repeatedly using legal threats as a bludgeon to get their way. Now, RonCram's legal threat is particularly silly, and I don't think any of the people he's arguing with are dumb enough to feel threatened, so I won't block him myself for the threats already made and listed above (although I won't raise a hand in his defense if someone else blocks him), but I will block him the next time he does something similar. On my way to his talk page now to say so, assuming someone else hasn't already blocked... --barneca (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec again)Actually, ignore my mention of WP:DOLT, I misquoted it here. My meaning was that we shouldn't just ignore the situation as it's primarily off-wiki. Ron can go ahead and inform whomever he pleases of whatever he pleases, but using the threat of causing a disruption of Wikipedia in order to gain the advantage in a dispute isn't really a "best practice". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, keep in mind that he made these threats after he was template-warned about legal threats, so he can't really plead ignorance. Also, RonCram has been around since 2005 and has made thousands of edits, so it isn't really accurate to call it a "relatively new account." This is an experienced editor. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also posted on RonCram's talk page. Essentially I agree with barneca; no amount of wikilawyering is going to justify a continuation of this behaviour. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) I may have been unclear. I don't think he's new, I was saying I think we block new accounts making legal threats too quickly, but he's not new, so even if this is skirting the letter of NLT, I'd be fine blocking him if he does it again, because he's not new and he knows better. Both SheffieldSteel and I have left notes on his talk page. --barneca (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a case where it's more important to pay attention to the intent of the policy rather than the letter of the policy.

All that aside though; I have a question of the ref being discussed. Where did that discussion take place? Was the concensus in regard to that specific article, or in regard to it being used as a source on all of Wikipedia? The reason I ask, is that it appears that the site is currently used as a ref or well over 1,000 articles ... so if concensus is that it should not be used as a WP:RS on all of Wikipedia, then we have a lot of cleanup to do. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That link is grabbing instances of that link on all namespaces, not just article namespace. While there are some cases where it's being used (Christian Exodus for example), a lot of those are in the Talk namespace. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I did a quick scan, out of the first 100, only about 45 or so are in the article namespace. Using that as a means to estimate and rounding down, that still leaves over 400 articles that need to be evaluated and possibly cleaned up if the site should not be used. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good estimate; 507 links on 413 articles from the first 1000 entries on the ListSearch. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a sufficient metric, though. WorldNetDaily would be citable at articles about its own notable staff writers, such as Matt Sanchez, and might be acceptable as an external link on pages where it isn't used as a citation. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if there are a number of citations that need to be taken down. I've been going through popular song articles taking out attempted citations to Angelfire, Blogspot, Tripod, etc. - low traffic stubs have a tendency to accumulate that sort of thing. Durova^Charge! 21:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three of them are links to a Pat Buchanan anti-gay screed, used as primary sources to describe lay Catholics' attitude regarding gay people. Wikidemon (talk) 06:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which statement we're talking about here - the editor has proposed so many, which as I recall tend to be fringe-y blogosphere style conspiracy theories and random criticisms. We also have many issues beyond legal threats. I know the editor was promoting a theory in two articles that Bill Ayers ghost-wrote Barack Obama's autobiography, and crying censorship, bullying, etc. at all attempts to close or consolidate the discussions. If Worldnet's articles are suspect it might not be a bad idea to do a spot check on the reliability of citations. It would be hard to make a statement that applies throughout Wikipedia based on the Obama article. Verifiability of hyper-notable political matters probably works a little differently than routine article editing. We often ask for more than one source, or a consensus among sources, on the theory that a lone source however reliable might have it wrong and may not satisfy weight concerns. If a guest writer writes a blurb about a furniture factory in a small town weekly newspaper in Ohio that is a reliable source, but we need better sourcing than the writer if the claim is that there is some truth after all to the rumor that Obama has a terrorist for a ghostwriter (or that he's Muslim, Arab, not born in America, the Messiah according to Farrakhan, participates in voter fraud, or any of the other comparable proposals that have come up in the past dayd). Certain publishers and authors may tend to be more reliable than others, but in the end sourcing is a case-by-case question of whether the specific work in question is reliable to verify the specific statement it purportedly supports in a given article. But in general blogs, highly partisan news organizations, small circulation papers, and opinion/editorial/commentary pieces (whether presented as such or as news) are poor sources for controversial factual claims about politicians in current elections. Wikidemon (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a standard application of "extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I should respond to this comment by Wikidemon. The work done by Cashill has been published in WorldNetDaily and National Review Online. Columnists in daily newspapers have picked up on this controversy and opined about it. I do not see how something that is discussed in RS such as these could be called fringe. This discussion here is really not about me. It is people who want to stifle the opinion's of others (professional journalists and columnists) during an election. RonCram (talk) 03:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is about your editing on the Barack Obama-related pages. It was initially over your insisting that any discussion over the trustworthiness of World News Daily and Jack Cashill's opinion piece there would subject Wikipedia to legal liability. You have been told not to do that and I hope you got the message. From the perspective of editors of the Obama article, there is a problem with your pushing fringe theories such as the bizarre, poorly sourced accusation that Barack Obama's autobiography was in fact authored by Bill Ayers. You can argue all you want that your source is reliable, the theories are not fringe, that it's all true, and that other editors have no right to limit the discussion but that does not change the community's decision on the matter. Moreover, your hostile attitude towards the many long-term editors here who try to manage the talk page - re-opening closed discussions, crying censorship, accusing editors of agendas and bias - is unwelcome. If you persist you will be asked not to further edit the page. If you come back to the page, please do not agitate further for theories the community has dismissed as poorly sourced and fringe, and do not complain there about other editors and their way of handling discussions. This is very disruptive and it shuts down the normal functioning of the talk page to handle proposed improvements to the article.Wikidemon (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidemon, I was not arguing that "it was all true." I am arguing that WorldNetDaily, National Review Online and Cleveland Leader are RS, making the controversy mainstream. I am arguing that the controversy is relevant to the article and interesting to Wikipedia readers. RonCram (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a side issue perhaps, but if you view it that way nearly every disputable claim about a major political candidate is extraordinary in that sense. Did politician X do Y? Any answer either way would need a multitude of sources if challenged, or else it may be fringe, of no weight, or simply inaccurate. Wikidemon (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted for blocking for mis-stating the law, thus illegally practicing law. Corporations can not be defamed under NY law, common law, or Florida law. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All other points aside, I'm fairly sure "mis-stating the law" when one is making no claims to be a lawyer is not "illegally practicing law". Achromatic (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the no legal threats policy isn't really about legal threats - it's about the use of coercive tactics to intimidate other contributors - basing an argument on instilling fear, rather than on its own merits. This is the essence of Roncram's actions. However, I don't believe it necessarily requires a block, as it's clear that nobody involved is actually frightened by the action - I think a stern reprimand would be fine. Dcoetzee 19:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ron has a looooooong history of dodgy BLP stuff. It's been a while but I clearly recall his repeated statements that Michael Mann, a prominent client scientist, was unethical. (For the tip of the iceberg see e.g., Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_10 at the "User William M. Connolley (2)" entry). So this isn't a one-off episode but a firmly established pattern. I fear that if something is not done about Ron's behavior Wikipedia could eventually wind up with a real legal threat on its hands. Perhaps a BLP parole along the lines of the Privatemusings arbcom case would be in order. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank you for inviting me to this fine site. I had a busy day at work and just turned off the presidential debate to find this interesting discussion. I especially enjoyed seeing this currently used as a ref. If you take this at face value you can see that the Wikipedia community believes WorldNetDaily is RS. But certain politically motivated editors have made claims that it is not. This is extremely problematic and purging Wikipedia of all WorldNetDaily citations would only make things worse. Regarding my comments about Michael Mann, they were based on this English translation article [16] from the Dutch science magazine Natuurwetenschap & Techniek. Anyone who reads that article and understands it will see my comments about Mann were not out of line. RonCram (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats disrupt Wikipedia. We block to prevent other types of disruption, why don't we block to prevent this user from continuing to disrupt with his (fairly obvious) legal threats. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 04:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking is to prevent disruption, not for punishment or sense of completion. Everyone deserves a chance to edit constructively. The legal threat is stale at this point, and the editor has been warned. If he avoids the subject or contributes in a collegial, civil, productive way he is welcome to edit as he wishes. But I do suggest that if he causes more disruption on the Obama pages by tendentiously proposing fringe theories, interfering with discussion process, or making legal threats anywhere on the project, someone needs to take stronger action. Wikidemon (talk) 04:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This really has been interesting and educational. Previously, I was informed that op-ed pieces are not RS and cannot be cited on Wikipedia. I was surprised to learn op-ed pieces are RS as long as they criticize conservatives or conservative publications like WorldNetDaily. The WorldNetDaily article calls the website "unreliable" and links to this. [17] Not only is this an op-ed piece, it does not use the term unreliable. The same claim of unreliability also links to a critical op-ed piece by Media Matters which criticizes CBS News for publishing the same report as WND. Interestingly, Wikipedia editors critical of WND do not consider CBS News unreliable. [18] RonCram (talk) 12:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Posted to EncMstr's page asking for help: This page just got it's full-protect removed. The other editor involved in the conflict is going to town inserting POV language and arguing his case. He's removing all kinds of things instead of tagging them with ^{[citation needed]}. It's above my paygrade to know how to deal with it. But it seems abusive and disruptive as a mediation is already underway. Can you look into it or post this in the appropriate place for another administrator to take a peak? I'm trying not to violate 3RR and to avoid an edit war. But I don't know what to do and most of the edits being made are one-sided so it's not really right that they just stay and the page gets locked down now. (Wallamoose (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

There is a vigorous content dispute happening at Clarence Thomas. I'm not sure what the appropriate response is though, but perhaps another admin would like to do something? —EncMstr (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried already, without much success. Bearian (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those two again? (See WP:WQA) This may need an admin to press the "bang their heads together" button. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Button pressed x 2. The article history is a major train wreck and, hopefully, a little time off will get those two to quit. —Travis^talk 19:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, the {{unblock}} requests fly, with one of them up to a 4th request now. Sigh. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wallamoose (talk · contribs · block log) now prevented from editing their talk page for duration of the block. Unfortunate, but obviously necessary. — Satori Son 15:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought about bringing up a timed topic ban for the two of them and will be watching to see what happens when their blocks are up. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well. Now this is another example of refusing to get the point. (sigh) —Travis^talk 21:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is MY talk page. Am I violating a rule? There seem to be a lot of them. And sometimes they even apply. I don't check here frequently, so feel free to drop me a note. I just love getting fan mail!(Wallamoose (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Infoart (talk · contribs) has made complaints and also passed on complaints from the Saatchi Gallery about the article Saatchi Gallery. See his text at Reply from InfoArt. He is complaining that the article is biased negatively against the gallery, which "would like their Wiki entry to be very current and concise. The gallery has asked me to pass on the message that unless this page is cleaned up and edited they will remove all Saatchi related content from Wiki and possibly instigate legal action." Infoart says that I have "a malicious agenda when it comes to Saatchi" and that the Saatchi Gallery have asked that I should be barred "from making edits on any Saatchi related pages".

Infoart has written a considerable amount of editorial material for the Saatchi Gallery web site, and in early 2007 created around 150 articles on wiki about artists in the Saatchi collection, mainly by copying and pasting material (totally unsuitable in style and content for wiki) from the gallery site, each article having an external link to the Saatchi Gallery. See discussions on User talk:Infoart. At that point LessHeard vanU was close to blocking.[19] These articles could all have been speedy deleted as G11 advertising, but I felt they could be an asset to the project, and I organised a clean-up task force to salvage most of them, so I do not, as Infoart alleges have "a malicious agenda when it comes to Saatchi." At that time I received positive emails from the gallery and from Charles Saatchi.

More recently Infoart has made substantial edits to Saatchi Gallery removing negative (and solidly referenced) material and inserting content in a promotional tone about the new Saatchi Gallery, which has just opened.[20][21] My analysis of this is at Recent edits by User:Infoart.

The history of the gallery is one of controversy and contention, covered extensively in national and international media. Infoart's edits create a sanitised, revisionist history, leaving out major events, and present what seems to be the gallery's current PR stance.

Ty 23:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IP that posted the legal threat, 81.159.113.122 (talk · contribs), has been indef-blocked (AO, ACB) by User:Orangemike. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've switched that to a 31-hour, for obvious reasons. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Ty's version, having watched the events on this & many other articles edited by Infoart, mostly from a distance. Johnbod (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←The IP address is requesting an unblock, claiming that they were unfairly blocked. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Whilst not having unblocked, I have attempted to explain our position re independence of editing. It seems clear that although maybe not directly representing Saatchi's themselves, aligning with their position, and promulgating it, puts this IP in the (legal) situation of an authorised agent, and therefore WP:NLT applies equally. That's the situation in UK law, anyhow, until Saatchi's themselves resile from that situation. --Rodhullandemu 02:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've blocked his IP, but the offending IP edit was headed as a "Reply from InfoArt" (link above), and pretty clearly was - should you not block the username too? Johnbod (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having observed and participated in the help project Ty initiated last year to revise, and keep dozens of otherwise deletable Saatchi related articles I back and endorse Ty's version of events as does Johnbod (talk · contribs) above....Modernist (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having dealt with Infoart extensively, although not as closely as Tyrenius, in the past past matter I have to admit to some confusion in respect of Infoarts latest editing; it does not seem to be the same character who both acknowledged and worked with the various editors to address the issues with the various artist bio's. That Infoart seemed to understand WP's position and desire to create appropriate articles. While I understand that the account is now editing the Saatchi Gallery article and is therefore likely more involved in its editing (and the wishes of the subject itself) it still seems to be a previously undisclosed aspect of this editors character. It is so different that I wonder if it is the same person editing from that account, or if the account (which was based within the Gallery, as far as can be ascertained) has been "passed onto" another individual with the same relationship to the Gallery. While this opens another can of worms (is it a Role Account?) I think an enquiry should be made to this account if they are indeed the same person who was involved in editing WP previously.

I also endorse Tyrenius' account of the prior situation, and also wonder if their previous access to Mr Saatchi might be of benefit in resolving this issue? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted an extensive rationale for the NLT block on the IP and also at Infoart. I have not blocked Infoart per se yet, and have no opinion on whether the account should be blocked along with the IP, but he has retracted the threat somewhat, and seems to be interested in pursueing the matter through the proper means (MGodwin) and not via talk page threats. Again, I have no opinion on any pending block on Infoart, but he seems to understand and wishes to abide by the letter and spirit of the NLT policy. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also noticed the discrepancy between the IP and Infoart, as pointed out by LessHeard vanU, and have concluded that the IP and Infoart are two different people. This explains the difference in tone. It also explains why the IP didn't sign in as Infoart, when requested: he couldn't. Now the IP has claimed to be Infoart, Infoart has to cover up for him and pretend he was the IP. There's no evidence at the moment that User:Infoart as such is a role account (or there would have been no need for someone else to edit as an IP).

Infoart has worked for the Saatchi Gallery and provided them with numerous artist write-ups, which are on their web site. This is presumably not out of charity, nor is the creation of around 150 articles on Saatchi artists, a considerable amount of work, done in a very methodical fashion. It has to be assumed he is editing here for the gallery. He is a SPA and does not edit non Saatchi-related articles.

There is an agenda to use the article for the gallery's current PR stance, and ludicrous arguments are presented to try to justify this, such as "Hirst is only one artist of the several thousand who have been featured in the collection over the years", when Hirst is one of the most famous living artists in the world and has had a huge part to play in the Saatchi Gallery's history. Countering this sort of speciousness is a waste of other editors' time.

This has been happening since 2006, as can be seen on Talk:Saatchi Gallery. At that time 195.224.156.170 (talk · contribs) added to the article "we are closing the Gallery at County Hall and concentrating our efforts in preparing our new building."[22] Ktm10 (talk · contribs) admitted to being the gallery's web master.[23]

A number of other accounts display similar behaviour of edits to Saatchi Gallery and related (sometimes very few edits and then not editing again):

• 195.224.156.170 (talk · contribs)
• Angel vonrudolf (talk · contribs)
• Barkalama (talk · contribs)
• Paulx555 (talk · contribs)
• Johnpcarter (talk · contribs)
• 80.168.165.2 (talk · contribs)
• Jmdc (talk · contribs)
• 80.168.164.26 (talk · contribs)
• Bananaleaf0709 (talk · contribs)
• Nederhoed (talk · contribs).

Some of these edits have needed instant reversion. There is a consistent agenda, which is in the gallery's interest, but not in wikipedia's.

It would be preferable to work with the gallery, as we have done very successfully with User:VAwebteam from the Victoria and Albert Museum. This is dependant on whether the gallery is prepared to respect wikipedia policies, which to date they have not. As things stand, they should be restricted in the first instance to only posting on the talk pages of Saatchi Gallery and related articles. This limit should also be extended to any new user that displays the same behaviour.

Ty 04:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New account Saatchi ben (talk · contribs) has been blanking the article or just leaving the beginning of it and adding a link to the saatchi gallery site, continuing after warnings. I have indef blocked. Ty 09:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A new IP editor chopped a large bit of text with no explanation. I reverted to the version before, was requested to semi-protect, but as this is a content dispute and semi-protection isn't recommended in such cases, I've protected the article for 72 hours. I've said on the article talk page that if any Admin wants to change this they may. Doug Weller (talk) 12:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP is 87.224.35.130 (talk · contribs). Ty 13:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need an uninvolved administrator to review Template:Databases - Ramu50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu) has made some extremely questionable additions, I'm going to 3RR on reverting him if I do more, and his responses on the article talk page are not making any sense. This is an area I'm familiar with, and Ramu50 seems to be adding material which is completely inappropriate to the template. He's claiming deeper knowledge of computer architecture but not sourcing claims. This is an area which I've studied and worked in professionally and he seems to just be spouting nonsense so far. He could be a non-native-english-speaking research grad student who's just not communicating effectively in english or something, but he's not listening to me, and I can't protect the template when I'm involved in a content dispute on it etc. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You probably want to go instead to WP:3O for a third opinion, as this is more of a content dispute (there are several scalating venues in WP:DR, and 3O is one of the first ones). I left my own opinion on the talk page --Enric Naval (talk) 01:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's not a grad student, but someone taking Math 12. He's buggered other people before on math and computing topics, generally acting against consensus, sometimes rudely. He seems to chill out quickly though. VG ☎ 08:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting beyond a joke. This is the fourth thread on Ramu50 for the same thing on different templates in a month. His constant tendicious editing across different IT navbox templates isn't going to stop without administrative action. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he's editing tendentiously. But he is editing articles & templates where he doesn't have the necessary background, and this action of his creates unnecessary work for other editors. VG ☎ 20:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and he does throw a hissy fit when contradicted, no doubt about that, see User_talk:Arthur_Rubin/Archive_2008#functions and User_talk:CBM/Archive_10#function. I don't think he should be banned for this though, but he needs to learn to show more respect for other editors' opinions. VG ☎ 20:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I first encountered Ramu50 some months ago on the AT Attachment talk page. Recently I've crossed paths with him (or her) again, first on template:CPU technologies and now template:Databases.

In reviewing his edit history I come away with the following impressions:

He or she indeed has a history of, if not tendentious, at least aggressive editing, particularly in regards to templates. He often expands the template and its scope considerably ( template:ATI, template:AMD, CPU techologies) and in the process often changes the templates from single to multilevel - from simple to complex.

These changes are invariably against consensus (as represented by ensuing discussion; see the talk pages of any of the above). In discussions he has a pattern of responding to any contradiction with challenges to others' legitimacy ("who says you start making the rules"), multiple paragraphs of barely comprehensible verbiage with many offtopic points, referencing all manner of barely related terms, combined with multiple links to web sites that often seem only to contain some of the same keywords he's using.

Although he rarely provides any good references for his own positions he freely demands proof from anyone who dares counter him. ([24]) Then when proof is provided he dismisses it as irrelevant or OR ([25]. When he does provide "references" for his own positions they are often off point, not supporting his position at all, merely somewhat related to the topic. ([26])

He will frequently accuse others of having less understanding of the topic than he does. ("if don't understant how certain components work don't revert it instantly", "you totally don't understand", etc.).

Personal attacks, if not common, are not unheard of either. ("Get real idoit", "stop whining", "you got a fucking problem with that asshole? ... What are you a fucking facist?")

(Please note that I bring up some of these older examples (from the AT Attachment article and talk page) not because I want action on those points, they are long since dead, but to show an ongoing pattern of behavior.)

Another pattern is that any point he wants the article to make that anyone else does not, he defends by claiming others are biased against those points ([27]) or against himself personally. He is also very free with accusations of bias against him and threats to "report to admins".

And now he's raised a threat of legal action for GWH's above text. Jeh (talk) 01:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really Chris Cunningham and may I ask you that why did you contribs this expansion of template, when every single time we have conflict you are against. Keep on being a f**king hypocrite and we'll see in the end who has more creditability. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ADatabases&diff=165385410&oldid=165363010 --Ramu50 (talk) 02:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that particular edit doesn't appear to be an "expansion of template" at all, either in visual layout or number of links. Letdorf (talk) 10:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Ramu50 has just made against-consensus major edits to Template:Sun Microsystems and Template:Solaris, and revert-warred the latter when it was restored by User:Raysonho. I am extremely concerned by this behavior spree... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with what Georgewilliamherbert and Jeh have written above. Over the last few months, Ramu50 appears to have been trying to turn several computer technology-related navbox templates (Template:Sun Microsystems, Template:AMD processors, Template:CPU technologies, Template:Databases, Template:IT giants among others) into some kind of representations of nebulous personal mind maps, which are rather idiosyncratic (to say the least), and not in accordance with the WP:CLN or WP:NAVBOX guidelines. When these changes are challenged in talk pages, Ramu50 tends to write rambling, digressive, and often incomprehensible defences, and seldom engages in constructive debate. Revert-warring and personal attacks often follow. Letdorf (talk) 09:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Does anyone have a concrete proposal what to do about him? VG ☎ 11:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we have some options to discuss: A short block, after his next disruptive action, the block message to include links to some well-chosen articles (perhaps WP:CON, WP:DR, I don't know). Or mentoring (if someone with appropriate knowledge is willing to undertake that). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Express your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Wurzelbacher, not here. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please semi-protect this new BLP? It's gotten a lot of problem edits from IPs. *** Crotalus *** 02:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted WP:CSD#A7, a classic WP:BLP1E. --Rodhullandemu 02:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would not go that far, but I think a merge to United States presidential election debates, 2008 should be considered. Keep in mind that a lot of people watching the debate may search for this term. *** Crotalus *** 02:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved, I think. Any experienced Wikipedia user will be able to find the mergeable information in the history behind the protected redirect. Daniel (talk) 02:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or not any more...the previously-deleted history was just restored, and then the entire history was just deleted, all since the AfD close. Oh well. Daniel (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete?? Check out this Google News search. The guy is already more notable than 90%+ of the biographies on Wikipedia. If this is to be deleted, it should be for AfD, and I believe the speedy and the associated wheel war to be wholly inappropriate. BLP1E notwithstanding, the guy has already been the subject of significant coverage in a debate watched by tens of millions, and has and will continue to be the subject of biographies like this one. At the risk of WP:CRYSTALling, you can bet this guy is going to make the news rounds, etc. Our readers will want to know who he is and to the extent we have info from reliable sources we should include it.Oren0 (talk) 04:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can cut down on process wonkery, please. So far he's only notable for being mentioned in a presidential debate 11 times. Classic WP:BLP1E. And yes, you are WP:CRYSTAL-balling. —kurykh 04:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, let's stick to the present. In addition to the short biography I already linked, he's been interviewed by Fox News and the AP. This easily meets the bar and certainly merits time for an article to develop and an AfD to decide the article's fate. The idea that we "can't assert notability" about him is ludicrous. Oren0 (talk) 04:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not. You don't suddenly become notable because of an interview on Fox News or the AP. He is ultimately known for only one event. That is not notability, and it doesn't translate into notability. —kurykh 04:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before anyone asks, I support the current merger into the presidential debates article as the correct path to take. —kurykh 04:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS is relevant here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not News is not a speedy deletion criteria. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say it was a speedy deletion criteria? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't it might have made more sense if my comment had been not indented. It was more a general comment on the deletion log. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So where do you want to go from here? Recreate the article, send it through AfD, only to reach the same result? Shouldn't we try to be more productive around here? —kurykh 04:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the debate article currently has more information about the individual than the original article did (or at least assuming there are no deleted difs also) that would be a waste of time. The most sensible thing to do for these articles is to let the dust settle, then think about merging or deletion or redirecting. Doing it in the middle of like this just wastes our time and is disruptive to people coming here for information (people seem to forget that we are trying to serve our readers here). But no, I would not suggest that going through the AfD at this time would be good (although I would prefer the redirects unprotected so if necessary we can easily redirect to a different section. This is a classic example of how using the tools just makes everything more difficult and creates drama). JoshuaZ (talk) 05:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Seems to be working fine; leave it for a week or three and then see if anyone still cares. --Masamage ♫ 05:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be in the presidential debates article. This is attracting attentions because the presidential nominees brought it up multiple times and the media grabbed a hold of it. This is no different than any other subject that is brought up and then forgotten( ie: the new voters opinions). Put a sentence or two into the presidential debate article and leave it at that. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not have been deleted. Joe the Plumber is on the front page of every news site this morning. Real information is emerging from encyclopedia-quality sources. Wikipedia should be gathering it into a coherent and balanced article, as we did for Debra Bartoshevich, which was also nominated for speedy deletion. There is also a lot of wild speculation out there, our article could stem this. For example, from the Toledo Blade: "Linda Howe, executive director of the Lucas County Board of Elections, said a Samuel Joseph Worzelbacher, whose address and age match Joe the Plumber’s, registered in Lucas County on Sept. 10, 1992. He voted in his first primary on March 4, 2008, registering as a Republican." Please undelete this article. And if you think it should be in the presidential debates article, then why isn't there any information there? 14:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

We can read here that:

During the debate repeated references were made to Joe Wurzelbacher, aka "Joe the Plumber"[39]... Initial searches of the Ohio database for licensed plumbing contractors does not find Wurzelbacher [45]

So, it is not clear that Wurzelbacher is a plumber at all. Also, it isn't clear to me why the entire section on the last presidential debates should be devoted to him. A lot of issues were discussed, ranging from Abortion, Health care, Ayers, etc. etc. Count Iblis (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can always add additional information about abortion, health care, Ayers etc. Information about Wurzelbacher does not prevent information about other issues. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has his own article/ redirect interference

He has an article under Joseph Wurzelbacher. YET, Searches in wikipedia for Joe the Plumber or Joe Wurzelbacher both redirect to the 2008 presidential debates article, section on the third debate. They should redirect to the bio article on the fellow. Additionally, no one has ascertained if he is also Samuel Joseph Worzelbacher (note the different spelling of the second letter in his last name), the actually registered Republican voter. (that info is from a sidebar to an article from the Toledo Blade; I keep having my browsers freeze when I return to the site, so I'll let others get a more complete reference. Also, all references to S.J. W.'s being a registered Republican are more generalized, and are second generation after that Toledo Blade article. Dogru144 (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly shocked that people think this guy should have his own article. Wow, borderline ridiculous. 15 minutes of fame guy at best (BLP1E). Wizardman 16:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The proper thing to do in these situations is to actually let events play out and afterwords decide whether there is a BLP1E sort of situation. This method just creates drama and disruption. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding. Not to mention that amount of coverage in the debate article is insane itself. Grsz^X 16:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grsz, You are welcome to balance it out with other sourced content. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A nine-day wonder, eight of which are media hype. WP:NOT#NEWS. --Rodhullandemu 16:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have redirected protected articles Joe the Plumber and Joe the plumber to Joe Wurzelbacher until this AfD is resolved. Oren0 (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Related block request

Resolved

 – blocked by User:Rodhullandemu

Could someone block 68.165.249.62? The user is repeatedly inserting original research about Wurzelbacher and isn't responding to any attempts to communicate. Is well over 3RR. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per [28] and numerous discussions here at ANI, PoliticianTexas has been community banned. He continues to sock as IPs here 71.30.147.211 (talk · contribs) (confirmed on the SSP page) and tonight, here as 75.91.166.24 (talk · contribs). He makes the same edits to the same articles every time.

I came in late to this one, so last night I checked out his changes and crossed them with the references he puts in, and found there's nothing to them. I have no idea why this user continues to make these changes to these pages, but he keeps coming back. Could an admin step in and possibly semi-protect the pages or block the IP? Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 03:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which pages are he targeting? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 03:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NMAA District 2-AAAA ‎and Española Valley High School, it looks like. HalfShadow 03:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my link above didn't work. Correcting it now, thanks to HalfShadow for passing on the info. Dayewalker (talk) 03:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm semi'ing. If you have a list of PT IPs, get on the blower to a CU and ask if a rangeblock's feasible. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 03:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jéské and Dayewalker, thanks. It's this exact IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude that got him banned in the first place, so I haven't been surprised to see him back again (and again, and again...). I asked about an IP range block at one of his RFCU's and was told that it wasn't possible due to the number of them (over a dozen in the last 6 weeks alone). Dori (Talk • Contribs) 21:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved.

Because Whippletheduck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was persistent in their unblock requests that they are still determined to make edits like this after their 48-hour block expires, indicating serious problems with understanding of WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOT, I've extended it to indef. Posting here for review. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think I would have just let him sit out the 48 hours and see if he does jump right back into the same edits - he does sound like he's trying to conform even if he's not really got the hang of it. But I'm not going to disagree with your extension of the block as he has been distinctly disruptive despite repeated warnings. Even if the block had been left at 48hr, I think it would have been with the distinct implication of 'any further edit-warring and you're gone'. ~ mazca ^t|c 07:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of the extension being dropped back to 48 hours. Yes, he was being disruptive, and defensive, and rude. But he's also a new editor and more importantly is making progress in understanding Wikipedia. In his unblock reason he has presented a source for the edits he wants to make and has tried to defend its reliability. He's agreed to engage in talk page discussion. We ought to let him back in -- if not immediately, then at the end of the original 48 hours. Mangojuice^talk 13:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be in favor of lifting the block with the explicit instructions "If you continue to edit war, you will be indefinately blocked even if your version of the article is right. He seems to misunderstand the nature of an edit war block, and seems to feel that just because he has found a source, he gets to force others to accept it. He doesn't, and his changes still need to be confirmed via consensus. I say lift it, but let him know he is on his last leg, and to tread cautiously. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest a compromise, and reset the 48 hour block, but definitely remove the indefinite block. Gives 48 hours to try to make sure he understands the conditions of the unblock and the policies we have around here about edit-warring. Thoughts? Fritzpoll (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked now. I left a note that should be along the lines Jayron was intending. Note that the 48 hour block would, at this point, have expired. Mangojuice^talk 18:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Uhhh... WTF. Tylerdotcom13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) why was this vandalism-only account blocked for only 48 hours? Please do note that the people being trolled by this vandal have a long history of being attacked. This is obviously a throwaway sockpuppet used for harassment and there is absolutely NO need to allow this person to repeat the attacks a mere 2 days from now. JBsupreme (talk) 07:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the reason probably is that he started out with seemingly good intentions and then got angry when his article was deleted. The 48 hours was intended to stop his behavior and give him a chance to chill. If he starts again, report him to WP:AIV and quick action should be taken. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...which is hardly a valid excuse.

1. 07:05, 16 October 2008 (hist) (diff) User:Shadowlynk ‎ (←Replaced content with 'faggocity')
2. 07:04, 16 October 2008 (hist) (diff) User:DiverseMentality ‎ (←Replaced content with 'Freedom of speech bitch')
3. 07:03, 16 October 2008 (hist) (diff) User:Shadowlynk ‎ (←Replaced content with 'douche')
4. 07:03, 16 October 2008 (hist) (diff) User:DiverseMentality ‎ (←Replaced content with 'this man has sex with goats he gives them head')
5. 07:02, 16 October 2008 (hist) (diff) User:Shadowlynk ‎
6. 07:01, 16 October 2008 (hist) (diff) User:Anthony Appleyard ‎ (←Replaced content with 'You kill freedom of speech and fun This man fucks goats, I have proof')
7. 07:00, 16 October 2008 (hist) (diff) User:DiverseMentality ‎ (←Replaced content with 'Get a life and stop supporting the Nazi faggot Shadowlynk')
8. 06:58, 16 October 2008 (hist) (diff) User:Shadowlynk ‎ (←Replaced content with 'Nazi Faggot go fuck your own face')
9. 06:58, 16 October 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Shadowlynk ‎ (←Replaced content with 'Nazi Faggot, Go fuck your own face :)')

...anyone who behaves in this manner should be permanently blocked. Period. JBsupreme (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked User:SkierRMH as the blocking admin for input. FWIW I'd indef block. We neither need nor want editors who make those kinds of attacks. More grief than benefit IMHO. Pedro :  Chat  08:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like it should have been an indef block, but I agree with Bugs; if he comes back, he'll be speedily blocked. I'm sure the blocking admin just erred on the side of caution, and I see no problem with that. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh... WTF. Why didn't you go to the blocking admin first instead of trying to create maXX drama at AN/I? John Reaves 14:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he vandalises again when he returns, he can be reblocked. There is no impending doom from this situation. Also, in the future, please post a WP:CIVIL note at the talk page of the admin who issued the block. Running to ANI to shout "zOMG an admin fooked up again" isn't very helpful. Although it is refreshing to see the complaint go in the direction of an admin being too "lenient". 99% of the time, the rediculous complaints here are about admins abusing their power, not using it cautiously and deliberatively!!! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so the kid creates a page about himself. It gets speedied. He asks "nicely" about bringing it back a few times (which are not on this complaint). It doesn't happen. He goes on a teenaged-hormone-driven-Godzilla-rampage (watch for my upcoming essay: "WP:THDGR") against those who speedied, warned, or otherwise supported the deletion in a 7 minute timeframe. Obviously this is not a vandal-only account, but one who sure didn't understand WP:NOTABLE. I'm sure he's better aware now. Calling for a longer block is at the original point - well - inappropriate when you intentionally take the omitted part of the story away. BMW(drive) 15:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

48 hours is ok. If he vandalized again, he should be reblocked. AdjustShift (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindnet) I did explain my reasons to JBsupreme (which seem to be echoed above) - "Given that all of the stuff had taken place today within a 2 hour period, I tended to give the benefit of the doubt. I've watched the user page, and if there's one more warning after the 48 hours, I'll make it permanent. Thanks for keepin' an eye out :)"

And, I continue to stand by it - I've watched the user page, and if there's another complaint, appropritae measures will be taken. And thanks to Bwilkins for fleshing out a bit better my initial rationale :) SkierRMH (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators have discretion in choosing block length. If the user returns to bad behavior they can be blocked again. The additional work is very slight. Jehochman ^Talk 20:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the user returns and is helpful, we gain a productive user. If the user returns and continues to be disruptive, we simply reblock and lose nothing. Absent very persistent trouble or socking concerns, the difference in practice between short blocks and long blocks usually seems to approach nil. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last king of Frisia (talk · contribs)

This user is canvassing for Pier Gerlofs Donia to be promoted to GA with the text:

Please review and pass the following article for GA class. It is well referenced article of brilliant prose and both the Rambling man and user talk:Jimbo Wales agree it should be a Good Article.

I dropped him a note on his talk page, but since then he has spammed another 25+ user talk pages. He has recently been blocked for vandalism & this feels like trolling. --Nate1481 10:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Dropped him a not" looks like a typo, but in a case like this, it still works. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What typo? :) but agreed it could work. --Nate1481 10:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"What hump?" I like the "dropped him a NOT" idea. I might start using that. And here's another oddity: When you see (rollback) at first glance (at least to my semi-dsylexic eyes) it looks like "trollback". And that works too. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have learnt the error of his ways [29]. Pedro :  Chat  10:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, this is more complex than that, please see above thread on this page Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Kermanshahi_.2F_-The_Bold_Guy-_.2F_Last_king_of_Frisia. Cirt (talk) 10:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but we don't block editors who have made (several) mistakes but then say they'll stop. If they carry on we block, not before. Pedro :  Chat  10:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relieved to see this, as I'm one of the lucky recipients of his request and was wondering what to do about it! I'll ignore it. Doug Weller (talk) 10:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the mind to rollback all the unanswered requests that have been made however. Pedro :  Chat  10:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kermanshahi. Cirt (talk) 10:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just blocked for 31 hours for disruption. I'm sure the editor expected no less. Pedro :  Chat  10:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the response is interesting. [30] Pedro :  Chat  10:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"You can run but you can't hide"? Who's he talking to? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And relevant to the checkuser request, [31] and [32] which are his attempts to involve Jimbo in it. Doug Weller (talk) 10:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit busy in RL now - no objection to any admin reducing or extending my block - just a note. Pedro :  Chat  10:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kermanshahi, this account Last king of Frisia (talk · contribs) is obvious block evasion of an indef block on Angela from the Blue (talk · contribs), among others from the prior case history. IMO this user and Kermanshahi (talk · contribs) should be indef-blocked for sock abuse and block evasion. Cirt (talk) 10:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block 'em all! Block 'em all! The long, and the short, and the tall! :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Now Kermanshahi (talk · contribs) is complaining, see his talk page. What do others think? Cirt (talk) 11:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-The Bold Guy- (talk · contribs) requested an unblock - declined by FisherQueen (talk · contribs). He has requested a second one. Cirt (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ive actually be involved with a ring of editors on this article (probably ofr over a year). Ive blocked many as sock puppets/meat puppets. I am 100% sure they are at least meat puppets (and doubt they are socks). I have talked with several of them and from all indications it is a group of friends. I support blocks of everybody but kermanshi. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kermanshahi checkuser case results said Kermanshahi (talk · contribs) is a "possible" sock of -The Bold Guy- (talk · contribs) and Last king of Frisia (talk · contribs), and also a "likely" sock of indef-blocked Mrlob (talk · contribs). This Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kermanshahi RFA is also quite odd. I do not think Kermanshahi (talk · contribs) should be unblocked. Cirt (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chrislk02 (talk · contribs) seems to think that Kermanshahi (talk · contribs) should be unblocked. I do not feel comfortable unblocking the user and I do not think the user should be unblocked. But if there is a consensus to unblock the user, with Chrislk02 (talk · contribs) as mentor and taking responsibility for Kermanshahi (talk · contribs), I will not object. Cirt (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Chrislk02 (talk · contribs) has now unblocked Kermanshahi (talk · contribs), without first discussing this here with others. I disagree with this, but I will leave it to Chrislk02 (talk · contribs) to be responsible for this user's actions in the future. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked Kermanshahi. No checkuser evidence has ever confirmed him to be a sockpuppet. This makes it VERY unlikley that he is (consider that through 4 checkusers there has NEVER been a concrete hit, they always come up as possible (due to geographic location). This lack of concrete evidence, plus this editors harmless editing patterns make this block a poor decision. On top of this, I have been involved with this situation for over a year (as far back as march of 07). I have contacted the editors, gotten the stories from both sides and they check out. I have unblocked Kermanshahi and will mentor him if necessary. I think the rest of the blocks can stand, I am fine with that. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think mentoring, or at least close and careful supervision, would be a good idea (though I'm not particularly comfortable with the unblock). There's been very odd goings on with this bunch for a while now (I ran into them via User:Haggawaga - Oegawagga back in summer '07), and something still just don't feel right... EyeSerene^talk 14:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with EyeSerene (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will also agree with EyeSerene that there are some odd things going on, especially with the bold guy and the king of frisia(and some of the past accounts such as angela from the blue and going allt he wa back to Mr. Lob). I have no doubt that there is a disruptive editor creating socks and just being troublesome, I however am 100% sure that it is not Kermansihi. I am sorry if I jumped the gun on this unblock but I felt that being WP:BOLD in this situation was important to precent a good faith editor from being disgruntled and leaving. On a random note, bold guy had been emailing me begging for me to unblock him. I changed his block to prevent email and to prevent talk page posts because I have a feeling he is at the root of the troublemaking somehow. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user appears to have been inactive since May, but now he's back, making personal attacks[33], POV pushing and edit warring on Menachem Begin[34]. His talk page makes it quite clear that he has been warned before, but has shown disregard for policy. -- Nudve (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warned. Please alert an administrator if the behavior continues. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 15:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He responded with a mocking, sarcastic comment here. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 21:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll choose to take it at face value at the moment. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has been blocked for 3RR, but seems to be continuing by logging out[35]. -- Nudve (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – anon blocked for one month

• User talk:82.2.236.210 - is a vandal on several pages, returning. Vandalized my user page as well. A lot of case history, known vandal Pioneer. Please block. History2007 (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV is the place report situations like this. Blocked for 1 month anyway! Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 16:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – No admin action required

Around 3:30pm EST this afternoon (10/16) IP User:98.219.177.167 managed, in short time, to request my password to be changed (I had reported the anon to AIV for vandalism) while I was still logged in. No damage was done, password was quickly changed to something else.

But, I am wondering, can an unrelated IP address request someone's password changed? Is that actually possible and if so, what do I do to prevent it in the future. I have the hashmark so that is working for me, but this has me spooked. If all they can do is just request it, could I safely change the password back to previous? - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 16, 2008 @ 20:51

There's no need to change your password. In fact, I think the email usually says something to the effect of "if you did not request this change, you can continue using your regular password." Basically, someone tried to log-in as you, could not, so they tried to change the password which can only be done through the email attached to the account. Metros (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very true, it's happened to me at least nine times and I have never had to change my password. Just chalk it up to a vandals attempt at revenge.--JavierMC 21:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, cool. Never had that happen before so I wasn't sure what to do. Thanks Metros and JavierMC, I appericate it. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • October 16, 2008 @ 21:15

This looks like it may have been a Gsnguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) sockpuppet IP based on behavior - I have tagged the account. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, fer crap...I thought we were rid of that little snert. :::sigh::: Don't people have anything better to do? Gladys J Cortez 03:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody have any idea what this is all about? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to state the obvious: There seems to be a Hungarian songwriter called Axone. [36] An article on him on the Hungarian Wikipedia was deleted. [37] User Sponsorations is apparently trying to create an article on him here. The "important" link points to the Hungarian article from two weeks before it was deleted for the second time, saved in weird format (as an email). -Hans Adler (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It just looked like a mass of gobbledygook to me. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 01:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been trying for some time to get "Axone" mentioned on Wikipedia in any possible way. He has created an Axone article several times, only to have it speedied each time, and spammed a link into axon, which is what first brought it to my attention. The user has been advised, warned, and blocked, and shows no sign of ever giving up. Looie496 (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post below moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive480, where user belatedly responded to original thread EyeSerene^talk 07:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:

Axone's professional musicians,why may not they be worth a short article? Hungraian:

Axonék professzionális zenészek,miért nem érdemelhetnek meg egy rövid cikket? On Internet many sites to be found the about them descriptions and reference?

Hungarian:

Számos leírás és referencia szól róluk az interneten. Az összes keresőben benne vannak Miért nem ír valaki róluk egy elfogadható cikket?

Why not a write someone article on them?

Mi az ami nem megfelelő,vagy nevezetes két ilyen rendhagyó zenészben?

What that, which in incongruent,or notable, so fine artists? Please someone writes,an useable article on them on the english or hungarian wikipedia! Kérjük írjon valaki egy használható cikket róluk az angol vagy magyar wikipédiában!

Thanks for supporting them... Kind regards, Karola, Bp, Hungary

I'm afraid I got bored removing the various postings/rants/recreation of the "Axone" page. To me this user is not prepared to work collaboratively. I've blocked for a week (they have previously been blocked for 72 hours) - if anyone thinks that excessive..... Personally I think it unlikely that this user will work in a way that is not disruptive so an indefinite block would not worry me. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with that, although the combination of poor English and bad bot-translation that led to Wikipedia being described as a "mastercool hoggish plaza of truth or reality" was also quite refreshing ;) EyeSerene^talk 11:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that has made my day - thanks :). (It should not be taken that I either agree or disagree with the above statement....;)). --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – No admin action needed

User: Ap4dw appears to be adding his own articles to Wikipedia. Here's a link to his contribution history. That's what you'll find and not much else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Ap4dw&namespace=&year=&month=-1

It would be nice to update this user on how things work here as far as putting your own stuff up. Also, as his articles don't seem to be the most notable on the subjects in question I would suggest they be removed. For example his article is now the only one under "suggested reading" subheading for Bush v. Gore. His articles were also added to Clarence Thomas article and elsewhere. I would appreciate an update on how this is resolved if the Admin dealing with it wouldn't mind, but I will try to check back here. Thanks. I'm still pretty new here.(Wallamoose (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I took a look at the activities of Ap4dw (talk · contribs), and I'm not seeing anything that really needs an administrator. Whether or not he's actually Wilkes, is hard to tell. Could also be a fan, or a student, or maybe someone who just read that link and thought it would make a good addition to Wikipedia. I know that when I'm reading a history book, and I like the book, I'll often check relevant Wikipedia articles to see if it might be useful as a source anywhere, and if so, I might suddenly add the same book to several articles. Which doesn't mean I'm associated with the author, it just means that it's easier to copy/paste a complex string into multiple places all at once.  :) The link itself seems on a quick glance to be reasonable,[38] and a plausibly useful external link (though talkpage consensus on any one of those articles might have a different standard for external links, I'm not sure). My recommendation is that rather than calling for an admin, just be bold, and fix it. You can also chat with the user directly.  :) Like post a polite message on his talkpage, ask if he has any questions about how Wikipedia works, stuff like that. I posted a {{welcome}} template there just now, to give him some basic useful links. There's some good common sense advice at User:WLU/Generic sandbox, too. If he (or you) still have questions, you can try posting them at WP:HELPDESK, or at the talkpage of an article where you're working, or c'mon over to my talkpage and I'll see if I can help. --Elonka 01:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need for an admin so far, but all of the edits this user has made have been attempts to add external links to Wilkes articles in places where they did not belong. I have removed the ones that hadn't yet been reverted, in Nuremberg Trials and Bush v. Gore. I also removed several more improper links from the latter site. I'll watchlist the two articles, and come back here if necessary. I've also posted a message to the user on his talk page. Looie496 (talk) 03:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – closed due to crossposting. Continue discussion (if any) at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-16 Simeon of Moscow Toddst1 (talk) 02:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Hiberniantears, administrator reverts all my edits wherever they are, in a number of articles (Simeon of Moscow, 1999 NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Peter, Duke of the Romans, Guelphs and Ghibellines, the last has been put to consensus by another user though), mostly without any explanation. He also treatened me with a block because of content disagreement: [39]. From some articles, he removes sourced material without explanation: [40]. I ask to protect me from this administrator who pursues me. I feel that Hibernian is reverting all my edits without explaining to me why. --Certh (talk) 22:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe (need subject matter expert), but Certh is definitely edit warring over it. Toddst1 (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it Hiberniantears who edit-warring? Or administrator cannot edit-war by definition? Can you please put edit-warring worning into Hiberniantears's talk page just as you just did with mine? At least I did not remove anything without explanation. I think removing sourced material (even without explanation) constitute vandalism and blatant POV-pushing.--Certh (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you call this "explanation?" Suigetsu 23:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This regards only one article (Peter, Duke of the Romans). For other articles there is no explanation.--Certh (talk) 23:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other articles to be almost identical conflicts. Note that Hiberniantears isn't the only one reverting your edits. Perhaps you should take the hint and WP:AGF. Toddst1 (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I move this to be closed given that it is concurrently running at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-16 Simeon of Moscow, or that it remain open and the MCabal case be closed. seicer | talk | contribs 01:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Toddst1 (talk) 02:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is moved to be closed in both places. I encourage that, but welcome any comments on the matter. Hiberniantears (talk) 03:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a topic ban on me from Barack Obama related articles and I want the community to review User:Barneca's decision. I also suggest that the community consider and issue a topic ban to User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. Previous topic ban request for LotLE at WP:ANI found here. This is an overwhelming amount of evidence: edit-warring and personal attacks. There is so much evidence against this person that people were refusing to read it, because it's too long. Since then, within days after the John McCain campaign began to mention Obama's links to Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), LotLE went to the ACORN article and substantially reduced material about members of ACORN who have been indicted and convicted for voter registration fraud. [41][42][43] This was a whitewash of the article to protect Obama. He immediately started revert warring to protect his version.[44][45] When a newbie reverted him, LotLE immediately accused the newbie of sockpuppetry in violation of WP:BITE. [46][47] (note edit summary] This removed material that had been in the article for four years before LotLE came along. This triggered an edit war between several editors and the article is now fully protected. LotLE's bias on this topic has led to long-term disruptive editing patterns.

Let's review the evidence Barneca cited when topic banning me:

I have carefully reviewed your contributions, and believe the best course is to topic ban you from Barack Obama, Talk:Barack Obama, and related articles (broadly construed) until November 5, 2008. You are not to edit those articles, or participate on their talk pages. I believe I have the authority to do this based on Talk:Barack Obama/article probation.

I have taken this action for the following reasons:

• You are a single purpose account
• I have recently blocked you for edit warring on Barack Obama, and warned you that a topic ban was the next step if disruption continued
• You have been tendentious editing; that is, refusing to listen to other editors and repeatedly saying the same things over and over, exhausting the editing community's patience (particularly with regard to Rezko)
• You have repeatedly violated WP:SOAP
• You nominated, in bad faith, the article for WP:FAR
• You have made attacks and insults to other editors, and when they have been struck out, you have unstruck them; admittedly, most of them were borderline, but this has now happened multiple times
• You are doing all these things on an article under probabation, where editors are explicitly expected to be on their best behavior, and were you have been specifically warned that this was the case.[48]

I have other purposes for this account and a review of my editing history will confirm that. WP:FAR was started in good faith due to NPOV violations, by a group of pro-Obama editors as confirmed by User:Noroton and several others, and due to the instability of the article content. Instability of article content, by itself, has been sufficient grounds to downgrade Featured Article BLPs in the past. So my FAR was started in good faith. Barneca describes what I was doing on the article talk page as "disruptive." What I was really doing is showing that other editors were misrepresenting what the sources said. This conduct is being described as "attacks and insults to other editors" when I was proving that what they were saying about the sources was not true. Barneca says "admittedly, most of [the attacks and insults] were borderline" but I was demonstrating that the sources were saying something different from what these editors had represented.

To make a long story short, they're lying about the sources. I was proving that they were lying about the sources and trying to remain polite about it.

For this, I'm topic banned.

I encourage anyone to post the diffs of my edits that day, and show me how so many of them were "attacks and insults." Even "borderline ... attacks and insults."

If I'm to be topic banned for what I did, then please carefully consider all that LotLE has done. Extensive compilation of diffs for evidence at WP:ANI here. Recent diffs posted above demonstrate that he has not changed and has not learned anything. He continues to start and participate in edit wars. He continues to be hostile and accusatory toward those who disagree with him. This is surely not what Wikipedia has in mind for a collegial and constructive atmosphere. If I must be topic banned, then LotLE should be topic banned.

Uninvolved editors only please. Curious bystander (talk) 22:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're big on preventing anyone who disagrees with you from commenting, but you can't prevent editors from editing your section, CB. To say, "If I can't edit, no one who disagrees with me can either" is ridiculous. You edit warred, attacked other editors, wouldn't give up on your POV pushing, made bad faith edits and engaged in tendentious editing. For that, you were topic banned until after the election. LotLE hasn't done half of the things that you have, and cannot be compared with yourself. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 23:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You defend him because he agrees with you in content disputes, and because you are one of the people who was misrepresenting sources. This is why I said "univolved editors only please." Everyone who agrees with him in the content disputes will rush to his defense. LotLE has done many times the things I have done, as proven by the evidence here. He has edit warred, attacked other editors, wouldn't give up on his POV pushing, made bad faith edits and engaged in tendentious editing. Look at the mountain of evidence of his misbehavior, repeated recently. Where's his topic ban? Curious bystander (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with the topic ban. You have been behaving in a way that was inappropriate, were warned that further disruption would lead to a topic ban, and have not desisted. The topic ban was expected, predictable and quite warranted. — Coren ^(talk) 23:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks like he just violated his topic ban. Grsz^X 23:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barneca encouraged me to have his decision reviewed at WP:ANI. Look at his talk page. He's the one who imposed the topic ban, so when he says I can have the decision reviewed, I can have the decision reviewed. Review the evidence against LotLE with a dispassionate and unbiased eye, particularly the most recent evidence.[49][50][51][52][53][54][55] (note edit summary) If I should be topic banned, then LotLE should be topic banned. He was edit warring, editing tendentiously, making personal attacks and biting a newbie. The timing in particular, just hours after the McCain campaign started mentioning ACORN in its criticism of Obama, demonstrates the bias that LotLE can't control. It leads him to start these edit wars, wherever the presidential campaign may lead, if there's content out there in Wikipedia that may cast Obama in a bad light. Curious bystander (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that doesn't give you permission to violate your topic ban. LotLE was already taken up in an earlier ANI case that you linked, and they decided not to take action. ANI is not the place to attempt to reverse this ruling. Suigetsu

Barneca specifically gave me permission to have his decision reviewed here. Look at his talk page. The previous ANI ruling about LotLE should also be reviewed because of this new evidence. Curious bystander (talk) 23:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are two different topics. Either you need to be topic-banned or not. Either LotLE needs to be topic-banned or not. There is no automatic link between the two. In particular, reviewing your topic ban has nothing to do with LotLE's behaviour. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan, I think it's fair to compare the two cases. Where is the threshold for imposing a topic ban? If I crossed it, how did LotLE not cross it; and if he did not cross it, how did I? Look again at the mountain of evidence against him both here and here: [56][57][58][59][60][61][62] (note edit summary) Curious bystander (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are not "comparing" them. You are saying that LotLE's lack of a ban justifies the repeal of yours. Suigetsu 00:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) This looks like a non-starter. Curious bystander wants to be unbanned so he can go back to aggressive editing on the top from which he was banned. Saying he wants to deal with "a whitewash of the article to protect Obama" suggests he is unwilling to change, but merely arguing that everyone else is all wet and he was right in being so tendentious to begin with. CB was nothing but disruption, edit warring, insults, antagonism, and procedural game-playing when he was editing the articles. He has accused me personally of all manner of bad faith, lying, etc., which is unpleasant and unwelcome. As a SPA whose very first edits, and nearly all editing since, were to jump into edit wars to disparage Obama and to try to get other editors blocked and banned, the legitimacy of the account itself is in question. The repeated claim that he is an Obama supporter who merely wants balance and sourcing is suspicious to the point of bizarre given that nearly every edit on the encyclopedia is an attempt to disparage Obama. This is more or less the definition of a problem editor. There is nothing here to suggests that he would do it any differently if unbanned. The articles have calmed down considerably in his absence. Please don't let him make a mess again. Wikidemon (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well written. Endorse topic ban per Demon above and everything else that's been said. Suigetsu 00:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse topic ban for LotLE. If his friends and editwarring allies can ignore "uninvolved editors only," then I'll have my say. LotLE isan edit warrior. When he talks, it is to attack and to make false accusations of sockpuppetry. A well deserved topic ban for him. He ignored repeated warnings. His timing in whitewash of ACORN is proof that his agenda is to cut material that might hurt Obama. Utterly transparent timing and consistent with earlier whitewash elsewhere. WorkerBee74 (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, CB can't restrict who edits at ANI. Grsz^X 01:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you actually denying that CB isn't an edit warrior, WB74? And I'm the one accused of editing in an agenda-based cabal... Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He said "CB can't restrict who edits at ANI." Not "CB isn't an edit warrior," etc. Suigetsu 01:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was responding to WB74, not Grsz. Bad statement on my part. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, then I completely agree. Suigetsu

I haven't claimed that WB74 isn't an editwarrior. What I've said is LotLE is also an editwarrior. He has a consistently ugly and combative disposition. When challenged about it in proceedings like this one, he will quickly and carefully conceal it. He starts the editwars by cutting material wherever he goes that might make Obama look bad. He started an editwar at the ACORN article by removing well-sourced material that had been there for four years, then he editwarred to keep it out. Agenda driven editing: not a good thing for Wikipedia. Topic ban for LotLE. WorkerBee74 (talk) 01:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WB74, try to assume good faith and try to cooperate for once, please? Adding/removing material that a partisan, POV editor reverts is not starting an edit war, the person who removed it started the edit war. Discussion, not the undo button, is the key to success on Wikipedia. It was wrong of the reverting editor to have reverted without discussing first. Yes, LotLE might have edit warred, but that does not warrant a topic ban. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm endorsing this topic ban on Curious bystander -- from someone who is "uninvolved." Does that now make me involved and strike my commentary from all future discussions on this subject? Give me a break. seicer | talk | contribs 02:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upon whom are you endorsing the topic ban? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modified. seicer | talk | contribs 03:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support of the current topic ban on Curious bystander. User is in fact using the privilege of appealing the ban, but from commentary on here by the user, just seems to want to go back and own the page. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Middim13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I bring this here as a last resort before I go rogue and indef-block this user. Middim has long been a problem for the editors of WP:SHIPS. His SPA POV pushing, disruption, sock-puppetry and block evasion have been a chronic problem for over a year off-and-on. While his edits do have some merit, he refuses to discuss them in a calm matter and properly cite them at the time he makes them other than to assure us that they are true. He instead posts long diatribes on his talk page and the talk pages of the editors who question his edits calling those editors "misguided and biased". Based on his constant POV pushing of a certain American shipbuilder the editors of WP:SHIPS have long thought that he/she may be related to the historical figure and thus would prevent an extreme conflict of interest as well.

For more information related to these incidents, there are plenty of evidence to be seen:

• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Middim13
• User_talk:TomTheHand#From_Middim13:_Abusing_multiple_accounts_and_evasion.
• User talk:Middim13
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Royal_Navy_edits
• User_talk:Middim13#ONLY_WARNING
• User_talk:MBK004#Middim13_is_wondering_if_this_editor_is_biased_or_simply_.22misguided.22.
• I know there is plenty more to be found, but I'm not prepared to dig up over a year of talk page archives.

These users have dealt with the editor in some fashion:

• TomTheHand (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Parsecboy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• BillCJ (talk · contribs)
• Benea (talk · contribs)
• Bellhalla (talk · contribs)
• Maralia (talk · contribs)
• B.S. Lawrence (talk · contribs)
• And others I have forgotten to mention

I contend, and I believe that I won't be the only one to say that the patience of the community (WP:SHIPS) has been exhausted because of this editor (his edits require extensive clean-up and/or complete reverts because of the POV pushing and that time cuts into our article building and other activities). Several of the project members (some who are no longer editing) have tried to help Middim through his time here to get his edits to comply with our policies, but those efforts have had no visible effect. Unfortunately I must propose that at the very least a topic ban be imposed on Middim which would restrict him from editing any article related to a ship, shipbuilding company, ship operator (including navies), biographies of people related to the maritime industry, etc. and at the most an indefinite community ban. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No comment about the behavior exactly, but can someone take a gander at Submarine? That is on my watchlist mostly for vandalism reasons, but he did add a lot of GD/EB stuff with some pretty odd edit summaries. I don't feel comfortable wading in and reverting to a version from months ago, but I will if the consensus is that what he added is bunkum. Protonk (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Socking, disruptive and POV editing, uncited personal opinion in articles, and a horrible block log - why is this person still here? That last post on their talk page, entitled "Reasons why what is true will win out in the end", displays absolutely no indication that the editor understands the problems they've caused (or even believes that fighting for the truth is a problem). They've been given more than enough warnings, and been shown a remarkable amount of good faith, but this mustn't go on for ever. I've indefblocked the account as I don't think we need to jump through all the hoops on this one, though if you do want to go all the way to discuss a community ban and unblock so they can participate here, no problems ;) EyeSerene^talk 08:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I think Middim13 should be topic banned. He is guilty of POV pushing on a certain American shipbuilder, but I analyzed his other contributions and found them to be useful. He is a troubled user but he can still help this project, so I'll not a support community ban. I would say let's give him one final chance. AdjustShift (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My initial thoughts too, until I saw this undertaking not to edit 'ship' articles, followed by another addition of unsourced material to a ship article (for which a final final warning was issued). I wonder if the editor will be able to abide by a topic ban? EyeSerene^talk 14:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's give him one last chance. He has a POV on this issue. I've analyzed the edits of many banned users and POV pushing is often the reason for banning. Many banned editors have made some useful contributions. Maybe someone should try to make him understand the consequences of POV pushing. One of the reasons why I'm not supporting a full site ban is because he can help the project on other topics. He is not a vandal and he seems to be intelligent. AdjustShift (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • (ec)It doesn't sound like you've really dug through his edits—I don't believe he has any 'other contributions', and many editors have explained NPOV, RS, Fringe, and numerous other policies to him. He edits only articles related to his great-grandfather Arthur Leopold Busch, who he feels has not received sufficient credit for designing and building the first US Navy submarines for Electric Boat (a venture which he credits as being largely responsible for the success of the successor company, General Dynamics). All attempts at addressing these issues seem to fall on determinedly deaf ears; his response to any type of correction is to joyfully leap to the editor's talk page to repost some version of his screed, which includes such gems as "I must admit (however) that I am passionate about "setting the records straight" as never done before. Over the years I have made a considerable amount of progress in this quest of mine to bring the facts to the surface" and "It is time (that) somebody rewrite this slanted history in a corporate book (about General Dynamics/Electric Boat) and set these records straight for the good of doing what is right here in America." As EyeSerene mentioned, he indicated 2 days ago that he was "done with ships!", yet yesterday he joined WP:SHIPS with the comment "Going to try to contribute in an honest and sincere way"—and followed up an hour later with another unsourced edit. He is not going to edit in other areas, he is not going to use sources, and he is not going to drop his agenda. I've wasted enough time on him. I do not feel a topic ban would accomplish anything; as he doesn't edit outside this topic at all, it would effectively be a ban, which regretfully seems appropriate here. Maralia (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have to agree with Maralia. Middim13 has only ever edited to one purpose, to rewrite the history of General Dynamics/Electric Boat and the role of his relative to fit his version of the 'truth'. At many stages this has been explained to him why this unsourced POV pushing without any attempt to attribute reliable sources (indeed in his 'conspiracy theory' style edit summaries he often indicates that this is because they don't exist owing to some sort of sinister cover-up) is not acceptable. He has then begun to spread his net wider after being frustrated on some of his favourite topics, and has been adding his unsourced theories and claims of corruption/cover ups/shady deals to the detriment of his great-grandfather's place in history to an ever more diverse pool of articles, including the submarine article, pages related to the Royal Navy, the Imperial Japanese Navy, etc. The damage this is causing to the project is therefore increasing the longer he has been editing. Attempts to apply policies or requesting sources have resulted in accusations that the editors in question are misguided, ignorant or otherwise part of this conspiracy to suppress the 'truth'. He has also openly announced his intention to edit war until his version is accepted across wikipedia. He has treated the project as an opportunity to rewrite his ancestor's history, and has shown no indication that he understands his actions are unacceptable, nor has he made any attempt to move beyond this single purpose quest. Benea (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Maralia, you are familiar with Middim13. I'm not familiar with Middim13. I analyzed his edits for about 20 minutes, and it is difficult to understand the whole thing in about 20 minutes. So please don’t say that "you have not really dug through his edits". I did what I could in about 20 minutes. My conclusion was "let's give him one final chance". After looking at the evidence of Maralia and Benea, it seems that Middim13 has caused some serious trouble. Editors who are familiar with Middim13 should decide whether he should be topic banned or community banned.AdjustShift (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So the bot just archived my discussion and only one person made a general statement on it? What should I do? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are absolutely convinced that it is critical to get action, please repeat the reason briefly. One short paragraph, no more -- people can read the archive if necessary. Usually when a topic gets no response, it's because no admin feels that a response is necessary. But sometimes it's because the complaint is so long and confusing that nobody wants to read it. (As I recall, your complaint was one of the hundreds of Balkan disputes that come here.) Looie496 (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was actually a civility complaint, but I'm tired of writing the same thing over and over again. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

I'll summarize. Basically User:Imbris has brought personal attacks against User:Grk1011 and I into a discussion since August that were totally un-needed. They included comments on our religion, ethnicity, and stuff like that. (Greek, American, Orthodox Christian -- all of the cases are in the archive) We complained to him about it, but he used some attacks again just the other day which was the "last straw". He said something like since we are American and he was born in Yugoslavia, that we don't have the right information to comment on articles about that. And even after we commented on this notice board, he said something like "Our Greek friend missed..." on a talk page, which again was totally un-needed (mentioning Greek I mean), and which I take offense to. (The way it was written, as well as having nothing to do with the discussion at hand) Anyway, long story short, this has been very disruptive to our editing, and has made editing articles related to Yugoslavia very stressful, which is why we decided to jointly bring it up on the notice board. Greekboy (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you might have to explain more. I, for one, don't understand the conflicts between Balkan ethnicities. Are you saying it's offensive for another user to describe you as "Greek" even though it's in your username?

When I look at recent user-talk discussions between Grk1011 and Imbris, I don't see anything particularly hurtful being said. I was also looking for such discussions between you and Imbris, but there aren't any. I don't see anything so far that requires the involvement of admins, I just see a content dispute. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the past month or so, ShadowOne333 has persisted on adding an advertisement for a fan-made online petition to the Resident Evil 5 article. I have issued the user two 3RR warnings, though the user has continued to engage with other editors by waiting out the 24-hour limit. In an attempt to civilly diffuse the situation, I posted a topic that addressed the issue, but the aforementioned user has ignored the topic and persisted to advertise his issue. I have issued the user a level-4 warning for advertising, and am requesting further advice/input to deal with this issue. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  04:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An advertising warning, and subsequent warnings should have been issued before. If the user continues to be disruptive and advertise, then he should be blocked. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 04:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 31 hours - he was warned, but it was this diff in particular [63] that made me decide to block him. Doug Weller (talk) 05:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse block, disruptive editing shouldn't be tolerated. AdjustShift (talk) 08:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:RFmedic is disrupting pseudosciences articles by removing any negative connotation about pseudoscientific concepts, like marking well sourced sections as unreferrenced[64], or removing hidden comments about WP:PSCI [65]. Please some admin warn him to take it way slowly. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned him on his talk that some of his recent edits were unconstructive and have been removed. You don't have to be an admin to do that! Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 04:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, you are right, I'll do that the next time --Enric Naval (talk) 04:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now he removed the explanation that Free Energy conspiracies are probably wrong because "the standar for inclusion on wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"[66]. I drop any good faith assumptions right now. That argument was seriously lame and obviously made up in order to remove stuff he doesn't like. (and if he's really a god faith editor, then he really really needs to be made to understand that he needs to change his ways) --Enric Naval (talk) 04:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) This edit, only his 10th since creating the account just 2 hours before, doesn't look like the work of a newbie either—he's already citing policy in edit summaries and dropping {{cn}} tags. Smells like a sock. Yilloslime (t) 04:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just saying that and got an edit conflict. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this complaint before talking with me a seriously offencive assault at my address.

Lets turn the tables around for a moment. Where did you get the idea you could use Usenet as a reference?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stanley_Meyer%27s_water_fuel_cell&diff=prev&oldid=245809634

This cited source is a preposterous citation.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy.hydrogen/msg/8ee0acb80e943e21?hl=endc310437cd1cee1e7&

Every breadth we draw, every step we take, every thought we think, every sound or word we utter and the aeons of grief and oceans of tears we've shed for our needs or the secret exquisite pleasures, ease and security we seek we owe them all to our father cosmos & sun and earth mother ! Who else ?. Isn’t this all we are and every thing that is and will ever be ? Animated tail chasing star dust !; matter spirit energy yin yang dance ! (Probably the gist of a partly remembered translation of a Vedic hymn )

This was not part of the original article was it? Or should we perhaps correctly call it a copyright violation? I correctly added the template to this section. This was reverted by YOU without any explanation. In stead you immediately created a Administrator noticeboard post about me.

Then your claim I deleted hidden references is also erroneous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts&diff=245821731&oldid=245639812

You clearly have some agenda against me personally. Lets also mention this contribution of mine that was deleted in less than 10 min.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Water-fuelled_car&oldid=245804997

As user:OMCV is citing Usenet I cant think of a reason to delete Dr. Andrija Puharich invention.

Do you have some explanation for this destructive, user-targeted behaviour?

RFmedic (talk) 04:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The diff is here. You added some information on a patent, and made some unsourced claims. Do you know how easy it is to get a patent? The USPTO is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and I've got a feeling this isn't either. Please go ahead and read WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:FRINGE -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how easy it is to make a Usenet posting?

Do you also know how easy it is to find the ^{[citation needed]} tag?

RFmedic (talk) 04:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't understand the difference between citing a usenet post, and citing a Sunday Times article with a link to a usenet copy of it, you probably shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. Raul654 (talk) 04:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say I can copy news articles into Usenet postings?

Show me the exact guildline please?

Dr. Andrija Puharich has an article, that makes the MD a reliable source. He can make claims about Water Fueled Cars when ever he likes to.

I added his lectures, I added his patent, I added his article.

And what did we have on the free energy suppression article? An large chunk of opinion that isn't even worthy of being on the article talk page?

RFmedic (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, have you read WP:RS? I don't see anything about having an article making you a reliable source. I would have an issue with an article claiming a particle physics breakthrough and citing Uri Geller, and he has a bigger article!! -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no breakthrough the article is full of disclaimers denouncing the invention a hoax and a conspiracy theory.

Why did you bring Geller into the discussion?

What is to be considered a copyright violation in your book?

RFmedic (talk) 04:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what I typed, or merely respond to the words as separate concepts? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFmedic is claiming the link is to an unreliable source (Usenet) and that it's a copyvio. First, the link is not unreliable -- I am looking at the same article on Lexis Nexus , and it's word-for-word identical to the usenet posting. Only that doesn't do our readers much good, since Lexis Nexus requires a subscription (which I can access through my university's proxy). That's why we provide a link to the usenet posting of the article. We don't have to - it's entirely optional - but it makes things easier for our readers. RFmedic's action in tagging the section was unreferenced was not only unwarranted, but disruptive.

Second of all, claiming it is a copyvio doesn't make it so. Frankly, given the transformative nature of the the discussion thread there (to educate and critique), whoever posted it has a pretty good case for fair use. Raul654 (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You write:

Now he removed the explanation that Free Energy conspiracies are probably wrong because "the standar for inclusion on wikipedia is verifiability, not truth".

The section didn't cite any sources but it indeed claimed the suppression is not real and wrong. Then you write:

I drop any good faith assumptions right now. That argument was seriously lame and obviously made up in order to remove stuff he doesn't like.

Drop good faith?

The large chunk of nonsense opinion discussing solar panels on the white house is totally irrelevant to the specific suppression cases listed on the page.

If they are really suppression cases, I have no idea. But you feel the need to explain your POV to the reader without citing any sources?

It has become abundantly clear to me there are some users who want to overrule the cited sources with opinion pieces.

Reportedly, Exxon mobile has dedicated 16 million towards this effort.

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

Whoever wrote it has a pretty good case for suppression.

RFmedic (talk) 05:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFmedic has been indefinitely blocked by yours truly.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should a checkuser be performed? Verbal chat 06:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Of whom would the user be a sockpuppet? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 16:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Unblocked. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User talk:Caspian blue#3RR on The Sea of Japan naming dispute. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it looks like I misread the four reverts as not all of them were for the same image I was seeing. I have unblocked Caspian blue and apologized on his page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

User given 48 hour vacation ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 07:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An IP at 67.234.104.242 (talk · contribs) is changing the Julianna Rose Mauriello page, claiming to be her brother. After another editor tried to talk to him about WP:COI, I tried to explain to him about reliable sources and the usual. In response, I got this edit summary [67] that says "we can fight about this all night" and this [68] on my talk page, which claims someone from wikipedia told them to make the edits. The spelling and mannerisms make me think we're dealing with a kid here, but I don't want to edit war on this article. If an admin could have a look-see, I would appreciate it. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 07:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've given him a warning, if he continues a short block may be in order. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 07:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, just a note. According to the article, Julianna lives in New York. This IP resolves to Florida. Make of that what you will. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 07:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

actually i am in philedelphia at college. Make that what you will. A short block for vandalism of my sisters page, you mean the crap you guys post on it? I thought wikipedia wanted truth, not random bs. Remove my sisters page please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.234.104.242 (talk) 07:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made this post 15 minutes before you guys started crap here. Why didnt you post on the post I made? Trying to skirt he issue?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#my_sisters_page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.234.104.242 (talk) 07:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ip has reverted again here [69]. Dayewalker (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP was blocked for 3RR violation; asked for unblock and called his opponents pedophiles, so page locked and block extended to 48h. We're done here for the moment. By the by, he also came to WP:AN. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 07:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jéské- I was trying to post that I blocked him and for some reason it wouldn't save. I'll add the resolved tag. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 07:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Null persp. I noticed the AN thread before I noticed this one, anywhoo, and was the first there to see that truly obnoxious unblock request. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 07:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Posted this on the WP:AN thread, and thought a 2nd set of eyes wouldn't hurt on this. Can someone oversight the email address posted by the IP in one of the edit summaries on the Julianna Rose Mauriello page? Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted that edit; oversighting probably isn't needed. Stifle (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That'll work too, thanks :) Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Not a legal threat

Greetings all, here I bring you User:Wallamoose, who for the life of me, I can't exactly figure out at this present moment in time. I came upon this user while at Gwen's talk page, after another user reported this user. The other user doesn't matter at this moment.

The two users argued over I think.. a content dispute. Eventually I believe both were blocked for 3RR. Wallamoose contested his block, and was declined. This happened several times. Wallamoose even when so far as to threaten legal action, threatening to go up to the supreme court where possible. This of course was declined as well, and the page was protected, set to expire as soon as the block did.

As soon as the protection did expire, the user in question then proceeded to create a log of the events that had transpired from his or her point of view, and then again with admins in general. These last two contributions of which I speak appear to be something along the lines of WP:POINT.

Thank you all for your time.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 09:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a legal threat, Wallamoose only wrote a (very lame, sorry Wallamoose) metaphorical log about his block. I'll leave a note for him though. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After digging through the page history, I might have to disagree.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 10:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnnie Cochran is dead. This is not a legal threat, it's a try at creative writing to make a point. I do agree though, that the post was utterly unhelpful and shows Wallamoose still doesn't understand why he was blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh...

I didn't know he was dead, or that he was a notable person....

Oops.. I guess..— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 10:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)He actually came by ANI earlier tonight and asked if the "story" on his page broke any rules: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Clarence_Thomas. I've found him to be a pretty reasonable guy (no excuse for 4 unblock requests though). I hope he'll delete the "story", or delete the lawyer line, upon reading Gwen's note. thanks --guyzero | talk 10:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wallamoose is grasping for some understanding of what has happened, but is still muddling his notions of how he thinks Wikipedia "should" be run with how Wikipedia is run. I wish he'd read some project pages. Had he read the unblock guide, he could have written an unblock request that would have gotten him unblocked straight off. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and think the "story" was intended as cathartic humor in response to the block and zany unblock requests. I've found Wallamoose to be interested in learning and following policy and working with the group on a fairly controversial article, and he's made great contributions there. You are right that his transition would be easier by reading and watching a bit, but he's opting to learn by doing, which is cool too I think. Maybe adoption by an uninvolved seasoned editor might help give him another avenue for start-up mentorship and advice? --guyzero | talk 10:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This entire thread strikes me as making mountains out of molehills. Wallamoose screwed up, got a 1 day block, and blew off some steam on his talk page. I see no impending threat from him to the integritiy of Wikipedia, and thus no need for admin action. The rest of this discussion really doesn't belong here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 10:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I much prefer to be characterized as a mountain rather than a mole hill, so if this metaphorical comparison is in any way an attempt to diminish my notability, I reject it totally. I trust you are referring to the "thread" and not me personally. As a measure of my abiding generosity and as an act of good faith consistent with the guidelines and policies supported, though not always lived up to at Wikipedia, I will let your comment stand. "Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; For you are with me; Your rod and Your staff, they confort me." Psalm 23:4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9WyeVQd6e0&feature=related

(Wallamoose (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

That's spot on what I was getting at. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Humourous? Yes. Creative? Yes. Legal threat? Never. BMW(drive) 17:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting review of my block. I blocked User:Ethel Aardvark for edit warring and other problems, chiefly the removal of sourced information and references from the article deforestation (most recently [70]). I had previously protected both the deforestation article and rainforest for a week to stop the edit warring. Several warnings about removal of referenced material have been left on the users talk. A dispute has been brewing between User:Ethel Aardvark and User:Asidemes and both had accused the other of vandalism. Asidemes has been adding sourced material to various related articles and Ethyl has been removing the material. Vsmith (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aardvark's edits were disruptive. I think the 48 hours block is justified. AdjustShift (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

48hrs is plenty of time to go Quantity Surveying. BMW(drive) 16:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – School is dealing with it from here. لennavecia 16:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, a user threatens "I WILL BLOW UP A SCHOOL". Shouldn't there be something we do about this? The talk page has no school IP template, so this is out of my realm of knowledge. Some assistance would be appreciated. لennavecia 16:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP info:

  network: Organization-Name;I: Hannah Beardsley Middle School 
  network: Street-Address;I: 515 E. Crystal Lake 
  network: City;I: Crystal Lake 
  network: State;I: IL 
  network: Postal-Code;I: 60014 
  network: Country-Code;I: US 

I'm not sure this is a legitimate threat though. John Reaves 16:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. It would be sensible to contact the school though, imo. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and I agree, but what are the negative aspects of taking it seriously, just in case? لennavecia 16:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would merely cause unnecessary panic at the school. Also, it would waste someone's time contacting them. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And of course if we didn't, and a school was blown up... Doug Weller (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does, indeed, simply seem like genuine vandalism. However, it might be prudent to contact the school. IMO, it would be more tragic to have a school blown up than to waste someone's time. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EC x 3) Maybe that's what someone said about the Twin Towers. >_> Maybe it's best to let the school decide if it should be taken seriously or not. لennavecia 16:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've e-mailed the school's administration (more to get the little twit who is vandalizing in trouble than anything else). John Reaves 16:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Jennavecia: {{sofixit}}: you are more than welcome to pick up the telephone and bother the school yourself. There's no need to continue to make a fuss about it here. John Reaves: Indeed, maybe a suspension or some lines will teach him not to screw around about things like this. HiDrNick! 16:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Nick. Already on it. Now go away since you have nothing constructive to contribute. لennavecia 16:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tell them to check there e-mail. Trying to explain how to check a diff to someone over the phone is not easy (trust me). John Reaves 16:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks, John. The principal has the tech guy attempting to figure out what computer it came from so they can maybe figure out which student did it. He appreciated the email and call very much. لennavecia 16:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it time for another 12-month schoolblock? The little... contributors didn't waste much time getting back to vandalism after the previous one expired. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One could always offer to the techie that has already been contacted that we could block anonymous edits from that IP range, essentially permanently :-) BMW(drive) 17:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already blocked for 6 mo. Vsmith (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following material has been moved from my talk page. Material I placed in the Coal Mining article has been deleted, so I have removed all my other contributions to Wikipedia as well. See my user page for the reasons why. Apparenly we have mathematicians serving in the role of copyright attornies at Wikipedi. Mistake.

Thank you Elonka and Todd for trying. I'm not sure you can fix this. Farewell.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and paste of talk page removed. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um... What is the incident to report here, exactly? 207.80.142.5 (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently somebody removed it. I'll see if I can find it again.

Meanwhile, the following quote is from the Wikipedia Conflict of Interest page:

"When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline. "Mervyn Emrys (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is:

Hello. There has been a small discussion on the AN/I thread you started about material you added to this article in September. The copyright status of the material might need clarifying. You yourself are probably the best placed person to discuss this in private with an administrator. Even if the material was self-written or has been released into the public domain, it is still probably better to paraphrase it/shorten it when adding it to wikipedia rather than copy-pasting 7 pages as you did. As this was probably your first and largest contribution to wikipedia, and the material was a valuable and scholarly addition by one of the world experts on the subject, I think that this issue should be easy to clarify. I could recommend User:Quadell for copyright issues; he has been very helpful to me in the past. Happy editing, Mathsci (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no copyright issues here. The material used was always in the public domain and is cited to its source, a government document.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You should still go through the procedures suggested by Hans Adler on WP:AN/I to confirm that this is a government document. Please read WP:V, WP:RS. The book you cite is not evidently published by the US government. Aside from that, you cannot simply copy-and-paste seven pages of an article of yours (or anybody else) onto wikipedia. You can surely make a summary of these seven pages. Please be aware that there are many academics editing wikipedia. Unfortunately they cannot use authority to justify their contributions, even if they are world experts in the subject. They are obliged to cite sources. This might seem strange, but it is how wikipedia works. It can make writing wikipedia articles very time consuming. If you do not provide this verification, the material will probably be removed. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci, apparently neither you nor Hans Adler understands that there can be no copyright infringements of any kind on U.S. government documents that are and always have been in the public domain. They are literally public property (common property) and there is no legal requirement that text quoted from them even be referenced. Everybody owns them. Yet I did cite the source four times in the material I placed in the coal mining article, which I think improved the article considerably. Would you have me add a reference to every single paragraph? That seems a bit cumbersome and repetitive.

If I thought it could be summarized without losing something valuable, I would have done that. There is no repetition. Every sentence is new info. Perhaps you think the material is too long because you are associated with the coal industry and don't like it when someone tells the truth about the environmental effects of coal mining? Or maybe you are just not interested in this topic at all?

For what its worth, my repeated efforts to include the reference and two sentences (not the measely one that remains) in the Law article were due to my apparently mistaken impression that somebodies server backed up the previous version after it crashed, thereby inadvertently deleting my additions. So I merely added them back. After a couple iterations it became evident somebody anonymous was intentionally deleting the changes. But NOBODY ever posted a message on that discussion board or on my talk page explaining why, until I received the nasty message in my complaint.

Please forgive my naivete, but I could not believe this was the way Wikipedia was intended to work.

Mathsci, you seem more interested in "outing" the identity of an anonymous person than in furthering the advancement of knowledge on this topic. Yet you preserve your own anonymity. Even after making outrageous accusations on a thread that is now archived, preventing me from responding to them.

In my brief experience with Wikipedia, I've found it to be a truly hostile work environment, where much of the talk flatters one's friends and slams the new kid on the block--kinda like junior high school.

Frankly, I expected more from you folks. Perhaps I was too idealistic. I see now that Wikipedia is not about knowledge, but more about social status and interactions with those with whom you agree. You have created your own culture, and your own arcane language (the sociologists among you must find it fascinating). But it just looks a lot like mobbing to me.

I am completely willing to remove ALL of my contributions to Wikipedia, and to refrain from posting any future contributions.

I stand behind my previous statements about overly proprietary editors. If this behavior is tolerated or condoned, Wikipedia will gradually become a smaller community, not a larger one.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to out you, simply to help you. I found the copyright on amazon [71]. It is not public domain: the copyright belongs to Michael S. Anderson, not the US government. So in that case the author can release it into the public domain. Hans Adler described the way of doing this (ORTS tickets, etc, which an administrator like User:Quadell can help with). However, copying and pasting seven pages from a book, arguing that it cannot be summarised, seems unreasonable and disingenuous, whether you are the author of the material or not. Mathsci (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few extra remarks. I have kept my anonymity because I occasionally edit articles on fringe science, where off-wiki attacks can happen, sometimes rather nasty. If you enable your wikipedia "e-mail this user" on your preferences page, I'm quite willing to disclose who I am. I completely understand your frustration, but editing wikipedia can be fun, most often when creating new articles or fleshing out stubs. It's probably best to stay off WP:AN/I in a minor dispute with another editor about a duplicated reference, particularly in a featured article like Law where the wikipedia style guidelines are applied fairly scrupulously. Certainly one important policy that applies in particular to you is here - WP:Expert retention: Wikipedia needs you! Mathsci (talk) 09:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci, you are not being and have not been helpful. You have made false accusations of copyright infringement and conflict of interest on the complaints page of Wikipedia. How is that helpful? And because that page is archived, I am not afforded an opportunity to respond. And is it civil? Or merely condescending?

It seems you do not understand copyright law as applied to U.S. Government documents. Nobody can acquire a copyright on any material published in a U.S. government document simply by quoting or paraphrasing it in a book published by a commercial publisher. The material remains in the public domain as public property. No publisher is going to come after anyone for reprinting material that is in the public domain, and nobody else has legal standing to do so.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]