Hey, the shopping season has officially started, right? I'm looking for the right forum in which to discuss my concerns about a particular editor. There are several issues that touch upon many categories, while not fitting neatly into any single category. Do I shotgun my concerns to the various distinct but applicable noticeboards, or is there an industrious admin with significant free time reading this who can formulate a comprehensive, single course of action? Here's the background information followed by my specific concerns:

On November 6, User:96.231.137.242 added a paragraph to the Bill Maher BLP article. I removed it because it violated several WP:BLP policy stipulations including sourcing, verifiability and inaccurate contentious material. This was my first interaction with this editor. He repeatedly reinserted the content, so I warned him against edit warring and BLP violations. He was blocked for 31 hours for 3RR and edit warring. Immediately following the block of IP96.xxx, User:DyadTriad appears and continues arguing for the inclusion of that same paragraph, eventually re-adding it. Shortly after that, User:Valerius Tygart picks up the same argument, and starts re-adding the same content. I heard ducks quacking, so I initiated a Sockpuppet Investigation here. Checkuser confirmed 96.231.137.242 = DyadTriad = Valerius Tygart, among others. The editor admits using the many registered and unregistered accounts, but denies using them abusively - contrary to the findings of the SPI case page and the checkuser results. Several of his sock accounts were blocked, and the case archived. Since then, Valerius Tygart has resumed re-inserting the contentious paragraph into the Maher article once per day, each day, for over two weeks now — despite objections from editors on the talk page. In addition, this editor has been attempting to modify his archived Sockpuppet Investigation case page, to the point of getting himself blocked yet again for disruptive editing. Despite (and during) this block, as I type this, he is still maintaining his slow-burn edit war on the Maher article with his Tygart account.

As for forums, I could post on the WP:BLPN so that other editors can tell Tygart what he already knows: he's trying to insert poorly sourced content into a BLP that intentionally misrepresents the subject's views, against policy. But that doesn't stop the repeated reverts. I could post at the 3RR/Edit Warring noticeboard, but the once-per-day revert war doesn't technically violate 3RR, does it? Perhaps I should go to WP:RFPP and request page protection until the BLP violations are resolved? I could go to the SPI noticeboard and say, "Hey - this confirmed puppeteer is editing with some of his accounts while his other accounts are blocked for disruptive editing - what gives?", but the case is already closed. Any suggestions? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here would appear to be the best place. Did the SPI conclude that Valerius Tygart was the sockmaster? If so, a longer block would seem appropriate. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If what you say is true, then this reeks of gaming. I would suggest a longer than usual ban just to beat it into people's heads that no, we aren't idiots, and we can see what you're trying to do. Things like a once per day edit to avoid 1/3rr is clearly an attempt to skirt the rules. Give them a long ban, and keep them on a short leash when they get back. If they can't play nice, then indef-block. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that User:Valerius Tygart be indef-blocked for disruptive editing. Using an IP to tamper with his own sockpuppet report takes the cake. (If you're trying to convince people that you're an incorrigible sockpuppeteer, that's a good way to do it). He should be told that the block could be lifted if he would agree to edit with only a single account, and refrain from editing the Bill Maher article. He could still participate on the article's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was the admin who blocked IP 96.231.137.242 for edit-warring at Bill Maher, recommended the filing of the SPI, and then blocked the confirmed sock accounts after confirming that they were being used abusively. At that stage I blocked the sockmaster Valerius Tygart (talk · contribs) only for 31 hours in order not to be punitive, and assuming that the socking and disruption would stop. Given that the sockpuppetry has been goind on for over two years and has continued even after the SPI confirmation, I support EdJohnston's suggestion above. Additionally, the Bill Maher article can be semi-protected, if needed to prevent such disruption. Abecedare (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That puts the icing on the SPI cake! Have you blocked the IP already? - _{Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN} 12:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tygart has used at least these 2 IPs since the closure of his SPI case: User:96.231.137.242 and User:140.139.35.250. They appear to be static, not dynamic IPs. Tygart claims to use multiple accounts "legitimately", but I stopped assuming good faith after checkuser J.delanoy confirmed Tygart = 140.139.35.250 = Dogwood123, but Tygart denies ever being deceptive or saying, I am not "Dogwood123". Either Tygart or J.delanoy is lying, and I know where I'd put my money. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is playing possum. Still unsure of an appropriate forum. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tygart apparently doesn't wish to comment in this matter — it has been a few days. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all. I'm just back at my desk after a few days & catching up on this.... I have already addressed the "sockpuppetry" allegations in the "Comments by accused parties" at the SP Investigation site (archived) & on my user talk page. I won't repeat that here, except to say again that I have never intentionally committed "sockpuppetry" (& I think intentional deception is part of the definition, right?) Also, I have never been abusive or disruptive on Wikipedia in any way (which is not to say I have never had heated discussions...) It is true that I am often lazy & do not bother to log on (even a couple of times since the SP investigation), but never with intent to be disruptive or deceptive. As to agreeing to edit only as Valerius Tygart, I certainly intend to do that ... and will strive to remember to not edit (accidentally) as an anon... It is a bad habit on my part to neglect to log on...

As for the supposedly "disruptive" edit I have been inserting into the Bill Maher article: it is a direct quote from Maher's show of 4 March 2005. I can find nothing in Wiki-policy that precludes it. It is authentic, well-sourced, relevant, non-libellous & constructively improves the article. Its source is the broadcast show itself & a periodical quoting & commenting on the remarks by Maher. Additionally, I am now adding a third source: an article from the 19 Sept 2008 Wall Street Journal also quoting the remarks. About three weeks ago I asked for a general discussion about all this on the Bill Maher discussion page. Unfortunately, only the editor who has had me blocked twice now (Xenophrenic) & initiated the (to me) spurious "sockpupperty" investigation has cast a vote on this issue. The stalemate between the two of us was the reason I asked for discussion in the first place and it is too bad that 99% of the discussion there is between he & I. He has reverted me repeatedly & I wonder why I am the one who is said to be "warring" & "reverting" & not he.... Thanks & waiting for additional feedback. Valerius Tygart (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I've taken a second look with checkuser at J.delanoy's request, and the results are very clear that this is  Confirmed sockpuppetry. You were editing from the same computer with User:Valerius Tygart, User:DyadTriad, and User:Dogwood123, alternating between accounts each day for a bit. This appears very deliberate. I haven't looked at behavioral evidence, though, so I can't speak as to the disruptive bit. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tygart doesn't deny using many IPs and registered accounts. He does deny using them abusively, while checkuser evidence clearly contradicts Tygart and indicates abuse. I noted 4 specific examples of sock abuse on the SPI case page, before I stopped looking. As noted above, just one of those examples: checkuser says Dogwood123 = 140.139.35.250 -- yet here 140.139.35.250 says "I am not Dogwood123", when questioned by someone suspecting puppetry during a consensus discussion. Deception is the fundamental form of abuse of alternate accounts. Deliberate abuse.

@Tygart: I cannot "have you blocked"; I can only point out your behavior and have others review it. I pointed out your edit warring, and someone else blocked you. I pointed out your use of multiple accounts, and someone else sanctioned you. Now you have continued with disruptive editing behavior, so I am once again bringing attention to it so that others may review it and hopefully provide a constructive solution. I cautioned you that I would be raising your conduct here for review, and your response was, "A threat. Do your worst." Xenophrenic (talk) 07:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikistalk report might be of interest. However, I'm currently leaning against a block and towards a firm warning to stop edit warring (for both parties). I'll watchlist Bill Maher and will block if I see contested content being added/deleted without consensus. Uninvolved editors: Does that seem appropriate? NW (Talk) 19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(UPDATE) I'm copying Tygart's comment from his talk page to here, as I feel it is relevant to this discussion:

EdJohnston, I agree that, since I have stated my case clearly, there is not much point in repeating myself & we should move on. I have no problem in pledging to edit under Valerius Tygart only (... mind you, the User:140.139.35.250 account, which I have been accused of abusing, has a large number of users on it. Please don't blame me for everything that is done from that address!!) I don't, however, think it is reasonable for you to tell me to stop editing Bill Maher for now. No offense, but I just don't accept one editor with one opinion having that sort of authority.... Happy editing! Valerius Tygart (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I interpret Tygart's response to mean he stands by his denial of ever abusing socks (and now maybe it is "a large number of" other users at fault). It also appears he rejects the proposal to refrain from edit warring, positioning me as an adversary instead of a collaborating editor. I am not the only editor to object to his contentious edits. As I type this, I see he has again re-inserted the problematic content against the objections of multiple editors, accompanied by a lengthy talk page comment that essentially says, "despite your objections, it looks good to me so I'm reinserting it". I have reverted his edit. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking in on the status. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my suggestion... Tygart claims that his use of alternate accounts has been legitimate. The community disagrees. Those alternate accounts are now indefinitely blocked. Whether or not he agrees that what he did was wrong, he should be warned that any use of alternate accounts will result in an indefinite block. This would even apply to "legitimate" alternate accounts, because the community's assumption of good faith has been exhausted at this point. Does that sound reasonable? -- Atama頭 20:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such a warning seems to be in line with consensus, and solves the socking half the above described problem. As for the edit-warring half of the problem, it appears consensus is leaning toward taking it to WP:BLPN to get wider input. The only remaining issue is whether Tygart will continue to insert contested content into the BLP article each and every day while the notoriously backlogged BLP-Noticeboard gets around to looking at the situation. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If "the community's assumption of good faith has been exhausted" I am sorry for that. I have been clear about the motivations for what I've done & I still maintain that I have never done anything with deceptive or disruptive intent. An indefinite block on even my "legitimate" alternate accounts would be unnecessary, in my opinion, but it would also not greatly inconvenience me, so I have no strong objection to that. I think we should move past all this as unproductive.

As for Xenophrenic's "edit-warring half" of the problem, I will say again that I believe I have made a compelling case, at the Bill Maher talk page, for inclusion of the quote in question (three perfectly good sources, etc...). The suggestion of a "firm warning to stop edit warring (for both parties)" actually seems in good order to me because it acknowledges what Xenophrenic never has: that he is (at least) half the problem here. It is not true that "multiple editors" have contested the quote/content... One has (Xenophrenic) & one other has asked for additional sources while explicitly stating he is offering no opinion on the quote/content... The wider the forum for pursuing consensus on this, the better. That is why I asked for discussion on the talk page 3 weeks ago & that I why I lament that none (except Xenophrenic repeating himself) has occurred...

As a gesture of good faith, I will refrain from re-inserting the (to me) perfectly legitimate edit (for now) in the hope that responsible, good faith opinions from other editors will soon be forthcoming on the Bill Maher talk page. Valerius Tygart (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is one editor claiming he isn't another editor. However, checkuser J.delanoy says both editors are you, Tygart. Was this the part you think we should move past, while still insisting you have never done anything deceptive?

• Here is another editor contesting your edits, Tygart. So yes, it is true that "multiple editors" have contested your quote.

• Saying that you will refrain from edit warring over contested BLP content isn't a gesture of good faith, it is a policy requirement. Thank you for finally agreeing to comply with it.

I came here expecting to see this incident archived. A simple "I'll stop socking and edit-warring" would have sufficed, since the admins have agreed not to pursue further measures, but Tygart insists on posting more denials and falsifications. He forgets there are diffs. This illustrates why a resolution has been difficult to achieve in 4 weeks. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, Valerius, I do not appreciate my position being misrepresented. While I have decided to refrain from offering a position on the content at this time, saying that I'm asking for "additional sources" implies that I am accepting the ones you have offered and just want more. This is not the case. Your sources are unacceptable. Continuing to state that you have "three perfectly good sources" when these have been flatly and repeatedly disputed by two editors is part of the problem. Henrymrx (t·c) 19:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Within the last hour or so, I noticed that several articles I watch have had external links to jewsforjudaism.org and outreachjudaism.org deleted all by the same editor, JonHarder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Curiously, on one of the articles, Messianic Judaism, he left an edit summary claiming that he was "promoting" the links to "See also" items Jews for Judaism and Outreach Judaism. Since both those links were already in the text of the article, having them linked in the "See also" section as well violates the MOS. Therefore, I deleted the "See also" listings and restored the links. Checking Mr Harder's contributions showed me that he seems to have been systematically eliminating links to these two websites. I reverted all such deletions I could find. One particularly dishonest one is this where the editor claims that he is "Remov[ing] ref that does not provide supporting evidence for statement." Here is the sentence in the article:

One outreach effort in 1996 at Texas A&M resulted in accusations of anti-semitism, stemming from a report in The Texas A&M Battalion that Short had told Jewish students that "Hitler didn't go far enough".

And here is a quotation from the cited webpage.

Tom Short, an itinerant evangelist brought to campus by the A&M Christian Fellowship, told one student that, because she is Jewish, she is going "to burn in Hell." He told another Jewish student that "Hitler did not go far enough."</blockquote.>

So how exactly does that "not provide supporting evidence for the statement"?

Ok, so clearly something fishy is going on. Then I found this: User:JonHarder/todo

I don't know any other way to put it except that this looks like some kind of a hit list. Just look at it, it's a list of websites that apparently Mr. Harder would rather Wikipedia not link to and Wikipedia articles he'd like to substitute for the links. And what websites are on the list?

jewsforjudaism.org can be replaced with Jews for Judaism

www.uua.org may be replaced with Unitarian Universalist Association or Unitarian Universalism

pantheism.net can be replaced with World Pantheist Movement

naturalism.org can be replaced with Naturalism (philosophy)

yu.edu can be replaced with Yeshiva University

jtsa.edu can be replaced with Jewish Theological Seminary of America

rrc.edu can be replaced with Reconstructionist Rabbinical College

huc.edu can be replaced with Hebrew Union College

infidels.org can be replaced with Internet Infidels

atheists.org can be replaced with American Atheists

worldconvention.org can be replaced with World Convention of Churches of Christ

umc.org can be replaced with United Methodist Church

Some of dordt.edu can be replaced with Dordt College

Some of calvin.edu can be replaced with Calvin College

And in a less religious vein:

warplane.com can be replaced with Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum

arboretum.org can be replaced with Los Angeles County Arboretum and Botanic Garden

ojjdp.ncjrs.org can be replaced with Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

equalityhumanrights.com can be replaced with Equality and Human Rights Commission

family.org can be replaced with Focus on the Family

heritage.org can be replaced with The Heritage Foundation

www.nationalreview.com can be replaced with National Review

www.townhall.com can be replaced with Townhall.com

www.chroniclesmagazine.org can be replaced with Chronicles (magazine)

So what's this all about? How exactly does it improve an article to delete a perfectly good external link and replace it with a "See also" wikilink? And where did Mr. Harder get the idea that this is some kind of "promotion"?

Incidentally, Mr. Harder has no problem adding links to gameo.org (the Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online).

None of this looks right. I think Mr. Harder should explain himself here and I think the admins should consider deleting his "to do" page. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 12:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it would have been a good idea to talk to him first. Perhaps it is his opinion that placement in a "See also" section is more prominent than appearance in the list of ELs, and hence replacing an EL with a "See also" is a "Promotion". We don't know until he explains. Whether he has good reasons or not, this doesn't need admin intervention if he's willing to talk about it--and either persuade you that he's right or be persuaded by you that he isn't--and follow consensus once it has been reached. (With respect to the removal of the reference, that is perplexing. Perhaps he followed the second link to the website and missed that the title was also a link. Or perhaps he is concerned about the source as reliable for a WP:BLP? This also we can't know without hearing from him.) Wikipedia:Assume good faith requires that we "try...to explain and resolve the problem and not cause more conflict, and give others the opportunity to do the same." The "to do" page doesn't seem to fit any of the criteria of WP:CSD. Even if you convince him that the things he is intended "to do" are not a good idea, the page itself is innocuous, and he's been using it for a long time. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Done with judgment, I'm not sure this is not a good idea. If an organization is linked to its Wikipedia article within an article, we do not usually need an external link for its website as well--unless of course the article is about the organization or the site, or one of its branches or affiliates or otherwise particularly useful. However, putting them in see alsos is also generally discouraged if there is already an inline link. DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Switching out ELs for seealsos is good in theory; in my opinion, the latter are more prominent. However, I'm wary about the targeting of the user complained about. If there are good reasons for doing so, and there are, then we should engage with this editor more. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The switches done on the user page are all in line with our external links guidelines and I commend JonHarder for his willingness to engage in external links cleanup. The fact that they are all within one area of interest does raise some red flags, so I would urge JonHarder to take caution when switching out the links and not whitewash links that are being used as references. I would also urge him to broaden his scope, as we need more people who focus on EL cleanup across the board. ThemFromSpace 20:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Therein the peril of not using inline citation - careless or unaware editors can use ELs instead of references. Mind, I would have thought given the controversial nature of the subject matter that content such as that described above should be inline cited, just to be sure. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Response

I will address the two main areas of concern identified above: removal of a reference and conversion of external to internal links. First, the removal of a reference in Tom Short was a mistake on my part and it is correct to revert it. I must not have been firing on all cylinders at the time and probably clicked on the second link that goes to the site's main page (that second link almost certainly should not be there in the first place) and couldn't figure out how that was supporting anything, and just plain missed that there were two links within the "cite" template. That is the best explanation I can give, it is not an excuse and just another reason why my error rate never quite reaches zero, although I hope I am continually getting better. These types of challenges to my editing actually are helpful reminders about what to look for, things to double-check, and problem areas to avoid.

With respect to converting external links to internal links, I do this on the basis that Wikipedia should give preference and priority to its own content. This is implied with the standard order of appendices: See also, Notes, References, then External links—these give preference to other articles, then verification of the current article, and last and least, content on other websites. Preference for Wikipedia's own content is corroborated by the prohibition of most external links to an organization's main page embedded in the main body of an article (see WP:CITE). I believe an article is improved when a link can be taken out of the "External links" and substituted with the equivalent article in the "See also" section. When that other article is correctly written, the reader can trivially find its associated web page if desired. This has the real affect of giving them more prominence in the article. In most cases I leave it to other editors to remove these links from the "See also" section if they are not appropriate there, knowing that in some cases there might be a valid reason to repeat a link in "See also" that already appears in the article. But as a corollary, I believe that if a link is not appropriate in the "See also" section, then neither should it be in "External links."

I'll close with some comments on the general areas in which I choose to edit. I do a lot of External link cleanup and generally follow a thread of similar problems from one article to the next, adding all those articles to my watchlist to ensure my edits are not causing problems with other editors, and then I hang around some weeks to fix other problems. When I find that a particular external link is spread to several articles, I add that to my to-do list unless the external link is in just a few articles allowing me to fix them immediately. Paradoxically, I came upon the Judaism articles by following up on problems in the secularism-related articles; I have been following problems from one Christianity-related article to the next for a very long time. Recently, I went through many dozens, perhaps hundreds of city articles and very few of these had the entangling kinds of links as the former articles, so there was little need for me to note things to follow up on later; articles related to Mexico tend to have spam, but not links that can be converted to articles; food related articles are only slightly more problematic. What I'm trying to convey is that I edit in a variety of areas, but the religion articles tend to have many more problems that I don't have time to fix immediately, so I make a note to look at them later. One could speculate why identical external links are added to so many more religion articles than to other types. Partially I think it is because they are somewhat of a minefield of anxiety and more experienced editors are loath to step in and try to clean things up. I have been working in that area for some time and have found a formula that has been working well for me, allowing articles to be cleaned up with a minimum of drama from some of the less emotionally mature editors. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 20:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a well-reasoned and rational response to the concerns listed above. I'll second the commendation: cleaning up any nit-picky section of an article, esp. the ELS and refs, is really tedious, and it seems like you're doing a really good job. Overall, I don't think there's a problem here. Jhfortier (talk) 05:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

As a regular participant at WP:ELN, I'd like to thank JonHarder for his efforts against "directory spam" (none of the orgs linked at Orthodox Judaism outreach#External links meet our standards).

Editors that haven't looked over WP:ELNO for a while might want to see the newest addition, #19, "Links to websites of organizations mentioned in an article – unless they otherwise qualify as something that should be linked or considered." The original impetus for this line was the ongoing problem with "[http://RandomCompany.com Random Company] did something..." links in article text, but it also applies to directory spam. Wikipedia is not a directory, even for the thousands of charitable and religious organizations that do something or another related to the subject. A DMOZ (or similar) link might be useful in these instances, but developing the articles to address the major organizations is even better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Powergate92 patroling my edits

Today I received this message from Powergate92 (talk · contribs). This is most certainly not the first time that Powergate92 has commented in such a way. Beginning way back here when Mythdon was not banned, began Powergate92's unnecessary attention to my use of rollback (whether or not it was part of administrator's tools or javascript enabled). He has reported me to this board in the past He has also reported me for 3RR merely because he found out that I had performed more than three reverts in a 24 hour period (ignoring the fact that the dispute had ended and he did not bother to report the other user in the dispute or reporting me while we were in a dispute over said reverted content and he had gotten an administrator to revert me for him).

I am tired of this. I do not need anyone policing my edits, looking and waiting for reverts that they think are bad and seeking to get me punished for not following every single rule. Powergate92 has most definitely shown a propensity to just seek to get my editing privileges removed or restricted in some fashion. He is effectively treating me just as Mythdon had, but Powergate92 is not under any restrictions from this case. So I am bringing this to the community for assistance.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I was not "looking and waiting for reverts" like I said on your talk page "I was looking at my watchlist and I see an IP moved the hidden message in the episodes section of the Power Rangers: RPM article, so as today would be the day that the title for episodes 29 and 30 would be on TV Guide.com, I go to the TV Guide link and I see someone linked it to the episode list when they should have it to the TV listings (as the episode list only list episodes that have aired not episodes that will air, the TV listings list episodes that will air). So I go back to the Power Rangers: RPM article to fix the link and then I see that you reverted the IP good faith non-vandalism edit as vandalism." How is saying "I think Ryulong should use Twinkle's rollback (AGF) button for reverting good faith edits." at this discussion "unnecessary attention to your use of rollback"? Powergate92Talk 22:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like someone other than Powergate92 to say something about his behavior past and present.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hitting revert for vandalism instead of AGF'd? It happens. I've done it. You apologize, or the user accidentally warned says something and they talk it out, or it's never noticed. I have no idea how a third party would be brought into that specifically, so a diff would be appreciated if it were request.

• Ryulong; You did seem to take advice on the second ANI. I'm also going to assume you've known what 3RR is for quite some time and comprehend your past minor infractions. You've been here long enough to know the AGF vs Vandal Twinkle revert thing is pretty serious if at all frequent, but twice doesn't really count as that. I'm not the most qualified to state this, but checking those incident reports and seeing that Powergate92 offers zero diffs of actual premeditated harm or incivility? No action to take.
• Powergate92; is there a particular reason that you're the cause of all administrator reports filed against this user remotely relating to sought blocks? Can you offer any diffs that show continued abuses and would warrant continuous observation for several months? If so, they should be reported much sooner. That 3RR report listed 12 hours after the edit war is a bit saddening, as it means you must have been digging into contribution history to spot it. As someone calling for Twinkle to be taken away from an experienced editor, surely you know the primary use of blocks is to prevent future disruptions and not punish pasts. 12 hours after the fact being a pretty clear indicator of no further edit warring, especially from someone with zero past history of it. Last, no one but an administrator has any right whatsoever to threaten someone about their Twinkle rights, or threaten anyone like that whatsoever, for that matter. This threat was particularly discouraging, especially after a lengthy history of it being shown that Ryulong has never shown anything but good faith in edits with only a few questionable marks in those ancient ANIs.
  

Walk away, please. An apology with some honesty offered would be even better. Whatever your odd fascination is with Ryulong, make a point of leaving them be. Same goes the opposite direction. Anything. Voluntary lack of contact all places and at all times, basically. Shared project already? Try different articles. No one wants to waste time on higher dispute resolution. This matter may not be suited for ANI anymore if it for whatever reason it comes up again, though it shouldn't. Walk away, please, and save the whole community later time spent in dispute resolution when it's completely unnecessary with just a tiny bit of good faith from both parties. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I cannot see Powergate92 even remotely acknowledging your opinion in this case. In this regard, he is similar to Mythdon in that he will not change topic areas in the slightest.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll work from talk pages, if that's okay. Best to let this archive, though it is noted that Powergate92 hasn't reacted in any way, though the user has made edits since additional postings. Thanks for letting me know. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Having one person say "Move on" is not "resolved" in my book.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I marked as resolved since it was the extent that ANI can take dispute resolution, and the hope is that the other party will heed the advice and realize that the possibility of a block on next offense would cause it to stop. Usually, the easiest reminder before that step to either side is "you don't actually want to get blocked over this, do you?" ...If someone knows they've done no wrong, they can see if it continues knowing that'll be the end of it regardless. WP:WQA would be the step listed next up the scale for dispute resolution, but I cannot make any guess at actions there if there was not a specific final warning given in the past and a third party overview with suggestions given proved fruitless. Marking again as resolved as this angle of discussion is completely exhausted. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You are not an administrator who can decide whether or not action should be taken in this instances. You are a user who registered on Wikipedia two months ago. You do not know what can or cannot be done in this case. I would respect you if you did not act as judge and jury over a dispute between two users who have both been on this project longer than you have and one who used to be an administrator who helped diffuse these situations.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm coming to this late, Ryulong, but I am an Administrator, I have been around Wikipedia a bit longer than Datheisen, & I think she/he makes perfect sense here. You appear to have made a simple (& minor) mistake here, & Powergate92 has over-reacted to your mistake. That said, there really isn't much an Administrator can do than to encourage the two of you to either play nice or avoid each other. Any sanctions at this point on anyone would be overkill & may even result in a bigger problem -- or unneeded wikidrama. -- llywrch (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for me to "change topic areas" as I have been a good contributer to the television topic area. Powergate92Talk 23:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Here's some diffs for good faith non-vandalism edits that Ryulong reverted as vandalism: [1][2][3] If you would like me to look at Ryulong contributions, I would most likely find more in his contributions.

2. I was not looking at Ryulong contributions when I made that 3RR report, I was looking at my watchlist, Kamen Rider Decade is in my watchlist you know.

3. What doe's "the primary use of blocks is to prevent future disruptions and not punish pasts" have to do with "calling for Twinkle to be taken away"? Powergate92Talk 23:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

1) I shouldn't need to label reverts on my talk page. 2) Addition of unverified information. 3) Removal of verified information. And it is not that you are a good contributor to the "Television" topic area. It is that you are not a good contributor to the tokusatsu topic area.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, by the way, WQA is an "informal non-binding noticeboard" whereas AN/I is a notice board for when one "requires the intervention of administrators", at WQA we can't take any actual action, we can offer support and advice, but if you want intervention, then WQA isn't really the place. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Again? Powergate92, however innocently it happens and however much you may not be aware of the bias, your interactions with Ryulong haven't been productive. Your complaints typically aren't acted on because honestly, you're stretching to find something "wrong" with his edits/reverts/rollback etc. Its time to let it go; the next time you have the urge to interact with Ryulong, don't.

  Ryulong would you agree to make more liberal use of the AGF rollback and make sure the edit summary includes you reasoning (things like "removal of verified information" or "addition of unverified information")? If you save the "vandalism" button just for edits that everyone would consider vandalism (replacing an entire article with "WIKIPEDIA SUCKS" for example), you'll avoid any future concerns over your use of the tool. Reverting someone's edits to your talk page and labeling it vandalism certainly isn't going to win you any points. Shell ^babelfish 00:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  The "rollback (AGF)" button version is just weird. I usually just use the "restore this version" or "rollback" or the regular "undo".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  As long as you're not clicking something that identifies the edit as vandalism, that would solve the problem (wasn't this the same thing I said last time?). Obviously Powergate92 found a few instances where you did click the wrong button recently, so it pays to be careful when using those tools. If you're finding that you're having trouble, perhaps its best to stick to the standard undo or restore this version links. Shell ^babelfish 06:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  Apparently, he identifies vandalism differently than I do.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  No, Wikipedia identifies vandalism differently than you do apparently. The examples Powergate92 cited were not appropriate use of the world vandalism. If you feel differently, then perhaps we do have a larger problem here. Shell ^babelfish 19:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot changing referencing style, again (dearchived)

As I have pointed out a couple of weeks ago, some users have been using bots and scripts to impose their own preferred style of referencing, the "named" references, on articles previously not using it.

This system (the same footnote re-used again and again) is common in some fields and used by many science journals. It is, however, absolutely non-standard in the humanities. Many contributors, not just me, do not like it and do not want to have this system imposed on all articles.

See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Replacing duplicate footnotes with named footnotes. User:Postdlf makes a good job there of summarizing the reasons against this style in three points. A fourth point is that of usability. Named refs makes references dependent on each other, which makes it more cumbersome to edit them, for instance to correct a page or page range, to add an additional source with a contrasting view, or to clarify how a reference supports the claim made. This point was touched on by me, earlier in that discussion, and expressed very clearly by User:Golbez in a previous (now archived) discussion (from July 2009).

The article Charles Boit, which I used as an example, had at that point been hit three times by this:

• First (30 July 2009) by User:Falcon8765, using a script called AWB.
• Second (10 August 2009) by User:DrilBot.
• Third (16 September 2009) by User:SmackBot.

I reverted this every time.

• It has now been hit again, a fourth time, again by SmackBot.

SmackBot, or rather its keeper, User:Rich Farmbrough, has previously been warned by the administrator User:CBM for this behaviour. CBM blocked SmackBot, then unblocked it on the condition that the feature was disabled. Rich Farmbrough agreed to this. (See edit link earlier in paragraph, it's all there.)

Thanks for your attention. --Hegvald (talk) 10:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked temporarily again, and will unblock again once this is fixed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering SmackBot/RF has already been warned about this and that these edits were never appropriate to begin with (as there is no general agreement that named refs are better), it would only be appropriate for SmackBot to be given the task of reverting its own previous edits. Who else is going to do this? --Hegvald (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't suppose User:SmackBot/References Log Log of ref runs would be of any assist as evidence?

When I've been hit by this it's made me assume I'd been a lazy/awful/terrible editor for non memorizing every last work of article guidelines. If I think that way, who knows how many others have been discouraged? This has covered an insane number of articles and as far as we know it could have started edit wars from article creators... especially since the edit summaries given have nothing to do with what was changed. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 18:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It should rather make you think "Thank goodness I don't have to worry about the niff-naff and trivia". Rich Farmbrough, 20:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC).

These bot edits of yours have had the misleading edit summary "general fixes". The problem here is that your way of "fixing" what you call the "niff-naff and trivia" results in a referencing style that is non-standard for many contributors and contrary to the way they are used to work, and want to continue working, with footnotes and references. While you may think that you are just polishing the formatting of these articles, you actually create an editing environment that is going to discourage some contributors from doing any additional work on these articles. --Hegvald (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I've unarchived this, it's only supposed to be archived after 24 hours of inactivity but the bot is doing it after 18. I'm also unhappy about this and find named references often a pain. It needs more discussion. Dougweller (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've changed archiving on this page back to 24 hours; I couldn't find any discussion of the change to faster archiving, and anything less than 24 hours risks missing input from those far off the most active time zones. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what more there is do here. I'm informed User:Rich Farmbrough in case he wasn't aware that SmackBot had been blocked. As to the references style, this is ANI. Village pump, MOS, (particularly Wikipedia:Citing sources) are better places for that discussion than here. Like the British/American spelling disputes we sometimes see, I don't think this is really resolvable. Current policy is "follow the style already established in an article, if it has one; where there is disagreement, the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected" but people just have different preferences. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• But note that while editors making changes can do so across a reasonable spectrum of interpretation, bots cannot. Protonk (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
• Well, if Rich has been told before, and can't seem to run his bot appropriately without causing disruption, perhaps he should have to go through another bot approval process before he's allowed to run it again.--Crossmr (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • It appears to have been a good faith error and minor in the context of the number of edits the bot is performing. The damage done is not too significant. The best way forward might be to approach the AWB project about the fact that this is (incorrectly) classified as a general fix, which is the root of the problem. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
    • was this or was this not brought up before? Rich is an experienced editor and bot owner. If this was brought up before and decided to be an inappropriate change for his bot to make, I would expect him to no longer make those changes.--Crossmr (talk) 05:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't think that's a reasonable expectation - people make mistakes, including bot operators. One mistake in the context of 2 million edits is not surprising. It is reasonable to expect Rich not to deliberately make those changes, but there is no indication that this was anything but an accident. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Trouble is, this isn't one mistake. RF has been asked before not to use his bots to change the formatting of references - Wikipedia supports more than one style of referencing, and there is no obligation to use the bot's style. It's not the bot's error - it's the programmer's error.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to repeat my question: Shouldn't SmackBot now be given the task of reverting its own previous edits? To clean up after a bot you need a bot, or it will take a week to revert what the bot did in a couple of hours. --Hegvald (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverting it would practically be impossible at this point, unless the magic feature listed at meta could handle it. Given it's been spread out and many articles changed since I have no clue.with the personal style of one user poisoning it. It's arguably the largest possible case of vandalism since it's deliberately removing content and replacing it with a personal POV with a deliberately misleading edit summary on top and in practically a hidden manner. Very depressing form of WP:OWN, but will probably have to be left at never permitting it again unless the bot can be given orders to only act places where it's still top/previous change, assuming compliance. If an editor chooses a certain method of style, it's disruptive to change it, period. Bot operator needs to form a community consensus on the sole form of referencing if such views are so fervently held, as was mentioned above.♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, I don't see any evidence above of SmackBot removing content. Would you please either supply a diff or withdraw the accusation of vandalism? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not removing content (Datheisen seems to have got a bit carried away here I agree) but if someone repeatedly replaced the reference style in use in the article with a different style, against consensus and having been asked to stop; after the fourth time I think even you might term it vandalism. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Eyes are needed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison between HMS King George V and USS North Carolina

I nominated this page for deletion as I feel its not needed, but I have a major concern: Damwiki1 (talk · contribs), the article's creator, has left two messages on different user pages informing of the deletion and asking for assistance. On a hunch, I looked at the history of both pages; and one of the two pages - And heg (talk · contribs) was previously tagged as a sock of Damwiki1. I am concerned because this did not appear to go anywhere, and I know from experience that afd is a haven for socks, there may be an attempt at vote stacking. I have finals and will be occupied until Wednesday at the earliest, so if a few good users could keep an eye on this I would appreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I sent an apology to both users after I realized that this was against wiki policy. Both editors have been involved with the KGV class pages and I thought that they might want to know. This is was an honest mistake on my part. Damwiki1 (talk) 04:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

First, you are required to notify any other involved editors. I have done so. Second, Damwiki1 seems to have realized the issue per this comment. I can explain it to the editor further if needed though. Third, User:And heg hasn't edited for a few weeks so unless there is voting done at AFD, I think it's worth dropping. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I sent an apology to both users after I realized that this was against wiki policy. Both editors have been involved with the KGV class pages and I thought that they might want to know. This is was an honest mistake on my part. Damwiki1 (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Understandable. It seems counter-intuitive at times to say we don't want experienced editors to be notified but it keeps from gaming the system. I don't think there would be a problem with notification at the relevant WikiProject in the future. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how edits such as this and this are canvassing in any meaningful way - they seem in line with WP:CANVASS as the editors aren't being asked to do anything in particular. I don't see how it's any worse than Tom's own post notifying editors with an interest in this topic of the AfD here (which I also don't think is canvassing). Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, raising a concern here that And heg (talk · contribs) is a sock puppet based on them being tagged as such once and claiming that this "did not appear to go anywhere" seems out of line given that this was actually investigated but not confirmed through checkuser and the editor who raised the sock puppet report acknowledged that the editors may have some relationship but were different people. Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry all. I've been more or less off wikipedia for about two months. Revisiting for a few hours yesterday was suppose to help me get back into the feel of things here, but I guess I've been away long enough that I have gotten rusty at a few things. I can safely say I botched this one pretty badly, and for that I apologize to all. -- TomStar81 (talk · contribs) 76.211.107.188 (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a pity that TomStar81 (talk · contribs) did not see fit to place a notice on my talk page like the one he placed on Damwiki1's talk page. I had also put effort into the article TomStar81 nominated for deletion. Surely I also deserve to be told that he wants it deleted?--Toddy1 (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I must say that my experience as a wikipedian has been less than enjoyable, and this particular process (AFD) is supremely flawed, and should be stopped.And heg (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

@Toddy1: we are "encouraged" to notify the article creator when we nominate a page for deletion, but as a matter of course there is no requirement to do so. AS I noted above, its been a few monthes since I have been on here and I have gotten a little rusty with my procedures. For this I apologize, as it was not my intention to offend or upset anyone.

On that same note, this ANI thread I started should never have been opened, as it clears from the others posts that Damwiki1 is not engaging in any unsavory activity in the defense of this article. I believe then that the best course of action for all of us would be to move to have the thread closed and continue this discussion elsewhere; either the afd talk page or our own user talk pages. I reiterate that I apologize for moving on this too soon, as its obvious now that there is nothing behind these claims. I will exercise more caution about this in the future, and will accept a trout for this incident should one be presented. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel S. Peña Sr. (2nd nomination)

I have three concerns concerning this discussion:

• 1. As it previously closed as "keep", the renomination could be disruptive.
• 2. The claims for deletion are that it is an attack page; someone neutral might want to go through it and be sure nothing libelous is contained in the article.
• 3. There could be sockpuppetry going on in the AfD concerning:
  • Cablespy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Ludlom (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

The above two accounts have similar arguments and pretty much all of their edits are devoted to this guy. Someone else has raised this suspicion already in the AfD. In any event, this one might require an experienced set of eyes. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

AN is referring to abusive sockpuppetry. See Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Inappropriate_uses_of_alternate_accounts.--Chaser (talk) 01:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think most admins know what abusive sockpuppetry is (and definitely in regards to AFDs), but thanks anyways. First, I don't think renominating following a discussion from May is particularly disruptive. The article was deleted twice before that (with 158 deleted edits remaining), so it's not like this has always been that clear-cut. Second, I think paragraph by paragraph quotes of allegations aren't appropriate under WP:BLP (and the use of primary sources is very concerning) but I'm not even sure what to keep in this mind-numbing paragraph. There seems to be some pruning already done so I think we can wait until the AFD is complete (looks likely to pass) and then worry about those editors and the article itself. A WP:SSI report (or a checkuser) may be useful as it's very odd for "new" editors to not only list articles for deletion but to list them under the WP:BLP policy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It was intended for the two editors listed above.--Chaser (talk) 05:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Pickbothmanlol

I really didn't want to have to bring this to ANI, as I am usually loathe to participating in Wikipedia "drama." However, I feel as though this issue must be discussed, and no one else has brought it up.

Pickbothmanlol registered his Wikipedia account earlier this year but was indefinitely blocked as a vandalism-only account on February 13. After this he had a long and accomplished career as a sockpuppeteer (see this SPI and this diff). On November 20, J.delanoy unblocked Pickbothmanlol after a private discussion, assuming good faith in hopes that he would not be disruptive.

Instead, Pickbothmanlol went on a disruptive nomination spree at AfD, nominating mostly articles that were either speedily kept or speedily deleted. He made a bitey MfD nomination of a userspace draft, which was speedily kept. He also made at least a couple AfD nominations without citing valid reasons for deletion, prompting results of "speedy keep." He also nominated Zink Dawg for adminship, only to withhold his support for that candidate just minutes later, resulting in a WP:NOTNOW closure. He filed numerous unsuccessful requests at WP:CHU and WP:CHUU, apparently never reading the rules laid out at those pages. He also created a personalized version of the AfD template and tagged an article with it; the template was deleted after this MfD. The final straw was when he disruptively re-opened a five-year-old VfD discussion, resulting in this ANI discussion and the reinstatement of the indefinite block on November 26 by EyeSerene. The consensus at the discussion, in which I was a participant, was generally that WP:COMPETENCE is required and Pickbothmanlol's behavior is so incompetent and bizarre that is disruptive.

Fast-forward to December 4, just a few days later. DragonflySixtyseven, an administrator, unilaterally unblocked Pickbothmanlol, writing, "based on extensive discussion with the user, and careful analysis of his editing, I conclude that he was not acting maliciously." Note that malice was not the reason for the reinstatement of the indefinite block; it was disruptive incompetence. Note also that DS unblocked unilaterally after multiple admins declined unblock requests and multiple users recommended that Pickbothmanlol come back in a few months (see user's talk page). On December 5, I noticed that Pickbothmanlol had been unblocked and I wrote the following on DS's talk page:

Hi, DragonflySixtyseven. When I saw you'd unblocked Pickbothmanlol, I was shocked. I agree that most of his edits have been in good faith, but frankly they have often displayed pure incompetence and ended up being disruptive. After a lengthy career as a sockmaster, Pickbothmanlol was unblocked as a sign of good faith in November. His bizarre and incompetent edits led to his being blocked again by EyeSerene after this ANI discussion. As you can see from his talk page, his unblock requests were repeatedly declined, and for good reason. Therefore, I ask that you reconsider your decision to unblock this user so soon after he was blocked, especially given the fact that his contributions show that he's back to some of his old ways. Thanks, A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It has been more than 24 hours since then and DS has not responded, neither on my talk page nor on his, even though he's edited during that time. Meanwhile, Pickbothmanlol has continued to show disruptive incompetence by:

• Opening a SPI where no socking was occurring.
• Going on another AfD nomination spree, including numerous cases where the articles were actually speedy deletion candidates.
• Creating this template using a nonfree image in violation of WP:NFCC#9. When a user removed it, citing that policy, Pickbothmanlol re-added it with the mocking edit summary "wahwahwah". I removed it again and warned him on his talk page.
• Violating talk page guidelines by using Talk:Netscape Navigator 9 "as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic" (rather than discussing improvements to the article) here.
• Nominating Netscape Navigator 9 for featured article review here (now-deleted FAR nom here), apparently without bothering to read about FAR's purpose. (For starters, the article he nominated is not featured....)
• Asking a borderline-incomprehensible question at an RfA here.

Since DS has not provided sufficient reasoning for unblocking Pickbothmanlol against community consensus, and because Pickbothmanlol's behavior since his second good-faith unblock has been disruptively incompetent, I suggest reinstating the user's indefinite block. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Pickbothmanlol, DS, and EyeSerene notified of this discussion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing to say here except me and Dragon have privately discussed this on IRC. He has given me that one chance of being able to edit and I am grateful for it. Please don't take it away from me again so quickly. -Pickbothmanlol- 03:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been really busy and haven't had time to devote to composing a proper reply (and still don't, really). As for PMBL's competence, behavior/misbehavior, etc, I suggest a definite block rather than an indefinite one. Stern is fine, but not harsh: if he does something inappropriate, tell him so explicitly. If he does it again, block him for a week. He needs to not edit unmedicated, is what he needs. DS (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

His previous misbehaviour has been pointed out to him in an explicit terms on previous occasions. The record shows that produces no real improvement. This issue is not about his being medicated or otherwise, it's about his ability to participate constructively. I submit he cannot do so and in the interests of the project his account should be blocked. Crafty (talk) 03:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this looks like a bad unblock. I accept that DS acted in good faith in extending credit to Pickbothmanlol and seeing that he may turn out better, but he's either intentionally disruptive or not competent enough to be a quality editor, see WP:COMPETENCE. Its impossible to decide at this point, but it doesn't really matter. He's made little actual contribution to the project, has been unblocked in good faith multiple times only to engage in problematic behavior each time. Good faith is not a suicide pact, and we are not bound to extended it indefinately; additionally even if he is acting in good faith, if the results of his actions are disruptive to the project at this level, I am not sure it makes much diffference. With regard to DS wishing for an expiring block versus an indefinite one, what's the point?. Is there some magic number of days when this user will suddenly stop doing this behavior? I contend that he's been given ample opportunity to prove himself reformed, and has consistantly not done so. If we want to fix the problem, I would recommend some sort of indefinate topic ban from non-article space, not sure how that would be worded, but Pickbothmanlol is having problems that need to be remediated. --Jayron32 04:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's give Pickbothmanlol a chance to do some constructive editing. Topic ban from the problem areas for, say, 6 months. Plenty of other areas of Wikipedia to work on and prove that they can be productive. Mjroots (talk) 06:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Unilateral unblocks are almost always wrong, in addition to being rude. I support the reinstatement of the indefinite block until a workable modus vivendi supported by consensus is found, but I suggest that any person who apparently needs medication to edit Wikipedia usefully should not edit Wikipedia at all.  Sandstein  06:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 07:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• It's disappointing that DragonflySixtyseven didn't discuss reversing my admin action with me before diving in. I don't intend to reinstate the block, per WP:WHEEL, but fully support someone else doing so. My personal opinion, following an odd email from Pickbothmanlolafter I blocked them, is that the block was sound and they really aren't suited for this editing environment. Wikipedia is not the right place for everyone. EyeSerene^talk 09:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

When I look at Pickbothmanlol's edits, I see a lot of reasonably constructive edits, mixed in with occasional utter failures of common sense. He's done a lot to remove spam from Wikipedia, for example. But (in addition to the issues reported already) he's also reported a new user to UAA as "disruptive ... looks like a potential vandal", when that user's name didn't violate any existing policy and the "potential vandal"'s sole edit was in fact to add a reference; he's written a bizarre essay that glorifies Willy on Wheels and Grawp; and he's reported a sixth-grade class project to CheckUser instead of to School and University Projects. I admire some of the work that Pickbothmanlol has done, and the fact that he's attempting to get a better name (on that note, I don't understand why his name change to "Blush" was denied).

I hope that some resolution besides indefinitely blocking him can be found. I just don't know how to make someone gain some common sense, which is what he needs in order to help Wikipedia. rspεεr (talk) 09:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Would an admin please review the bizarre essay mentioned above. Per WP:DENY it is totally misguided and needs to be deleted (does it really need an MfD?). Johnuniq (talk) 10:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

As long as it remains a user essay, I see no reason to delete it. I also disagree that it glorifies anyone, but maybe that's just my reading at 5:45AM. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You can go ahead and delete it, I have no idea where my head was when making that. -Pickbothmanlol- 13:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Endorse reinstating the block, with apologies to Pickbothmanlol for being the victim of admin misconduct. Two things I really don't like about DS's actions: The unilateral unblock and subsequent inability to respond to criticism because he's "too busy". If you're too busy to properly motivate and defend your contentious admin actions, then don't make them.--Atlan (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to pile on, but I was surprised to see Pickbothmanlol unblocked as well. At some point you have to stop giving second chances. After 40+ chances, it's probably time to give up. Gigs (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Reblocked: In view of the discussion above, I am reimposing the indefinite block for persistent disruption due to a lack of general editing competence. The block may be lifted after a few months if the user can cogently explain how his condition, medical or otherwise, has changed in such a way that he will no longer make disruptive edits, and if he demonstrates his competence by drafting a new article on his user talk page that meets, or comes close to meeting, WP:GACR.  Sandstein  18:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Threat of Suicide

Please see [4]. I'm unsure as to whether any further action needs to be taken here. It's seriously concerning but this might just be simple vandalism. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 02:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

In theory it should be taken seriously, i.e. find out where that IP is and inform local authorities. raseaC^{talk to me} 02:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

If anyone is local to Auburn, Alabama the 24hr police non-emergency number is 501-3100. raseaC^{talk to me} 02:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I've notified and am currently waiting on a response from the Administrator who recently blocked the IP for standard vandalism. Notified of both the diff and this thread. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 02:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not know anything about that threat. I saw that the last edit inserted a bunch of "Blah Blah Blah"s all over the place, that they were after a recent final warning, and then blocked the IP. I was totally unaware of the suicide threat. Jesse Viviano (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Do we really report every since "suicide threat" to the police? That diff looks very much like a joke. At least in some countries, making unnecessary reports is also a crime, so this reporting policy of ours seems a bit concerning. Offliner (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Better to assume that they're all real rather than they're all fake. Or should we let someone sue Wikipedia because we all ignored their child's suicide warning? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 02:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on that one Offliner, it looks more like a "joke" (a very sick joke) than an actual threat. In regards to policy Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm is the only documented Wikipedia guideline on the subject that I am aware of and it states: "Law enforcement and emergency services have consistently stated that such reports are not a waste of their time, even in cases where the suicidal statements are determined to be a hoax or non-immediate threat." Though RTTOS is an essay and not an approved Wikipedia guideline or policy. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 03:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It might be a PR nightmare, but there is no liability to worry about. Wikipedia is not a mandated reporter. We have no duty here. -208.97.245.131 (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(ecx2):::There is a vast difference between a prank report ("do you have Prince Albert in a can?") and a sincere editor reporting an event which might or might not be a suicide threat. We are not paid to decide whether a suicide threat is real or not. The police and 911 responders are. Let them make that judgment. People should not be avoiding reporting these things because they think the police will be angry or annoyed at them - it is the responders' job to take reports and make the judgment calls required, not ours. If our report is sincere, we are not contravening any laws in North America. In my opinion, all suicide threats should be reported if humanly possible. --NellieBly (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I highly doubt any law enforcement agency would take offense to a report of a suicide threat, even if it did seem dubious. Where possible, report. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What the hell is going on? I heard the name Auburn mentioned in this thread. -Pickbothmanlol- 13:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware most experts would recommend treating any such threat as serious and you'd have to be very unlucky to find yourself on the wrong side of the law if you did report it. raseaC^{talk to me} 15:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

All suicide threats need to be reported.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be overly concerned. Usually, suicidals don't tell others about their intentions, until after they've committed suicide (via a letter, of course). GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This is absolutely, absolutely not true. I have to step in here and in the strongest possible terms tell you that you are factually wrong. I have worked as a counsellor for years with those who have attempted suicide. It is remarkably common for potential suicides to do just what you're saying they don't do. In fact, I would suggest that well over half of suicide attempts are predated by calls for help exactly like this. Unfortunately, TV and the mass media have convinced people beyond dissuasion that people who actually kill themselves don't ask for help. This has actually prevented friends and family from noticing calls for help or taking them seriously until it's too late. Please, please, please: don't fall into the "the mass media is right about everything, people are crazy and just looking for attention" trap. Suicides do this all the time. All the time. --NellieBly (talk) 07:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd also add that the majority of suicides do not leave suicide notes. Another thing people have picked up from TV and movies that doesn't reflect real life, to the point that survivors don't believe that a suicide actually killed himself if he didn't leave a note. TV is entertainment and doesn't reflect real life. --NellieBly (talk) 08:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Correct, as far as it goes; in my experience, those who are determined to top themselves will usually manage to do so, and do so either extremely dramatically (e.g. by leaping in front of a train) or very quietly (e.g. by OD'ing)- in neither case will they advertise the fact beforehand. But there is another case; the "cry for help" from those who may be desperate but not terminally so, and these are the people that tend to advertise beforehand in the hope that they might receive assistance. I realise we should not be in that business ourselves, and should resist false positives, but there is a humanitarian case for reporting them, per Jeanne Boleyn and others above. Rodhullandemu 00:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Concerns regarding comment removal

Will someone please censure this admin. When he didn't like what i said and refused to present a logical argument he resorted to abusing me then removed my comments to give himself the last word, even after I acknowledged my error! Clumsy and disgusting. Surprise me now with more abuse and removal of this request for his censure. Kevin McCready (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:TALK, there's nothing censurable about removing someone's comments from your own talk page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

As Sarek said, there's no issue here. By removing your comments, it's been acknowledged that they've been read. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 04:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Virtual steve may deserve censure for using that horrible blinking text.

Although in all seriousness, (and admitting ignorance to the specifics of the incident) I'd rather admins didn't remove messages and characterize those messages as prattling. Generally, admins should model the type of behavior they want.--Tznkai (talk) 04:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Ditto 42 and SarekOfVulcan, chummer. All users are permitted to remove any messages they wish from their talk page, provided they are not active block notifications, unblock requests made during same, and {{SharedIP}}. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 04:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Per above. I think VirtualSteve's response was quite understandable in the circumstances as further or no replies from VS would have likely led to more of the same. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec x3) Agreed with Tznkai. Also, although it's technically allowed and I even used to do it myself, I'm not keen on removing the last comment to a discussion, which gives the appearance to future readers that there was no further response. I'd rather people archive or remove entire discussions rather than select the last response so it looks like they got the last word. I'd like to see that as policy someday. Equazcion (talk) 04:46, 7 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. In general, removing a user's response to a section should only be done when you've told that user, in no uncertain terms, to stop posting on your talk page. I did that earlier this year with the (now-banned) LineofWisdom (talk · contribs) after I told him to stop posting; I wouldn't otherwise use it. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 04:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(EC x 5) Do you have any other evidence besides removing your comment from his talk page? There is no problem with removing comments from ones own talk page, per WP:BLANKING. Is this one instance what you want "censure" for? (after EC) I will concede Tznkai's point that the use of the term "prattling" is not model civil behavior, but admins are known to have emotions, and sometimes let something like that slip, especially if they feel hounded over an issue they have responded to. If VS has already said everything he has to say on the issue, it serves little purpose to keep asking him about it. So yeah, he shouldn't have used the term prattling. But a single instance of a term like that is not something that qualifies as admin abuse. --Jayron32 04:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess it's also the refusal to engage in a logical discussion and the constant abuse I get from him. Both behaviours should not be tolerated in an admin. The behaviour of User:Kevin (see my talkpage) was similar. I've taken the liberty to remove the resolved tag. Hope that's OK. I consider the issue is not resolved, and to place the tag there before I even have a chance to respond to other users seems a little rude. Kevin McCready (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What is your issue? Seriously? Your request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#McCready_edit_warring_topic_ban was literally put a few minutes ago, four days after this drama. You were complaining a few days about Kevin and then again the next day. Three admins tried to work with you, you play game with what you consider to be a proper review (feels like a bit like you are playing this to me), they've all told you to talk to ARBCOM instead and it's taken you up until a little while ago to actually do it? Can't you just wait for their response and focus on that or are you just itching to be completely blocked for disruption? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ricky you appear to make the erroneous assumption that the analyses of the admins involved are correct and mine is incorrect. If this is so then you would have had to look at my history since I joined wikipedia. Given the speed of your posting the other day on this matter, I doubt whether you would have had the time to do so. Please correct me if I am wrong. When I have pointed out why their analyses are incorrect, admins have withdrawn from my case and in one instance, now two it would appear, I have been threatened. Other users above have pointed out why Virtual Steve's behaviour is unacceptable. If you think it is "play game" to ask for logical discussion then I am guilty. The case I have brought here is obviously separate from my arbcom case. This case here on this page is about admins behaving badly. I maintain they should be censured for it. I'd like to see your logical arguments against. Please assume good faith and keep the goals of the project in mind. Kevin McCready (talk) 05:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The question is not whether or not he should have used the phrasing he did in that edit summary you cited. He probably shouldn't have. The question is if anything should be done about it. We don't go around formally admonishing, censuring, desysopping, whatever, every single time someone makes a minor error in judgement. Yeah, he screwed up. It just doesn't seem like the level of screw up that requires much of a response at this point. If you have evidence that this sort of thing is part of a long-term pattern of behavior on VirtualSteve's part, then there may be something to discuss. But asking for action on a single, isolated thing as minor as this seems vexatious. --Jayron32 05:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that in a situation where a group of admins each separately trying to discuss with you about whether you are or are not in a topic ban, each of whom after dealing with you no longer wants to bother, I fault the one consistent factor rather than assume a massive failure of our admin corps. You have been at this since October, and yet all you're done is complain that everybody who has bothered to assist you should be censured. I feel too involved to do more, but I find these persistent ANI discussion to be bordering on disruption. I guess I'll wait for my turn at the stocks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This problem has been going on for a year now. The topic ban has been reviewed on 11 Dec 2008, 20 Dec 2008, 13 Jan 2009 and again on 9 Mar 2009. Then I was asked to review the ban again despite my noting that I had nothing to add to my previous review. I'm not sure how long we should continue to beat this dead horse. It seems clear to me that Kevin McCready is more interested in vindication than getting the topic ban lifted, otherwise he would have availed himself of the ARBCOM suggestion much earlier. Kevin (talk) 06:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

A topic ban from further discussions about the topic ban? =) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ricky and Jayron you appear not to be grasping the whole picture though I am glad that now there is acknowledgment of Virtual Steve's bad behaviour - I'm sure he'll apologise. Apart from the gratuitous abuse (if I had done it I'm sure I'd be blocked) the issue is admins withdrawing from discussion as soon as their logic is questioned. Kevin and Virtual Steve both had the opportunity here to answer some simple questions. Instead they withdrew and started a campaign of abuse. Kevin, it is plainly ridiculous to entertain the thought that I am interested in "vindication" rather than having the ban for edit warring removed. All I am interested in is someone applying logic to the situation. Instead I get abuse. Not a good look. Kevin McCready (talk) 07:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You ask someone about whether you are in a topic ban. The admins say they will do it and later renege and tell you to go to ARBCOM. Instead of doing that, you spend days doing nothing but badgering them and posting reports on ANI. Show me the pattern of abuse or I'm honestly blocking you right now for disruption. I've had enough of this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This is extraordinary. You admit that admins have reneged. Where I come from reneging on your word is a very serious matter. Evidence for the following is all available on my talkpage.

The simple test which admin Kevin said he would apply was whether or not my record since the ban for edit warring showed improvement. He then asked, paradoxically, whether I wanted my earlier history to be reviewed. I responded that what was important was my behaviour and contributions since the ban. And what do you know, he then purports to examine the lengthy history and, more amazingly, says he will only examine my contributions since March 2009, not my contributions since the ban was enacted, thus contradicting the terms he and I agreed to and, get this bit, his reason is that "he doesn't want to drag any old issues up" having just justified his decision that way anyway. Then, wonder of wonders, he says there are not enough edits to form a view. Funny that. Ignore a whole year's contributions and then say there is not enough evidence. He then claims some of my edits were reverted as POV and when asked to provide a diff comes out swinging and says I'm complaining that he hasn't done a proper review. Too right he hasn't.

Now Ricky, are you going to seriously tell me that Admin Kevin has conducted a proper review or are you going to abuse, threaten me and attempt to cower me? Would you review someone's contributions, ignore a whole year of them, and then claim there weren't enough to form an opinion? Kevin McCready (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

I warned him and I'm done with this. He's been at it with everybody since October and going back further. He's the one on restrictions, not anybody else. A simple "go to ARBCOM" doesn't take three ANI reports and a week of time (Kevin's reason was fine with me and he doesn't deserve this kind of berating). Feel free to unblock him if it affects his ARBCOM proceeding in any way. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked user blanking his Talk Page

I know editors can blank their talk page as they wish, but User:DisneyRah, who was blocked for copyright violations (he received three separate warnings, the last of which was a final warning, and was blocked after the fourth violation) has blanked her Talk Page. The only reason I didn't include her Talk Page in the block is because the Talk Page is needed in case she wants to appeal it. Is blanking under these circumstances permissable? If not, what should be the response? Should I restore the block notice and protect her page? Nightscream (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Users are not permitted to remove active block notices, so yes, restore the block notice. Do not protect the page yet. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 04:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I made a similar mistake once before regarding when a blocked user is or isn't allowed to remove the block notice. Apparantly, WP:BLANKING says nothing about removing a block notice while a block is in place. It just doesn't allow the removal of an unblock request while a block is in place. Upon reflection, I think the difference makes sense. Singularity42 (talk) 08:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• When you're blocked, you can only use your talk page to appeal the block. Not to carry on conversations or do anything else. If other warnings are blanked, we consider them read. Someone who blanks a block message, clearly didn't get the message. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• • I'm going to agree with MGM here. The spirit of policies like WP:BLANKING is that they apply to editors in good standing. An editor who is blocked is being asked to not edit Wikipedia at all. The courtesy of allowing them to edit their talk page while blocked is to allow them to appeal or discuss their current block. Activity which is unrelated to direct appeals or discussions of the current block should not take place regardless of what specifically is "allowed" or not by WP:BLANKING. If the user is being generally disruptive, by removing block notices while blocked, they should be discouraged from doing so. When their block expires, they return to "good standing" and can do whatever they want. But there is no compelling reason to allow a blocked user to obfuscate the reasons for their own block, or to continue to be generally disruptive. The user should be asked to either contest the block via the proper channels, or wait until it expires. Any other behavior is not tolerable. --Jayron32 16:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Then find consensus to amend WP:BLANKING. Users are currently allowed to remove block notices from their talk page. They're blocked, they want the notice removed, who cares. It's evidence they understand they are blocked. Tan | 39 16:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter at all whether a blocked user removes block notices or anything else except for declined unblock requests from his page. This is best ignored.  Sandstein  19:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing a block notice from one's own Talk Page does not fall within the spirit of Good Faith. Removing a record of one's behavior makes it more difficult for new visitors to the page to see that record, and form an accurate picture of the editor's standing. This is precisely what happened when User:JohnFromPinckney gave a copyright violation warning to DisneyRah, and later indicated that he didn't know it was her third. Moreover, the block page provides blocked editors with editing privileges over their own Talk Page as an option one can check or uncheck, saying:

Allow this user to edit own talk page while blocked (disable only for users known to abuse own talk page)

DisneyRah's blanking clearly falls under the definition of abuse, not only in light of her bad faith blanking, but these abusive edits as well: [5][6]. Nightscream (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• It's not counter to WP:BLANKING, best to just ignore it. It should be noted that the abusive edits might not have occurred had the bear not been poked and the page allowed to stay blank. –xeno^talk 22:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Just ignore it, because it doesn't matter if it is blanked or not, he's still blocked either way. Prodego ^talk 02:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Post disco

There is one user in this wikipedia, called User:RockandDiscoFanCZ, who seems to be highly interested in the topic of post-disco. As you can discover from his contribution, while having been agreed on the issue that topic is even a questionable one to be existing here, he has been adding the tag of 'post disco' to various articles about songs. Those addition were frequently based on his personal opinions on what a song sounds like and what the only 'righteous' version of the history of music is. That is clearly seen from his comments on his edits. Moreof, this user doesn't seem to have appropriate etiquette skills, as his discussion posts often feature strong words.

Since his registration about year ago, he had been already engaged into numerous controversies on the topics of Disco, Techno, Post-disco and on the obsession over genre infobox colours.

I'd like to request for the clarifying of this user's behaviour in terms of this project's rules and his edits made, thank you. -- Appletangerine un (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, nice. It looks like some kind of provocation. I have nothing to say. This report is just ridiculous. I've expected that Wikipedia is going to bankruptcy or something that serious and finally I had read some kind of "he is a colorphile, he doesn't belong to here, etc" stuff. Funny.

Also "... who seems to be highly interested in the topic of post-disco."/"Those addition were frequently based on his personal opinions on what a song sounds like and what the only 'righteous' version of the history of music is" - a point-of-view comments. Second comment tells to the world, that you have been watching me for a long time. Looks like a some kind of disliking obsession, you know.

"Moreof, this user doesn't seem to have appropriate etiquette skills, as his discussion posts often feature strong words." - personal "WP:OR" "attack".

Have a nice day, dude. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have notified the user about this discussion. GiantSnowman 15:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably falls into the realm of dispute resolution. At first glance, I can't see any possible admin action. Tan | 39 15:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I spotted this problem, and the reality is that post-disco is not a genre, it's a myth, perpetuated by one specific wikipedia user. There's a discussion here, that sets out where the central issue lies, in summary, all musicological sources that feature the term post-disco (or postdisco) are referring to the era in popular music history when disco music was in decline. None use this term to describe a genre of music. The only source that uses it as a genre descriptor is an anonymously written Allmusic entry. Measles (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You can't say it's a myth and have an article at Post-disco with dozens of reliable sources (even though they look to be using the term for a variety of meanings). If he has a reliable source, then he's fine. If he doesn't, then it should be replaced with one (not replaced with another unsourced version). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If there's no agreement what the term means, it's hard to decide what sources are reliable on the subject, isn't it? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted all of your conspiracy useless edits, because we're (Wikipedia) working so hard on that article and you deleted that article in a few hours, you just you... without talking with us. You're not a god or something like that and you CAN'T change/delete article without previous discussion. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Also I requesting that this new user will be checked for sockpuppets if he's not a user called User:Wikiscribe (i was not in wikipedia for a long time, when i came back... i had reverted that user called Wikiscribe and then appeared this curious stranger called Appletangerine un and he's mostly start reverting post-disco article. So strange). RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ricky, please take a good look at the "dozens of reliable source" and establish exactly what they are saying; none claim that post-disco is a genre of music, except the anonymous single paragraph from the Allmusic website. I can't find a single musicological source that uses the term in the context of describing a genre of music, but it is consistently used to refer to an era of music, talk disputes this fact, and is at this stage POV pushing on the matter of post-disco as a genre of music. Measles (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Neutralhomer

Resolved

 – User reblocked

I have blocked the above user for disrupting Wikipedia by continually adding non-free content. Please note, although I have been active in correcting these breaches of policy, I consider that my actions are an objective implementation of our policy; it is above a mere 'content dispute' As such I have not abused admin tools. However, if anyone would be happier to unblock and reblock, then feel free. The JPS^{talk to me} 15:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Not the best block, IMO. Regardless of it, Neutralhomer has explicitly agreed not to violate the non-free policy in the future. In light of this, I have unblocked. Tan | 39 16:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your intervention. I have commented on your own talk page. The user has a history of this, and it is time that we strictly apply policy. Several editors have attempted to explain this to him, and I felt that a block was the only way that he might learn. My block was preventative. However, I accept your judgment. The JPS^{talk to me} 16:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you cite what policy you are going by in sanctioning this user? WP:NFCI #2 does not list a critical commentary criteria for logo usage, and Wikipedia:Logos#Logo choice addresses historical logos in that their usage should be specified in the image's rationale, but again, no specification of critical commentary within the article itself. Tarc (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Both images fail WP:NFCC#8 by a long way. We are not a repository for non-free logo galleries. He added the image claiming that there "was critical commentary" when (a) there wasn't, and (b) he knows very well that this means "critical commentary about the image", not "vaguely mentioning the station that the logo refers to". The user has been repeatedly warned about this before, and clearly doesn't think that WP:NFCC is worth following. Bad unblock - you shouldn't do this without knowing the history. Black Kite 18:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

BlackKite is correct. The section to which Tarc points describes the use of a historical logo as an alternative to the current logo in the infobox. It is convention that we accept one, current logo in an infobox. A gallery of non-free images without context is a breach of WP:NFCC#8. The JPS^{talk to me} 23:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and re-block him, then. (slaps own wrist, bad Tan). Tan | 39 19:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Marked resolved. Black Kite 19:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats and personal attack

Two new legal threats from User:Alastair Haines:

"Since I was recently published in the US as a religious expert, though, there are also options I'd like to avoid like formal processes regarding whether Wiki can be classed as a service provider, if it has and exercises powers to restrict protected speech, like widely recognised religious points of view... I trust ArbCom to finally defend me. However, if they don't, and these repeated unsupportable challenges against my professionalism as a writer are permitted to be published, I have no choice but to defend myself."[7]

"I have plenty of time, I've recently been published in the US, and I have legal advice for here and there. I don't want this to blow up in the face of our wonderful project."[8]

He's also personally attacking me on other user's talk pages for seeking enforcement of previous ArbCom restrictions against him. Kaldari (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I've notified the user. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[Edit-conflict] I left him a request to clarify or reword those comments you mentioned, and also alerted him to the presence of this thread. Prodego ^talk 16:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, that diff above ("personal attack") is not. Tan | 39 16:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the attack page linked to in the diff (especially the bottom of it)? That most certainly meets the definition of personal attack. Accusing me of "unwillingness to compromise, edit warring, biased treatment of a reliable source" and violating 3RR simply because I reverted a paragraph 3 times over the course of several days (a year ago!), and then advertising this as evidence of my "behavior" problems, sure feels like a personal attack to me. He's definitely not discussing content here. Kaldari (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I disagree that the accusations aren't content related. I dunno, nominate it at MfD if you are so inclined. I don't see any admin action required here. Tan | 39 16:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Are personal attacks on Wikipedia ever not "content related"? To quote from Wikipedia:No personal attacks: "disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done". Clearly he is disparaging me personally, not making a content argument. Kaldari (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. And I agree with Tan that that's pretty far from a personal attack. Toddst1 (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I also wouldn't call it a personal attack. Prodego ^talk 17:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Marked resolved, there's nothing to do here. Black Kite 18:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Unmarked resolved due to the other half of the complaint, regarding legal threats. Make sure you read the whole thread before marking it resolved Black Kite. That said, there is nothing to do now but wait for Alastair Haines to clarify his remarks, which I'm sure will resolve the problem. Prodego ^talk 22:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, missed that part - mea culpa Black Kite 00:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If I may, I would like to offer this diff [[9]] for those that may have missed it. Seems like a nice quick resolution is close at hand.--Buster7 (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Virtually every sentence in that diff is untrue. I have wasted plenty of hours discussing issues ad naseum on article talk pages with him, as have numerous other editors. He is, however, intractable in his POV and editing habits, as demonstrated by the following ArbCom decisions, amendments, and discussions [10][11][12][13], as well as his block log. I fail to see how his "appeal for peace" addresses the issue of the legal threats. Kaldari (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Isonomia and keeping Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident managable.

Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident is very hard for editors to follow. It is made far harder by individuals who want to use the talk page to talk about the event, rather than proposing/discussing edits to the article. User:Isonomia is by far the worst offender in this instance. [14], [15], [16], and [17], are all examples of him starting new sections that are either mostly polemics against the editors editing the article or him attempting to discuss the topic, rather than the article. This user was warned for this behavior - by me here. His response [18] to my narrowly tailored warning was to discuss the name of the article.

Blocking this user for expressing his POV would be inapropriate at this stage. I merely ask that someone ban him from creating new sections on this one article talk page - a narrowly tailored remidy that would still allow him to participate in full. If he needed to insert a new talk page section, he could request that another user do so for him on that users talk page - mine, even. The talk page in question, however, is overburdened, and needs help to keep it viable and to prevent edit warring. Hipocrite (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the point, I'm going to get banned anyway just for trying to getting anything near NPOV. I have been complaining for ages about the disgraceful POV pushing on climate articles and the concerted efforts by certain groups of editors to censor these articles, to the extent it is impossible to contribute in any sensible way. There's no doubt that if anyone dares to include anything contrary to these editors POV they will get banned - and no doubt this is what is going to happen - the censorship is now an epidemic! If Wikipedia can't sort out its own house is it any surprise that editors are leaving in droves leaving nothing but these POV pushers.Isonomia (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean that fringe opinions get to be placed alongside mainstream ones to achieve "balance", this is perhaps the most common error made in political or otherwise controversial articles. It seems that you have been waging a 1-man war to rename the article "Climategate", and using blogs and such to support that point of view. This mirrors the birthers' attempts to get questionable material into Obama-related articles on the "evidence" provided by blogs. In short; not gonna happen. Tarc (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, not to be to blatently refocus, but I'm not interested in talking about PoV pushing and unreliable sourcing, but merely cluttering up the talk page with sections discussing the topic rather than the article. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Accusing Wikipedia editors en masse of censorship is a self-fulfilling complaint. Nobody wants to discuss content with editors who are hurling accusations of bad faith at them. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:TALK allows one to revert talk page additions that don't discuss ways to improve the article at hand. We regularly have to do some of that on Talk:P = NP problem where editors (socks?) keep adding unintelligible proofs, e.g. [19]. Pcap ping 18:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh please put me out of my misery. The very first article I read has this quote: "Climategate has become part of our vocabulary after the unauthorised release of emails, documents and code from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia. Suddenly it has become one of the most searched terms on Google [Climategate results from Google] , with over 30 million results since first being coined just over a week ago. You would have to be Tiger Woods to pull more interest than that." [20] I simply cannot reconcile the unequivacable use in the media of the use of Climategate with the POV title that has been given to this article (and there are hundreds of other POVs in climate). To be honest I don't care tuppence for the feelings of the many editors that have allowed this pathetic POV push tocome epidemic in the climate articles. I would prefer to be banned for trying to get Wikipedia to tell the truth than to lend my credibility to articles that attempt to distort the simplest facts, like the name Climategate, or the fact that temperatures are currently cooling, or ... Isonomia (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Temperature does not equal climate. If this isn't evidence we need experienced scientists working on these articles I don't know what is. Also, "Climategate" as a title tells us nothing. It's just another stupid media neoligism, where they append "gate" the end and of some other unrelated word so they have crap to write about. The article on the Monica Lewinsky scandal isn't called "Monicagate", even though the stilly press were calling it that. Hell, even the article on the Watergate scandal is called "Watergate scandal", not just "Watergate". Media buzzwords are silly and not especially encyclopedic. 18:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)<>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk)

The problem that anyone who was skeptical of the "science" behind these articles has faced, is that the only sources deemed "reliable" were from the very "scientists" who wrote these emails. How do you fight censorship like that? The only "reliable" sources are climategate "scientists" and anyone else was being actively prevented from publication by these same "scientists". The stupid thing is that despite being told many many times by various people (all of whom got banned eventually for daring to speak up) Wikipedia permitted climate articles to restrict their source to the small climategate community. Now, not only is every climate article reliant on the integrity of this small group, but almost every editor that was willing to correct this censorship has decided that their time was better spent elsewhere. There are almost no editors left on climate who are not part of the "in" (i.e. climategate) crowd - many of whom are admins and will ban anyone like me for speaking out - so how on earth do you bring back a NPOV from a situation like that? Isonomia (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You could start on the article talk page or appropriate dispute resolution forum by making a calm, rational, non-accusatory presentation of the evidence behind your suggestion. On the other hand you dare the community to ban you for calling them names they might just take you up on it. I don't participate in climate change articles and from this little thread I'm already at the end of my patience hearing claims that everyone here is a POV-pushing conspiracy against the WP:TRUTH. I can only imagine how little patience regular article editors have for this. Whether by accepting consensus or getting yourself blocked, you may face the very real possibility that you cannot convince people of your position and that this project runs on consensus informed by reliable sources, not on political arguments. If the quote-unquote scientists (as you call them) have gained the upper hand in the scholarly and academic community, and the serious mainstream press, then Wikipedia will reflect that because as an encyclopedia we are for the most part a compendium of the established view, not the forum to air critiques and conspiracy theories about the establishment. Article titles generally reflect the formal, proper, non-colloquial titles for things, and in the case of events a dry brief title describing the event, rather than informal names however popular. Paradigm shifts don't start on encyclopedias, they end up there after gaining acceptance everywhere else. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, yes of course I'm having a rant - after all that time watching the POV push, to finally know it wasn't my own bias but a real conspiracy by this group to "hide the downturn" as they so aptly put it. To answer your point, I would like to spend the time going through all the articles detailing the POV, but without agreeing even very simple things like whether or not the BBC is a credible source (quoting them as saying the climate is currently cooling), I would be wasting my time. And let me be entirely candid, the kind of people who are likely to sceptical - are the how do I put it - selfish 4x4 petrol heads without a social conscience who aren't going to be spending their time here unless they get paid by the Heartland Institute. Anyone who attempts to edit Wikipedia as a sceptic of the so called "consensus" will have an uphill task even if the "other" side acted with good faith - when many are zealots who seem to work 24/7 on these articles, then banning me is the only humane thing to do! Isonomia (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Isonomia, I suggest that you calm down and listen to WD. He's one of our better editors. I completely agree with you regarding the bias in these articles and how it came to exist. But there isn't a chance of changing that overnight. It will take a long time and a lot of patience. Frankly, my experiences at ACORN and Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation have led me to believe that even the smallest move toward NPOV, on politically charged articles, takes enormous amounts of work. Rome wasn't built in a day. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll head over there and take a look. Strictly as a content matter it does seem like the mainstream press seems to be having fun calling it "climategate". - Wikidemon (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Continued Incivility by Dapi89

NOTE: Moved here from AN <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I had earlier filed an incivility report for user Dapi89 [[21]]. No action was taken but a few messages left on his talk page by different administrators.

Since the last incident, in my opinion Dapi89 continues his uncivil behavior. Here are some examples:

1) Accused me of lying [[22]]. I take this accusation seriously. An examination of the posts will reveal that the accusation of lying is without basis.

2) Called a post by me "drivel" [[23]]

3) Wrt post by user Hohum "silly thing to say" and "total nonsense". [[24]]

4) Wrt post by user Hohum "issuing simpleton statements" [[25]]

5) Again called a post by me "Drivel" and "your nonsense responses". [[26]]

I am trying to conduct the discussion with Dapi89 with civility, which is one of the 5 pillars of Wiki. Dapi89 has been banned 3 times before [[27]]. I would appreciate if an admin looked into this.

Thanks,

Steel2009 (talk) 06:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This editor has been consistently canvassing editors who have previously blocked me. This is incivility. Hand on heart; I'm not responding to any more of this guys baiting. His sole purpose during his few weeks on wikipedia, to which he has not contributed anything, and has had all bar one edit of his reverted, is a testament to his intentions. His claims that he is being reasonable are totally false. Using language to describe my points as "weak" is deliberately provocative. He needs to grow up, and stop trying to build a coalition by seeking out editors all over wikipedia to eliminate someone who he doesn't agree with. Dapi89 (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

One more thing: Steel2009 has been engaged in his own incvility - "absurd" and "silly" are certainly used to describe other peoples contributions. Double standards. [28] as noted previously [29]. Dapi89 (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Instead of saying that everything I do is "baiting", why don't you address the specific issues, such as your accusation that I was lying [[30]]. Can you back up this accusation with specific facts? Steel2009 (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Describing something as 'weak' does not sound like any kind of personal attack. Do you have any diffs to support anything that you have said. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This is absurd! Can't this be discussed without involving the noticeboard and without having to rely on abusive language to drive a point across? I gladly offer to mediate between the involved parties. This discussion here is not in favour of the article nor does it calm down the situation. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Mr B, I believe you are well intentioned and respect you. I think there are two issues: 1) The discussion about what should be there in the article Blitzkrieg 2) The tone used by Dapi89 in his interactions. The post here is about the second issue rather than the first. The second issue is about how interactions happen in Wiki generally. However I do not claim that I am always right about everything. As I said, I respect you, and if you believe you can mediate I am willing to accept that. I would like Dapi89 to be civil in his interactions with other editors. It would also be nice if he were to retract the accusation he made about me lying. If you believe I should change my behavior is some manner, I am open to that too. Steel2009 (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

86.136.34.228 at System of a Down and other artists

Resolved

 – Wp:OWN, WP:BITE and WP:EW. Toddst1 (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

86.136.34.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a run of the mill genre troll, except that they change the order of band members (which are listed in the order they are on album covers) and remove correctly wikilinked instruments. They are continuing to repeat the same edits despite numerous notes, cautions, and warnings. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, he hadn't edited for nearly 2 hours before the start of this thread, so I think that just the warning you gave him will serve. If he keeps reverting, then report him at WP:AIV.--Iner22 (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it. The last warning was before his last vandalous edit. The warning before that I gave several days/reverts ago. I will go to WP:AIV. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the vandalism. I've rejected the report at AIV. Toddst1 (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What I see is Floydian (talk · contribs) WP:OWNing the article and WP:EW to defend his/her control and WP:BITEing. Warned as such. Toddst1 (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I see this is resolved, but it looks like you missed this [31] bit of vandalism. Perhaps this is the reason Floydian is a bit annoyed. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, now that is WP:Vandalism. I've warned the IP. However that doesn't excuse the WP:EW.Toddst1 (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick request...

 Done - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

courtesy blanked - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed/reformatted the above talk per guidelines and forwarded the request onto the appropriate mailing list. I hope nobody is against this; feel free to revert my change. (Will explain in more detail shortly.) --Mpdelbuono (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Just for a brief explanation of what I did there. I know it was BOLD removing something from a page such as this but WP:RFO states, the goal is to revert the change but do not attract additional attention. I removed the link that was posted here and renamed the title in hopes that it would not attract attention until it was oversighted. Now that it has been, I can safely indicate my justification without worrying about that diff. Thanks for the report, Adolphus79, but in the future your best way to request oversight is through the means specified at WP:RFO. Regards --Mpdelbuono (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you... I will take to RFO if needed in the future... - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Abusive editing by User:Jadams2484

Jadams2484 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been a disputant in the ongoing dispute surrounding Crucifixion in art, and has been vandalizing my talk page: [32]. User has now made this edit: [33] to my talk page, which I think is beyond the pale. User notified: [34]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Telling someone to consider killing themselves is way over the line. The editor does have an apparent history of some few good edits over a fairly long period of time, so I would be disinclined to an indefinite block, but I think this probably goes beyond just getting a warning. John Carter (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked for 72 hours; comments like that aren't acceptable. Shell ^babelfish 21:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that's an outcome that I fully support. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Repeated misuse of rollback function by User:Legolas2186

Resolved

 – Rollback revoked by Tiptoety. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 08:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Legolas2186 has an ongoing history of using the rollback feature – only to be used to revert blatant vandalism – to revert good-faith edits, which is unacceptable behavior. When I left a message on his talk page, he responded with a rather nasty/rude comment accusing me of being a sockpuppet, which he has for some reason done since I joined here. Some recent examples of this inappropriate behavior:

• 12:07, 7 December 2009 — reverts an IP's good-faith addition of a new paragraph to the article and a minor wording change
• 06:13, 7 December 2009 — not a necessary removal, though an explanation would definitely have been needed as this was not blatant vandalism
• 05:09, 7 December 2009 — again, needs an explanation as this is not vandalism
• 05:09, 7 December 2009 — judging from the rollback above the previous one, he seems to be using the feature in a content dispute, a big no-no
• 06:24, 5 December 2009 — reverts genre change and improper addition of hangon tag; not vandalism. This was the edit I warned him about.

This user does not seem to understand what the rollback feature is meant to be used for, and noting that he was blocked in July for a 3RR violation on Chillin (Wale song) and just two months ago, he was nearly blocked (instead agreed to 1RR for a month) for again violating the rule on Celebration (Madonna album). This user is too aggressive with rollback and has a history of edit warring, which is why I believe his rollback privileges should be revoked. Chase wc⁹¹ 22:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'll leave a message on his talk page. I'm inclined to remove the tool, but I would like to have him/her contribute to the discussion first. Protonk (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

  (ec) I would have to agree with Chase, especially with the third diff. That is not even content removal (as the warning he gave the user suggested) but copyediting. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 22:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Ok. Diffs like: this, this, this or this (maybe not on that last one) seem like appropriate uses of rollback or reasonable errors. However, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, or this are not. Sorry for the forest of diffs, but making a claim about use/abuse of rollback requires an abundance of examples. I want to stress that misuse of rollback is a big problem, but that the absence of an edit summary does not mean that communication is absent. If those talk pages were well attended or the editors on the other side of the equation were particularly uncommunicative or reticent, there might be some cause for us not to take the tool away. Factors may exacerbate the problem, such as edit wars using rollback (I only went through the user's contributions which were rollback edits, I didn't look at the page histories for other edits). One last concern. Wikipedia's collection of music articles are both updated by and under constant assault from IP editors. Unlike Tikhonov regularization or Total derivative, these articles are high profile and can be the subject of benign edits which are nevertheless unhelpful or innacurate (changing names, genre-trolling, speculation). Maintaining the quality of these articles is an especially thankless job because the Brahmans of wikipedia look down on music/pop-culture articles (contra Clovis I, where expansion and maintenance is uniformly treated as "increasing human knowledge"). So lets be cautious. Protonk (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(EC with two entries below) I am generally in agreement with Protonk on this one. None of the edits seems like outright abuse of the tool (such as using it to gain the upper hand in a rapid edit war). Probably a few less-than-ideal uses, but functionally, since he removed edits that probably should have been removed anyways, whether he did it via "two-click rollback" the function formerly known as "undo" or "one-click rollback" is mostly pedantic. Should he have left edit summaries or talk page notes explaining his action? Probably. Is it worth instantly removing the tool, or would a simple reminder to leave some explanation on reverts of good-faith edits, regardless of how many clicks he used to roll it back? The latter seems more appropriate. (after EC) And then again, whatever... Looks like action has already been taken. Easy come, easy go. --Jayron32 23:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• I get your point, but regardless of communication or not, Legolas rollbacked edits that were not vandalism and in one recent incident, used it in an edit war. This completely goes against what the function is for. Legolas is a good-faith editor for the most part and he definitely takes care of many entertainment/music articles. However, Twinkle's rollback tools seem better suited for him at this point. We should not reward users like him with privileges like this, and until he can learn to revert in better faith and better differentiate between vandalism and good-faith edits, he does not need the rollback tool. Chase wc⁹¹ 23:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed, and rollback is easy come easy go I have revoked the tool. Should he prove that he understands how to appropriately use the tool in a few months I would be more than happy to re-grant him the flag. Tiptoety ^talk 23:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• A few points. 1. The sooner we get the hell away from the misconception that tools are rewards, the better off we will be. 2. Rollback is easy-come, easy-go, but my lesson from my last rollback incident was that removing the tool tends to piss people off. 3. I hate to invoke the A Few Good Men argument, but most non-RCP rollbacks/reverts exist in this nether region between vandalism and content editing. We have to respect that. This is largely moot as Tiptoety has removed the tool. I hope it resolves itself more neatly than other times. Protonk (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Legolas was found to have misused rollback in a dispute that was brought to 3RR in October, as noted above, and he already apologized for this usage on 3 October. An apology is good but a change in behavior is even better. In spite of my lengthy dialog (two months ago) with this editor regarding the definition of vandalism and proper usage of rollback, it seems there was no change in his behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 05:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• It's moot anyway. Tiptoety removed the tool and I have no intention of reversing (or suggesting we reverse) that action. Protonk (talk) 06:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Opinions please on the use of multiple wiki-ids at the same time?

Resolved

 – Explicitly identified alternate accounts, being used in compliance with the alternate account policy. Nothing to see here and this is not the right venue to debate the meta issue on whether multiple accounts should be allowed. –xeno^talk 01:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I encountered today what I regard as a disturbing pattern of edits, from a contributor who makes use of multiple wiki-ids. Most of the edits by the contributer behind User:Boleyn, User:Boleyn2 and User:Boleyn3, uses these three wiki-ids alternately, mainly, or perhaps entirely, to manage the wikipedia's disambiguation pages. I described my concerns in detail here.

Basically, it seems to me that their pattern of using multiple wiki-ids is both counter to our policies, obfuscates responsibility for their edits, and could easily be interpreted as a pattern of bad faith.

In this example the person behind these edits made some edits that eroded the usefulness of the disambiguation page, using User:Boleyn3. Then a few days later they made a speedy deletion nomination of the damaged disambiguation page from User:Boleyn2.

I can see that the person behind these multiple wiki-ids has justified the use of multiple ids because their watchlist grew too long for a single wiki-id.

But surely, if this were a valid justification for using multiple wiki-ids, the person requesting this exemption from our policies should make sure the supplementary wiki-ids are used solely for reading articles, and monitoring changes.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

if one chooses to use this method to keep multiple watchlists, I think the tendency to also use them to edit or comment on the pages seen on that watchlist would be very great, whether or not one realized it at the time. Given the names, I cannot see that any harm is done at all. If one used an less obviously related name, yes, that would not be a good idea. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Geo Swan, it's reasonable for you to raise this question, because this situation is not covered by Wikipedia:SOCK#Legitimate uses of alternate accounts, and of course any covert use of multiple accounts (or of undeclared edits while not logged in) is a serious abuse of Wikipedia's policies. However, in this case the account-holder has tried hard to show how the accounts are connected, e.g. "User:Boleyn is the same editor as User:Boleyn2 and User:Boleyn3. The sole purpose of having the 3 accounts is to increase my watchlist." Boleyn has 31,542 edits (count), Boleyn2 has 31,045 (count) and Boleyn3 has 15,438 (count) – all predominantly in article space, a vast effort for Wikipedia – and none of these accounts has ever been blocked. I know that a lot of these edits are tweaks to disambiguation pages, but that is a valuable contribution to our readers and reduces the chance that inexperienced contributors will attempt to create articles that already exist. I think you have probably found "the exception that proves the rule" in this case. - Pointillist (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like a problem, per WP:ILLEGIT it's only an issue if they're editing the same article with multiple accounts to give the false impression that multiple people are editing it. (For example, create an article with one account, then use a second account to remove a speedy deletion tag, or use 2 accounts in an edit war to avoid 3RR.) There's nothing in the sock policy saying that using multiple accounts to manage watchlists is permitted, but I'd say let it go per WP:IAR. This editor seems to be going out of their way to make it as clear as possible that all of these accounts are the same person (even redirecting user pages). -- Atama頭 01:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think "Ignore all rules" was every intended to allow sockpuppetry, was it? In my opinion we should make it very clear that editing from multiple accounts is prima facie wrong (i.e. regardless of Mens rea), except for situations explicitly allowed by policy. This principle should not be undermined. On the other hand, I have no problem extending the current policy to allow the Boleyn/2/3 watchlist approach, if the account-holder has explicitly linked the accounts from day one. - Pointillist (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:IAR is meant for anything that makes the wiki better if a policy is ignored. So yes it would fit in this situation. That being said as I mentioned below, the sort of action they are taking is explicitly allowed by policy so its not needed here. -DJSasso (talk) 01:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

More than "Is there any policy violation here?" the right question is "Is there any harm being done here?". If there isn't, simply let the user keep up with the good work MBelgrano (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Your approach shifts the balance of proof from the contributor to the community. The right question is "can any harm be done?". No harm can be done where the accounts are explicitly connected, but the community can't estimate what harm could be done if one person is secretly using multiple accounts. This is one policy that should be stated and interpreted strictly ...if only because we can't spare the admin/arb bandwidth to police borderline cases if there is a large gray area. - Pointillist (talk)

This clearly falls under Maintenance: An editor might use an alternate account to carry out maintenance tasks. The second account should be clearly linked to the main account. -DJSasso (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, this is a storm in a teacup. I think most long term editors and admins have linked accounts for different purposes. If they're used to abuse policy, that would be an entirely different matter, but this is not such a case. Seems this is more the case of an editor wikilawyering an uncontroversial speedy deletion. Orderinchaos 06:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. To further clarify, when I started editing disambiguation pages about 18 months ago, many of them had big issues and vandalism, partly, I feel, because few people watch these pages. Through the hard work of other editors and myself, I feel that they are in a much better state, but there is still a large amount of vandalism/people adding non-notables, and many editors who, in good faith, make incorrect edits as they are used to editing articles and aren't familiar with the slightly different guidelines on dabs. Having so many dabs on my watchlist has definitely helped maintain these. I feel that I've tried everything possible to make it clear that I am one editor, although of course I sometimes muck up and have a page on my watchlist twice. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 13:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Administrator's Noticeboard?

Resolved

 – IP blocked 3 months, invited to email OTRS. –xeno^talk 00:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I take it I am in the correct location for discussing burning issues with the administrators of this site? Well, assuming that is so, I would like to inform you that it is my intention to commence legal proceedings against yourselves for failing to keep the reputations of several of my clients intact, by permitting libellous edits to their biographical articles. I do not wish to disclose the exact sum of compensation that is being sought, nor at this stage do I wish to publically reveal any form of list of my clients. Suffice to say I would like to continue this exchange via email. I would be grateful if you could respond by providing a suitable contact email address should we wish to arrive at some form of settlement over this issue.

Yours,

Mr L Phillips QC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.54.54 (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone know who at legal we should send this too, such as Mike Godwin?Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

We have a legal section now? And it's just an IP troll... Wow, they can SPELL. If it was in any way true, why not simply e-mail Jimbo Wales directly? The admins are volunteers, they don't have any liability unless they themselves added stuff. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 00:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I've invited the user to email info-en@wikimedia.org who will forward it to Mr. Godwin if appropriate. –xeno^talk 00:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

What I meant to suggest, but wasn't sure exactly where to send them too. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Block the IP. WP:NLT. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 00:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Already done. –xeno^talk 00:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This is almost certainly a fake post. The Bar Council directory shows only six QCs with the surname Phillips: David Phillips, Mark Phillips, Richard Phillips, Rory Phillips, S.J. Phillips, and Stephen Phillips. None is a defamation specialist and it is very unlikely in the English legal system that a client seeking to correct damage to their reputation would be directly represented by a barrister. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That is more than likely the case here, that it is a troll and fake post. But he did just ask during his unblock request for pointers to the legal department email so it could be "discussed" in private. And the info was kindly provided to him by Xeno. Now it's up to them, lol.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sam, by your own reasoning, is it not more likely that they would be represented by a solicitor, and that therefore you would naturally not find the writer's name in a directory of barristers? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

A solicitor who is a QC? They would still have to be registered as a barrister, one would think. Anyway, this is obviously simply an IP troll. Orderinchaos 05:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

IP troll — quite possibly. But on whether (non-barrister) solicitors can be QCs, your information is over a decade out-of-date. Please read Queen's Counsel#Modern reforms. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 08:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Xeno is right about legitimate legal concerns. See Wikipedia:No_legal_threats#What_is_not_a_legal_threat for future situations.--Chaser (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Eight Ounce Kitten

Resolved

 – All accounts blocked

Daniel Case (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Eight Ounce Kitten (talk · contribs) has created a series of doppelgänger accounts, including 3ight 0unce Kitten (talk · contribs), 8 Oz Kitty (talk · contribs), Ate Ounce Kat (talk · contribs), Ate Oz Kat (talk · contribs) and 8 Oz Cat (talk · contribs), none of whom have made any edits outside adding {{doppelganger}} tags. The main account had a tag falsely claiming to be a doppelgänger account of me! Their edits are rather dubious, including an edit war on Ghoul, a flurry of speedy and AFD nominations (one of which, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynden Christian Schools, looks like it's on the verge of a snowball keep), and a gibberish sandbox at User:Eight Ounce Kitten/weeee. This user is clearly troublesome, but I don't think anything is particularly blockworthy except for falsely claiming to be an alternate account of mine. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Impersonation *is* a blockable offense, and for that, I'm gonna send these ones out to pasture. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 02:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, the accounts (of which there were many) were all sockpuppets of Pickbothmanlol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), confirmed by checkuser. We've hardblocked the underlying IP range for a bit to stop him. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thierry henry

Resolved

 – Please enforce POV edits" is not a legitimate use of the incident noticeboard. Orderinchaos 05:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The article has been subject to an edit war.The majority of editors feel that the handball incident and all the media coverage should be mentioned in the lead.Editors like [[35]],[[36]]keep on reverting edits.I'm not asking for a lead that bashes the character of the player,but at least mentions the incident in the lead as it was a major incident and has affected his career.--Kevinharte (talk) 03:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Editor attempting to distort the truth: the lead DID contain mention of the incident, and his "solution" of moving the entire text in the body that covers the incident to the lead, leaving a lacuna in the body, is disingenuous in the extreme. Chensiyuan (talk) 03:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Distort the truth? I think you've got that the wrong way around.--Kevinharte (talk) 10:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute that the two of you are pursuing across multiple boards and talk pages. You both might like to read WP:CANVASS for some of the reasons why we don't like this. I'd also urge that you cease talking in multiple places and start talking in one, and only one, of the places recommended by dispute resolution. Thanks. ⬅ ❝Redvers❞ 10:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Rioplatense Spanish

We recently had a young, new user move the Rioplatense Spanish page without discussion. An admin was able to revert the changes and restore the page, but the accompanying talk page remains as Talk:Argentine Castellane. Would one of you fine admins be kinds enough to restore the title of the talk page too? thanks.--MartinezMD (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

White Brazilian

Help, please, for White Brazilian.

Long-term readers of WP:AN/I and such pages will know that there have been numerous skirmishes over articles related to ethnic/"racial" groups in south America. Two articles that have been particularly affected are German Brazilian and White Brazilian. I no longer remember how it was that I first became involved, but I'd guess that at some point I noticed that some other admin was getting rather too many requests and thought I'd give him or her a break. I've never been to south America, don't read Portuguese or Spanish, and couldn't care a fig if south Americans, my neighbors or my inlaws were black, white or green, or of Nubian, Inuit or Livonian ancestry. Anyway, I entered as a neutral party, with a couple of big red buttons to use if/when appropriate. Since that time I have spent rather a lot of time nudging and mollifying authors, and often wished that I had not done so, or that south America were exclusively and indisputably populated by homogenous llamas rather than variegated humans.

User:Ninguém argued at Talk:White Brazilian (now mostly in Talk:White Brazilian/Archive 2) that the article was seriously defective. He was certainly not unopposed there, but on balance it seemed to me that he was more persuasive.

Ninguém then made a long and almost uninterrupted series of edits from 1 December until 00:43 6 December. One minute after that last edit, User:Off2riorob reverted the last batch of these. Forty-two minutes later, Off2riorob reverted the article to the state in which it had been on 1 December, with the comment "[...] reverting undiscussed mass edits". On the talk page, Off2riorob elaborated slightly, saying variations on:

I have also clearly stated my reasons for reverting to the previous position, mass editing of an article without apparent discussion (talkpage discussion six months old) so as to make the article almost unrecognizable.

So the objection that there had been no discussion was tacitly admitted to be mistaken: the discussion -- which at the time of the reversion was still on the talk page rather than in an archive -- was now merely too old.

Ninguém's edits appeared to me to have been based on cited sources (though in Portuguese, which I have never claimed to be able to read) and to be informative, and they had edit summaries (although I never claimed to have checked the accuracy of these). The material he deleted also seemed misplaced. All in all it seemed to me that his edits were for the better, although I was (and remain) open to argument to the contrary.

As there had been no objection to the substance of Ninguém's edits, and believing that they at least deserved a levelheaded evaluation before they were rejected, I boldly (or rougely) protected the article (more precisely, what I thought was the wrong version) as a preemptive measure. I archived most of the (bloated) talk page, and initiated a discussion of the first stage of Ninguém's edits.

At this point I may have made a mistake. For in addition to describing these edits as neutrally as I could, I also commented on them. "Judge and jury", it could be said. And indeed Off2riorob has politely asked about this.

Now, I'd be happy to take any of several options, one of which is never to involve myself in south American ethnic/"racial" matters again. However, I'm most reluctant to deprotect this article. I'm sure that Ninguém's set of edits merit evaluation, at the least, and that deprotecting the article would lead either to an edit war or to a wholesale and insufficiently considered rejection of those edits.

So I invite one or (better) more administrators to take a look and to keep looking. An ability to read Portuguese would be a help. Patience will be a necessity. -- Hoary (talk) 04:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I might add that User:Lecen has politely chided me for indulgence toward Off2riorob's reversion and demands. Actually I'm inclined to agree with Lecen here. -- Hoary (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Hoary's full protection of White Brazilian is certainly justified, and I am not perturbed by the efforts he made on the Talk page to get a discussion started. He added some content opinions of his own, but they seem mild and unlikely to be perceived as bossy by the other editors working there. (Note that Hoary protected the current version). If his efforts lead to a successful discussion, he should withdraw from the content issues. If he wants to have a longer-term role on improving the content, he should ask some other admin to take over the protection. EdJohnston (talk) 05:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. In the long or medium term, I'd very much like to withdraw completely from these two articles, from Brazil, and more. I'd be happy to accelerate that, if I had reason to think that I'd be replaced by one or more other people who had no particular interest one way or another in Brazilian or other "color" and who would judge edits on their merits.

As for the content dispute -- which, however this may violate the rules of this particular project page, has so far been inextricable from the reversion/BOLD/OWN dispute -- I have some sympathy for the argument that simplicity here is a Good Thing and that Ninguém's elaborated and longer lead is too long and elaborate; however, the current version strikes me as simplistic and wrong-headed, and if avoidance of misunderstandings takes more words, that strikes me as a good use of words.

So I hope to draw both administrators and fastidious editors to the article. Or rather, to a bunch of articles. Because on the rare occasion when I (wearing janitorial and not editing hat) have thought that one article was settling down, it would soon be pointed out to me that the warring parties were simply continuing the war elsewhere. -- Hoary (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Hoary for commenting, I am not involved in all these previous issues and I am not involved in any of the related issues. I noticed the edits occurring and went to see what was occurring, I saw a recent removal of content that I thought was well written and well cited so I reverted the edit, and had a bigger look at what was going on and decided that the article appeared to be more or less being rewritten to reflect a differing position to the content the article had more or less reflected for a length of time. I had a quick look at the archives and found some discussion six months old, I then had a quick look at the article and a small discussion with User talk:Ninguém about the objective of the edits and the lack of appearance of a consensus to support a rewrite and making a judgment mostly on the additions to the lede that the version the existed previous to the mass editing by User Ninguém was imo preferable to what had just been created, I reverted to that version and am presently in discussion as to how to move forward and what direction the content should contain, there does seem to be some support from Hoary, lucan and Ninguen that they simply agree with the rewritten version, although there is also an acceptance that the new lede is excessive, I have some personal knowledge of the color issues in Brazil and felt that the original article was not so bad as to require a rewrite, I thought that if major alterations were to occur to the article that wikipedia and the article would be better served and more rounded and balanced if it was discussed and edited by two editors. I have commented regarding this position on the talkpage at the article. If there is acceptance that the article is in need of a rewrite and that it should be done by Ninguém then I will happily step aside, as Hoary as also commented, I had no idea that there were additional issues surrounding the situation. Off2riorob (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

At this moment, this article has a curious particularity: it talks at lenght about the subject of "White Brazilians", but the section on "Conception of White" comes not at the beggining, but at the end. But this is far from being the worse.

The article's lead reads,

White Brazilians are all people who are full or mainly descended of European and other White immigrants.

The section on "Conception of White", on the other hand, states,

The ancestry is quite irrelevant for racial classifications in Brazil.

So, is "ancestry" what defines who is and who is not a "White Brazilian", or is it quite irrelevant for "racial classifications" in Brazil? Or perhaps "White Brazilian" is not a "racial classification" in Brazil?!

This is quite typically the quality standard of the articles on Brazilian demography. The most curious thing is that this is not the result of multiple editors placing their POVs without caring for coherence, but rather the result of one only editor's work. Ninguém (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ninguém removed several informations and included unsourced informations to that article. He did not even discuss what he was doing. The article was fine, and there was no need to re-write it. Opinoso (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

A degree of discussion has broken out on the talkpage there, revealing a fair bit of underlying conflict, also could I clear this up as Admin Hoary seem to have said that he has no involvment in the article and would rather not be involved but since he made those comments here his recent two edits here and here seem to be reflective of a degree of involvment in the dispute, could he clarify if he is acting as an admin here as as an editor in the way of dispute resolution? Off2riorob (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Help please: User Makrand Joshi is personally attacking, harrassing me, recurringly over the past many months, almost wiki-hounding me

I am posting this issue out here after not getting an adequate response from user Makrand Joshi on the Wikiquette forum[37].

User Makrand Joshi [38]has been personally attacking and harrassing me recurrently by repeatedly calling me a sock puppet on the talk page of The Indian Institute of Planning and Management.

It started on 26th June 2009 with Makrandjoshi first accusing me formally of being a sock puppet Mrinal Pandey here [39] He changed my user page to say that i was a suspected sock puppet, here [40]

Then on 1st August 2009 he started addressing me again by the name of Mrinal the sock puppet, here [41] As user page harrassment, Makrand changed my user page to again say I was a suspected sock puppet, here [42]

He's continued since calling me a sock puppet here [43], here [44], here [45]. Here he's threatened me saying he's going to expose my being a sock puppet.

I had reported the user for edit warring here, [46] where the finding was that "Reporting user is arguably the more disruptive at that article, but also appears to be within the limits of normal editing-with-discussion." for which Makrand's response was "wifione's malciious and pathetic forum-shopping falls flat on the face". For which user Makrand responded with words like he knew why I was "pissed off" and why I was "so pissed off."

I request you to somehow help me stop this personal harrassment and wiki hounding against me which is happening repeatedly. He is now using uncivil statements and rants that now are aimed at gathering other editors against me. Please help as I know that even past offenders cannot be personally attacked like this repeatedly on talk pages and their personal user pages and I have only involved myself in protracted discussions. Please help Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If there is no evidence of socking given or any followup action for it, it's a pretty clear case of harassment IMO. The article in question has a long history of serious COI-sock problems leading to (if I recall) a pile of CU-blocking. Flares up every few months. There is discussion, but there is usually mostly edit-warring and eventual blocks. I'm not sure we can do better than perma-full-prot...there's a ton of drama and ongoing admin time spent for usually little if any actual gain on the article quality. DMacks (talk) 07:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think calling someone a sockpuppet constitutes harassment. I do think the above user is a sockpuppet of a previous blocked account and is in fact now creating sockpuppets of their own. Dmacks, I had initiated a formal SPI some months ago which returned the result "possible" with admins and others agreeing that there is a lot of similarity, but since the sockmaster had been inactive for a long time, there was no direct IP-based evidence yet. I see another sockpuppet returning User:Suraj845, and yesterday I raised concerns about it to User:Tiptoety an admin who had run check-user detected and blocked sockpuppets last year. And User:Tiptoety has said she'll keep an eye on it. I have not renewed the SPI yet, but I think letting the admin involved in the previous SPI know of this is "followup action". There is clear behavioral evidence of sock-puppetry.

• I did refer to wifione as Mrinal a couple of times. But I stopped that months ago after wifione asked me not to. FWIW, wifione has been repeatedly calling me an SPA, and when pointed out by others that I was not an SPA, wifione (an account created fairly recently compared to my own) actually had the temerity to take credit for my editing. although to be fair, wifione did post an apology after being caught on this lie by another admin.
• I never called wifione pathetic or malicious. I said that wifione's attempts at forum-shopping (of which this particular instance is the umpteenth example) are pathetic and malicious. wifione has been forum-shopping against me on a continuous basis. And every time, the result goes in my favor. Even in the link above, when wifione talks about reporting me for edit-warring, he/she neglects to mention that the result of it - what I was doing was fine, and he/she is actually the more disruptive user. In the past, wifione raised the same point in 3 different noticeboards at the same time - really prodigious forum-shopping. And this forum shopping continues. Always targetted against me. If anything, I am being wiki-hounded. Every other day when I log into wikipedia, there is some new noticeboard complaint filed against me by wifione. And when that request does not get the desired response, he/she opens up another one.
• How is the phrase "pissed off" uncivil?
• wifione's editing record speaks for itself. The user is continuously trying to whitewash The_Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management page, trying to get any negative or critical information removed. His/her edits, which some other editors and I have painstakingly gone through and reworded, always exaggerate some things and praise IIPM in words that the cited source never mentioned. wifione's agenda, IMHO, is to turn the article into an advertorial for IIPM and remove all negative information.
• wifione's writing style, behavior pattern and editing are similar to previous pro-IIPM editors and sockpuppets. Pro-IIPM editors and sockpuppets who have in the past threatened me with a lawsuit, a beating, attack and murder. So if I suspect someone of being a sock-puppet, I am going to call them on it. And not just call them sockpuppet, but also point out evidence for it. Like I said, I have raised an SPI in the past, have followed up with the admin involved in that SPI yesterday. And if the sockpuppetry gets really disruptive, I will of course renew the SPI. Makrandjoshi (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Wifione is also making it seem like I am the one hell-bent on harassing him while he is an innocent babe in the woods. So Here's a timeline of events. When wifione first appeared, I suspected him of being a sockpuppet and raised an SPI. The result of the SPI was possible. So I let it go for then. Then wifione raised a complaint on the RS noticeboard for the reliability of a source that has information that goes against wifione's ostensible opinions. That complaint went against him. Then again, wifione raised the request after a while with the same result. During this, wifione kept calling me an SPA everywhere, on the talk pages, on noticeboards, on talk pages of other users, and so forth. Repeatedly. Clearly baiting me. After other editors pointed out that I am not an SPA, wifione backed out with a faux-apology, faux because even after that, he claimed that he was responsible for my not being an SPA! wifione then tried to make wholesale changes to the IIPM page, essentially whitewashing negative information and putting in weasel-worded praise which was not in the sources cited, and continues to this day (you can see details on the IIPM talk page). And all along, wifione has been repeatedly forum-shopping, raising complaints about me all over the place. First the admin board, which was not in his favor. Then the wikiquette board, where an admin actually asked wifione to applogize to me! And now here. If here, the decision goes against him, I wonder where the next complaint will be raised. This is the definition of forum-shopping, going on an on until you get ba judgment in your favor. Makrandjoshi (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

And FWIW, I agree with DMacks about perma-full-prot on the page. Makrandjoshi (talk) 16:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Organized vandalism by at least three users

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/76.25.245.117 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Talex1029 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/198.178.254.2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ColonelHamilton (talk • contribs) 06:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have warned the two unblocked cases, please let us know if vandalism continues specially at WP:AIV. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm. I have to wonder about the notability of the person in question, regardless of the vandalism. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added a PROD tag. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody fix Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hayden Stone (Colorado)? (I didn't create it) 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

IP range blocked

Hi all. Due to some pretty egregious socking, I've softblocked 84.203.0.0/17 per checkuser, for two weeks. Disruption started up immediately the previous softblock expired, so back on it went. Keep a lookout for potential collateral damage (there should be little or none) and ping me if anything comes up. Thanks! - Alison ^❤ 07:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Elections reminder: last week of voting

This is a short note to remind all interested editors that the December 2009 elections to elect new members to the Arbitration Committee is still open for voting. The voting period opened on 1 December and will close on 14 December 2009 (next Monday) at 23:59 UTC.

The voting this year is by secret ballot using the SecurePoll extension. All unblocked editors who had at least 150 mainspace edits on or before 1 November 2009 are eligible to vote (check your account). A list of votes is kept at the real-time voting log, and a separate list of voters is maintained on an on-wiki log. If you have any questions or difficulties with the voting setup, please ask at the election talkpage.

There are twenty-candidates standing in the election, from whom nine arbitrators are expected to be chosen. Prospective voters are invited to review the candidate statements and the candidates' individual questions pages. Although voting is by secret ballots, and only votes submitted in this way will be counted, you are invited to leave brief comments on the candidates' comment pages and discuss candidates at length on the attached talkpages. For live discussion, join #wikipedia-en-ace on freenode.

Follow this link to cast your vote

For the coordinators,  Skomorokh  08:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Trương Hoàng Phong

Trương Hoàng Phong (talk · contribs) just performed this move of Yongle Era to Yongle era with a somewhat unconvincing summary. As far as I know the renaming is contrary to naming conventions, but the reason for this report is this set of moves [47] and [48]. They seem to indicate that the user is a sock of Yongle the Great (talk · contribs), who has been blocked. Favonian (talk) 10:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless "Yongle Era" is a proper name (I doubt that it is), "Yongle era" is the correct article name. No comment on the sock accusation, as I know nothing of Yongle the Great.--Atlan (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

He has been continually block evading but this is an old account. "00:09, 11 August 2009 (hist | diff) N User talk:Yongle the Great ‎ (moved User talk:Yongle the Great to User talk:Trương Hoàng Phong over redirect: hgghd)". I'm blocking this account as well. The article has basically no content and I've made it a redirect to Yongle Emperor which does have content on this period. If it ever grows large enough it can have its own article. Dougweller (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Support that. Until this editor shows some signs of responding to concerns, all we can do is WP:RBI and make it unproductive for them to sock. Unfortunately I believe this does mean removing their edits and blocking their socks on sight. EyeSerene^talk 17:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of section from talk page

Resolved

I object to the removal of this section from the talk page at Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident

Diff here: [49]

For background, the article page is semiprotected, so IPs cannot contribute to the article. The only way they have a voice is at the talk page. While I note that the complaint is quite short on specificity, I was in the middle of writing a post to request more specifics, in order to engage discussion. I disagree that WP:SOAP applies. It isn’t a rant about GW, it is a comment (albeit general) about the article itself, the very point of the talk page. I suggest a better approach would be to ask the editor to post specifics, and if those are not forthcoming, to collapse the discussion rather than erase it. By removing it, we are providing fodder for the belief that the treatment of this discussion is not even-handed. I want us to be even-handed, this removal does not send a good message.SPhilbrickT 16:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but where is admin intervention needed? Have you tried discussing the removal with the user who did it? Regards SoWhy 16:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This page used to say "This is not the Wikipedia complaints department" - what happened to that useful bit of information? Agree with SoWhy - I don't see a need for admin intervention. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Fair point. I did add a pointer to this discussion on the removing editor’s talk page, I’ll carry on the discussion there and see if it can be resolved there.SPhilbrickT 16:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

User:69.69.69.62

See the user's talk page for constant warnings against vandalism:User talk:69.69.69.62

There user adds precious little to nothing constructive. Here are some random diffs I picked out of his contribs. This

• [50]
• [51]
• [52]
• [53]
• [54]
• [55]

Here is his latest, disrupting the Holocaust article. I hope an admin will finally stop warning and start blocking this IP. Thanks Stellarkid (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Done, but in the future please make such reports at WP:AIV for faster action. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

User Sensei_2105

I am having problems with a new editor who is having difficulties working with guide lines and consensus. The Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Japan-related_articles)#Names specifies Japanese name order for people born before 1868 and Western name order for people born after 1868. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts#Honorifics_and_academic_titles specifies that we follow the manual of style Wikipedia:NAMES#Academic_titles.

The user Sensei 2105 would like the article Takayuki Kubota to be named Soke_Kubota_Takayuki and to contain the titles 'Soke' and Grand Master'. He has not participated in the discussion Talk:Takayuki_Kubota#Requested_move but has attempted to undo the moves [56]. He has not responded on his talk page about title policy and he has repeated reverted the article to use titles. [57] [58] [59], the last with the comment 'no comment': [60]

Similar experiences with the article Gosoku-ryu‎ [61]].

Could I request advice and assistance concerning this user? jmcw (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Concerns over expected FFD vote-counting

Just liked to express my concerns that the admin willing to close the FFDs discussions for December 7 will have to master some excellence in weighting popular vote, policy knowledge, core-value commitement, personal attacks (with a varying level of civility) and discussions based on user reputation (admins vs frequently-blocked users).

Of course, I am an involved part. --Damiens.rf 17:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• So you want me to close a dozen or so FFDs where yours is the only delete vote as delete? Protonk (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I want you (or any other admin who volunteer to take the task) to weight the arguments against our policies and mission, and to avoid counting votes or weighting individual user's reputations. --Damiens.rf 18:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
    • By closing them as delete...Protonk (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Or maybe by being unhelpfully sarcastic in a well-intended call for attention. --Damiens.rf 19:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Revision to delete

Resolved

 – See WT:Revision deletion#Proposed additional text pointing to oversight and IRC for a related proposed policy page edit. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I need to report some revisions that need WP:Revision deletion. How do I do this without being public about it? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Special:Emailuser/Oversight. –xeno^talk 18:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The edits in question have been taken care of. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Request more input regarding Tiger Woods

I'd like more input here please, particularly in the dispute section. I previously posted to the BLP noticeboard, but that did not get much response.--Chaser (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Attempted WP:Outing

• Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs)

Delicious carbuncle who knows full well that attempted WP:Outing is a blockable action, has done so anyway here with the telling edit summary " Ok, Benjiboi, if that's how you want it..." I have been WP:Wikihounded by them for months and would like to see what I view as harassment to stop. This is roughly my sixth request for them to leave me alone. -- Banjeboi 18:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

p.s. If someone would be kind enough to alert them I would appreciate it as I avoid their talkpage for obvious reasons. -- Banjeboi 18:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Done :) GiantSnowman 18:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed the link to get it out of subsequent revisions to the page history until this is resolved. Request WP:OVERSIGHT if necessary.--Chaser (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that sort of outing is unacceptable. Whether he is right or wrong, providing links to external photographs and names, and connecting that to an on-wiki personality seems to me to be an eggregious violation of WP:OUTING. --Jayron32 18:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked him for two days in an attempt to prevent any further violations while this is discussed. I offered to copy any comments he had over here -- if I don't get them in a timely fashion, would someone else please take care of them? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi's identity is known and has been confirmed by him both in discussions and in his edits. It has been openly discussed several times - see for example Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 37#Benjiboi COI - how do we move forward. I posted the offending link on WP:AN, so I'm not sure why it is necessary to open a thread here. If my action is considered outing, I will be happy to refactor my comments. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Copied from usertalk by SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs)

The outed editor disclosed this information on Wikipedia in the past, and he also created two bios about his fictional alter egos (written as if they were unique individuals). The bios have since been deleted. And the other guy gets blocked for "outing" rather than the apparent COI problems with this editor being dealt with. Huh?Bali ultimate (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

How was the alleged 'outer' able to acquire personal information of the 'outee'? see above. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Those links are valuable in that they show the ongoing drama being stirred up by Delicious carbuncle, including a relevant statement from Shankbone about his experience with them. What's missing from that narrative is this which is right smack dab in the middle which unambiguous also states that even if you think someone is COI editing there remains no excuse for harassment of any kind, this has gone on for months. While much accusations and general harassment ensue. What came of all that? The correct conclusion that a COI existed on some articles but no actual COI problems did. This again demonstrates that even though everyone else chooses to move on Delicious carbuncle insists on stirring drama and repeatedly dragging me to one admin board after the next, we've done COIN, BLP, ANI, AN, certainly I'm tired of this nonsense, I would hope others would be somewhat weary as well. I have generally stuck to just LGBT articles/subjects and am blissfully unaware of what Delicious carbuncle does outside articles where we intersect. I remain convinced they won't leave me alone unless ordered to. I wish they could just move on and leave me alone. -- Banjeboi 19:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

@GoodDay This edit by the "outee" [62]. The email he disclosed in that edit was the same email used by the fictional person that was the subject of the BLP created by Benjiboi that was deleted after this [63] discussion.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

@Benjiboi, per this [64]. Oh, brother.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any case for WP:OUTING. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the COI claims, that this diff has hung around for years and been discussed on multiple pages makes it impossible to rectify the situation. It's hard to see this as outing since those diffs have remained in the page histories and the archives for so long, including that AFD. I suppose you could still request oversight for all that, but I fear that time may have come and gone. I think Delicious Carbuncle ought to be unblocked.--Chaser (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have requested that Benjiboi cease editing a list of pages I decline to provide here. If he cannot cease editing the pages I am thinking of, I suggest that he has placed individuals concerned about his behavior in a catch-22. Complaining about his edits without providing the full amount of information to justify the complaint is impossible. As such, I suggest that an uninvolved adminstrator ban Benjiboi from a privately listed series of articles. If an adminstrator bound by the foundation privacy policy contacts me, I will provide them with an initial list of articles that would resolve this situation. Hipocrite (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You just repeated what has already been stated; accusations were made and I posted that exact same diff myself. I have never purposely identified myself because of harassment both on and off-Wikipedia. This is fairly obvious to anyone who assumes who I am, my actual name, gender, etc. And, none of this excuses harassment of any kind. Even if you think you know who I am I answered that "smoking gun" diff as noted above. The rest remains recycling the same accusations again and again. If those articles have been deleted then the issue should be done, but certain editors just seem to want to try to re-fling the same muck repeatedly. Not because any problems have been shown to actually exist and not because I'm COI editing, but because no one stops them, no one cares enough to say it's time to move on. If Delicious carbuncle and enablers can't move on voluntarily then unfortunately other routes have to be considered. For months they have been the only disruptive factor in the equation. They cause drama, I try to answer the concern. I can't swear I've shown infinite patience but neither have I wanted to even interact with them. If they can't stop wikibullying then unfortunately I need others to step in. -- Banjeboi 19:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

To Hipocrite, just so we're all clear here, you have a list somewhere in your imagination that I should avoid because I may have a COI? I'll let someone else try addressing that concept. -- Banjeboi 19:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't post the list on-wiki because it is basically you and a list of people and organizations close to you. If I were to post the list, it would WP:OUT you. If you grant me leave to post the list, I'll do it. Otherwise, both you and I and everyone else reading knows what the list entails, and you are prohibited from editing articles on the list. Hipocrite (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Unusual Unblock Request

I found this request. I haven't ever seen anyone who wants to extend their block period, so could someone please take a look at this?--Iner22 (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Consent blocks are done from time to time, I invited them to email info-en@wikimedia.org to request the block. –xeno^talk 19:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I believe that it's the usual practice to accept such requests, though perhaps you ought to get this guy to ask the OTRS list from his official email account (to check it's not a student playing a joke)? ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 19:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's what Xeno did. The blocked you linked to was also done on the basis of such a request.--Chaser (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)