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

This editor has been blocked multiple times for incivility. Since the last block in February, the swearing and overly aggressive behavior continues: calling a user “illiterate”, swear-word laden ranting, this just doesn’t seem like a way to deescalate tensions, again, this seems a bit over the top, unfriendly edit summary, calling editors “shitheads”, needlessly hostile, unwillingness to discuss, use of “fuck” in edit summary, and again, unfriendly response to an apology, etc.

Now these are from this week: [1] and [2]. When I asked that he avoid such edit summaries, he replied with: [3].

Aside from the edit summaries, there's other assumptions of bad faith and the like from this week and including today. For example, he blanket accuses inclusionists of not knowing how to write an encyclopedia: [4]. Or other attacks on inclusionists: [5]. Accusing editors of gaming: [6]. Most recently, i.e. today, we have blanket repetitive assumptions of bad faith and insults against inclusionists: [7], [8], and [9]. In these same discussions, user is getting too agitated: [10], [11], etc.

These are above from this week and they are making disagreements into "inclusionists are bad" disputes from his opinion, which gets in the way of compromise and civil discourse. Given his rather considerable block log for incivility, even greater number of talk page warnings, and as he has already been the subject of ANI and Wikiquette, I don't know what next can/should be done, but such edits are fostering a battleground atmosphere as these are not the kinds of edits that invite cordial replies. There are polite and respectful ways to disagree. I tried to ask him in the one discussion to avoid some of the more imflammatory rhetoric and as I realize I am someone on the opposite spectrum of inclusion philosophy, I hope that a neutral party could do something to put a stop to the above kinds of edits, because thus far blocks, warnings, and polite requests are not working. Thank you for your time and help. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This is very troubling. If editors are to feel like the rules apply to everyone, then NPA behavior like this should cease. Maybe a boot is in order, the last one was 72 hours?:
  • 05:05, 10 February 2009 Tiptoety blocked ThuranX (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours ‎ (Incivilty at User talk:Bobblehead, and User talk:Jojhutton.)
  • 19:58, 5 January 2009 Chrislk02 blocked ThuranX (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 12 hours ‎ (extreme history of incivility. NEVER an eexcuse for this [12])
  • 23:34, 21 July 2008 John Carter unblocked "ThuranX " (per comments on user's talk page)
  • 23:11, 21 July 2008 Elonka blocked ThuranX (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 hours ‎ (Disruptive editing: Gross incivility)
  • 17:57, 28 March 2008 Husond blocked ThuranX (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (gross incivility after being asked to refrain from such behavior)

Ikip (talk) 07:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• He certainly doesn't seemed to have learnt from the previous blocks. I support some kind of block, especially when I consider the aggressiveness I've seen him display around this place. A week, maybe? Ironholds (talk) 09:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I dont think a block is warrented. On the whole he seems a pretty good guy and works constructively within the project. I have looked at the full posts themselves as opposed to the "soundbites" provided and in their context they dont seem overly rude or aggressive.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Working constructively is not a defence if he fails to show others the proper respect. How exactly can calling people shitheads not seem overly rude and aggressive? Ironholds (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Like I have said, on the whole the guy is pretty civil and constructive. A block would be purely punitive IMO and help no one.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  You seem to be missing the point, and that is that "on the whole" isn't good enough. One over-the-line comment can't be justified on the grounds that he's made ten civil ones; good contributions are a basic standard, not a get out of jail free card. Ironholds (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  No need to be so aggresive with someone who has a different opinion than you, have a little respect for your fellow editors my friend. My I recommend some Yoga classes so you can get rid of some of that rage. Like I have said I dont think a block is warranted and if one was put in place it would be for purely punitive reasons and would be of no good to the community. He has apologised now and I think we should get on with something a lot some constructive to the project.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not being at all aggressive, although in my experience being baselessly accused of aggression and told to "go do yoga" can probably be stick on a list of Things That Tick Me Off, along with somebody who doesn't like me referring to me as friend. Where has he apologised? Ironholds (talk) 09:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Why so facetious?  GARDEN  10:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

block per continuation of events  rdunnPLIB  09:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Even if it was two days ago, this aggressive reply to this seemingly innocent and civil message is enough for a block in my book.  GARDEN  09:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shame really, because he can be civil when he needs to be..  GARDEN  09:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there an immediate problem that demands a block to prevent a problem? If not (and I don't see it) clearly the best course of action for an editor who is productive would be a warning that future incivility would be looked upon poorly. I don't see any point in blocking him now, and equally no admin action required (anyone can warn someone about incivility). Black Kite 11:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, as there is an esacalation in tensions in the numerous Mash episode AfDs he started that go from copy and paste replies to DGG as engaging in "inclusionist wonkery": [13], [14], and [15] to other annoyed replies as evident from edit summaries of {"tired of this crap", "ugh", etc. And these follow up on the ons about how inclusionists don't know how to write encyclopedias, create hoops to jump through, have unrealistic goals, etc. These are from up through May 14th, i.e. today. All this blanket denigration of a whole group of editors does not lead to constructive discussions for the same reasons why blanket denouncement of deletionists would get us nowhere and what I see is an increasing intensity in this regard that has been building the past few days. These are stopping points to civil discourse and for any editor's own peace of mind, when someone is getting that flustered, I would urge them to take a break anyway. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This user is a regular on ANI and tends to inflame discussions here. This is damaging to the processes of the encyclopedia as a whole. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ThuranX you mean?  GARDEN  15:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yah. And you can read the above as support for a block, as it would be preventative to Wiki as a whole to quell this behavior. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd just like to comment that I've repeatedly seen ThuranX leap into ANI threads that he wasn't involved in, making extremely abrasive blanket statements. He is then asked to strikethrough his comments, never does, but no one pursues the matter. McJeff (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've largely ignored this, it's pointless. However, I should note that OR and McJeff were both on here recently for problematic behavior, and not for the first time, and I've continuously supported proper blocks against them, their input here is simple tit-for-tat. ThuranX (talk) 04:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I gave him a "cut out the nonsense" warning because frankly I don't see the massive disruptive. Yes, he's being an uncivil jerk and yes we have enough uncivil jerks here, but I don't see enough to be blockable yet. Warnable, told him to cut it out, but not blockable yet. Following his comments at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#ARSify.3F, two people basically told him his line in the sand "this is totally wrong" routine isn't consensus and isn't going to work, with basically "that was uncivil and not helpful." And that's on a page with a number of users making claims about "inclusionists" and "deletionists." Hell, the proposal uses the words "inclusionist/deletionist arguments" so to complain about his denigration of a group of people is a bit hollow to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

since his responses to me were mentioned above, I need to say that I have not started or joined any complain against him in connection with them, nor would I join one based on them. . DGG (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I can't make excuses for earlier incidents, in this case, I suspect ThuranX is getting really stressed from the issues revolving around the M*A*S*H episode discussions. I was, in fact, coming here to post a request for an admin to look into those and keep an eye on things, before seeing this thread. I feel User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s actions here should also be looked at some. He made bad faith accusations that ThuranX was showing "recentism bias" in nominating the articles.[16] and seems to be making personal attacks in several of the AfDs.[17][18]. RAN also created his own essay, Wikipedia:Generally it is not a good idea to quote personal essays as if they were Wikipedia approved policy, on May 7th and is claiming it "replaced" WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS by virtue of it being newer[19][20]. He appears to be following ThuranX to continue posting this, and refactoring his comments after he's received replies to point to it. As you can see from my talk page, ThuranX is really feeling attacked and upset by RAN's behaviors. I'd agree his temper is high, and some of his recent responses have a mild bite to them, but I do not think he should be blocked. He is a good editor and I don't see that he has really crossed the line at this point. Having RAN and other going after him seems like an attempt to get him to do so. I've urged him to walk away for a bit to calm down. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thuran is making more bad faith accusations against editors, such as "What the hell is wrong with you?," claiming there's "a hivemind of inclusionism," which is out of line here, because I see inclusionists saying to merge in these discussions and not just repeating what each other wrote at least no more so than those saying to delete, and as far as I can tell seems to be attacking User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) for daring to argue to keep in the flood of mass nominations of Mash episode articles. Remember, this latest tension follows up on behavior over the past couple months that includes calling people "illiterate" and "shitheads" as pointed out above. After months of such insults against editors as well as swearing at them, adding to new tensions now just seems unhelpful. I am concerned that anyone would feel this flustered by editing here. It's a volunteer site. Sure, not everything goes as we'd like, but there's no need to take things too personally or to become so enraged. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That comment on my page was left AFTER my message above. Your wording makes it sound as if he continued after that, and he did not. He has not edited at all since then. Let's make sure that is clear. He did as was suggested and walked away to calm down. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with Richard Arthur Norton, as Collectonian himself notes, is that RAN was redacting his comments after I'd replied to them, editing them to change the entire nature of the discussion, and appear to cut me off, making it look like i was disregarding or ignoring all he said. I asked him repeatedly to stop, Collectonian asked him to stop, he did not. It is quite frustrating to try to have a discussion with someone who is manipulating the entire discussion in that manner.ThuranX (talk) 04:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sanction of some sort, his "What the hell is wrong with you?" was my first encounter with him on my page, and my family found it threatening enough, that my wife asked me to stop editing Wikipedia. I guess that is the reason to intimidate, to win with a threat what you can't convey through logic and policy. But what is the point of blocking him for three hours again? A few hours block doesn't change attitudes. He needs to agree to be civil or face tougher sanctions. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This after you claimed he was thin-skinned? I guess its all in the perception. You feel he is attacking you, he feels you are attacking him. Guess we should just block you both? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Banish him at once The comment he left on Norton's page alone should show the character of the accused. Thinks everyone is against him, and goes on the attack most savagely. The wikipedia would have more contributions without him around harassing other editors. Dream Focus 11:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pot and kettle...or will you extend your banishment to others who have done the same thing? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else notice that many of the folks coming to call for ThuranX's banishment are all RAN's fellow ARS members? Perhaps we could leave the discussion to more neutral folks who are not being influenced by their dislike of "deletionists". -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, RAN is not a member of the ARS. Ikip (talk) 11:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And anyone notice that those supporting his continued incivility are not? Wow. Actually, it does not matter what project opining editors belong to or if they do not belong to any project, as that is not germain to the issue. What is germain is this editor having been repeatedly blocked for rudeness and blatant incivility and apparently not learning anything from the incidents other than he can do what he wants, get a slap-on-the-wrist, and come back to repeat the same disruptive behaviors. THAT does not improve Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who here is saying that Thuran is being awesome?! I've been tarred with the "deletionist" brush by a few editors in this thread AND I've had insults and unpleasantness thrown my way by Thuran. I don't think that what he is doing is good and very few people in this thread do. However, the fact remains that the first two posters in this thread and the majority of the folks calling for some strong sanction happen to be rank inclusionists. Honestly, this shouldn't surprise anyone. They are on the opposite side of an argument from Thuran and would be the likely target of invectives. I don't think that you guys need to respond to every call for neutrality with some retaliatory accusation. Protonk (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collectonian, while I cannot speak for everyone, this thread is not about a dislike for deletionists. You're a deletionist and I said in a recent AfD to keep per your improvements, offered to give you a rescue icon on your award page, etc. Stifle's a deletionist and gave me a barnstar for an idea I had. I disapprove of some editors' behavior, but just because someone is deletionist does not in my opinion automatically mean I or anyone should dislike them. In fact, I have had some rather pleasant interactions with self-described deletionists and certainly respect and understand the opposing viewpoint to mine. There's no reason why inclusionists cannot have fundamental disagreements, but maintain civility at the same time. Here, however, the editor in question is actually not simply aggresive to inclusionists, but even to fellow deletionists! For example, on May 12, he called Gavin.collins "arrogant" and that Gavin's message was "a fucking farce". This reaction came after this edit by Gavin, which seems relatively polite. Did Gavin's call to discuss really merit that harsh of a reply from Thuran? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this isn't another inclusionists v deletionists political wrangle, it's very unfortunate that it looks so much like one. The first poster to this thread used to be called another name(one of our more famous inclusionists), and the second used to have another name (but it's hard to track down - both editors seem to have abused their right to vanish in the past).

I'm not opposed to the idea of any action being taken against ThuranX, but perhaps a user conduct RfC would be in order, to ascertain the community's opinion. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the old names here. Please dont use them again. I can't speak for nobody, but there are some privacy concerns with my name. Accusing editors of abuse simply because they changed their name is a bad faith accusation. Ikip (talk) 11:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, from what I can see relatively few are. Instead, most of the people complaining are those that don't like the manner in which ThuranX attacks and cusses when dealing with others, and how his argumentative nature hasn't changed over the past 8 months. Instead, it just degrades this forum and other forums more and more. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I've never seen a complaint about a deletionist's conduct be brought to ANI without the usual crew of deletionist popping up to 1) insist that he didn't do anything wrong enough to be intervention worthy, and 2) accusing the complaining party(s) of being an inclusionist lynch mob. McJeff (talk) 05:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm a deletionist. :) So, we can end any idea that it is partisan. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, hang right on. How many "deletionists" are there in this thread insisting that Thuran is innocent? Count them. Frankly it is stunning that we can substitute broad generalizations for actual evidence. Protonk (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sanction of some sort is appropriate. I just noticed this thread, but it includes several diffs to ThuranX's contributions there, which were uncivil and inflamatory responses to a proposal, despite repeated attempts on my part to engage him civilly. If we want to rescind WP:CIVIL, that's fine, but no amount of contributions should be an excuse for anyone to weigh in to a discussion with this sort of edit summary. Jclemens (talk) 05:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Users for Deletion Every time I browse ANI, this guy insulted another editor. I'm sick of seeing him. Nuke. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to get involved in this, but I think that the community should also consider this edit. Note that, as I explain here, ThuranX is in error about when the material in question was added to the article, but he nonetheless insists on portraying himself as the victim of bad faith. This particular case is a minor one, but it shows that even after he's been cautioned repeatedly ThuranX is incivil and far too ready to assume bad faith. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What, specifically is the problem with either of those two diffs? Protonk (talk) 03:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second diff is me, pointing out ThuranX's error in the first. ThuranX is accusing me of "cheating" in the edit summary, and says "I see you are now joining in the Bad Faith discussion that Richard Arthur Norton is perpetrating, in which you reply to or redact commentaries in a way that deliberately makes mine look as though I am ignoring what you say. Deplorable behavior." I did no such thing. At 05:32 UTC yesterday, I added a source to the article Bananas, Crackers and Nuts noting that the episode had won an ACE Eddie Award. At 05:35 I noted this in the AfD. At 13:50, ThuranX said that he would withdraw the nomination "if that can be sourced properly". I was confused by this, and at 22:07 I asked for clarification. Then, at 23:09 ThuranX made his incivil and inaccurate accusation of bad faith.
    The dispute is, as I say, a minor one; I thought that the problem would be visible from the two diffs I initially gave. It's just further evidence to be considered in this case, that's all. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: after I made a request for him to retract his accusation of bad faith, ThuranX grudgingly did so. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll not defend his manner here, but I will say that being the subject of an...inquiry...like this can make one a little defensive. Protonk (talk) 04:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am disappointed that the entire exchange between Josiah Rowe and myself was simply gaming for use here as evidence. I made no waves about striking out all that he asked me to. I cannot explain why his edits didn't show when I went to look, it might have been a cache issue of some sort. He asked, I struck out. Hardly the incivil horrors he makes it out to be, and to bring it here as evidence for an indef ban AS he asks me to resolve it? Hardly ethical. ThuranX (talk) 04:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Did I say anything about an indef ban? I was just pointing out yet another case in which you assumed bad faith without evidence. This was not "gaming" — just pointing out that even when your behavior is under administrative review you still continue to jump off the handle. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's still no jumping off the handle. You've been instructing me on how to think and feel, and when you complained about my reaction to such edicts, I struck that out too. As for the indef ban, what do you think the purpose of this AN/I is? read it. It's a call for an indef ban. I assumed bad faith because it looks like bad faith, and when I'm already been hit with a steady stream of uncorrected bad faith actions, if I think I see more, I say I see more. I struck it when you came to me and asked. I still see no one saying anything to Richard Arthur Norton about his pattern of redacting and refactoring to put me into a bad light, which has put me on guard for bad faith and manipulation of this entire AfD series. ThuranX (talk) 05:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, other admins can judge for themselves whether my saying "We'll have to agree to disagree" constitutes "instructing [you] how to think and feel" or "telling you what to do". I haven't examined Richard's behavior; but this conversation is about yours. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Where this appears most certainly to be an inclusionists against the world" struggle (note I !vote 85% of the time for "keep"), the substantive argument against ThuranX is lacking. I looked at the diffs provided, and note that those casting stones have been equally uncivil. I suggest that people do a search on the stated abusive language and note that many admins use such language on a regular basis, and are not sanctioned for it. Meanwhile, it is eminently clear that this is actually a try to remove a person who is active in AfD - where the cheif complainants are exceptionally active. Have a cup of tea everyone. This is not a valid case for sanctions at all. Collect (talk) 12:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking into the matter, I haven't seen one instance of anyone cussing, accusing him of cheating, attacking him, or the other incivil actions as ThuranX has done, so please provide proof that people are doing what he is doing. Also, there is no proof that this is to remove anyone from AfD nor affects AfD. This is a matter about his actions across many areas, so your comment about is a breach of Civil and AGF. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Search finds many thousands of use of the F word in WP. Amazingly enough. I also find "illiterate" when he refers to how someone interpreted what he had written to not be an attack. Making a change to indicate prescience two minutes after Thuran posted, and without re-timestamping the post is misleading at best, if one declines the word "cheating." Again -- all is better served with a cup of tea than anything else. This is not the place at all for casting stones, to be sure, and posting the diffs to show what is occurring runs contrary to my position -- that is to simply have everyone relax a bit. Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By changing the subject does this mean you have no edit diffs? You made a pretty serious accusation: "I looked at the diffs provided, and note that those casting stones have been equally uncivil." and when someone called for evidence, suddenly you change your position. So where are the edit differences? Ikip (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TX's conduct is symptomic of a general decline in civility in the general sphere of article inclusion and deletion. Calling people disingenuous, disruptive, etc. is not uncommon, and TX is only a shade worse than that. There's relatively little policing, because most of these discussions are metadiscussions of metadiscussions (discussions of conduct of editors at deletion/policy discussions, discussions of how to handle deletion discussions, etc.), so th practical impact of these pages is narrow and the only people who care are fairly entrenched.

So we have people who bring this general level of incivility to other circles, or people who go a little bit further in being incivil in these circles. Nobody wants to deal with it, because dealing with it means dealing with all of the people who are being jerks to each other. It's also difficult to take seriously claims of incivility from people who regularly toe the line in what is tolerated. On top of this, any number of these combatants is willing to turn any of these threads into a fistfight over whatever the particular issue of the day is, distracting from conduct, or attack the person who brings up the issue, further distracting from conduct. And, worst of all, any sort of action is frequently seen as vindication by the sanctioned combatant's opponents. You block ThuranX, you galvanize RA Norton. You block RA Norton, you galvanize Collectonian. You block Collectonian, you galvanize Pixelface. On and on.

I'm naming names here because the people have earned it, and a good many otherwise-reasonable editors I've met are horrible people in these circles. If you suspect that I am talking about someone you don't like, I am almost certainly talking about you. If you're planning to say, "Well, aren't you one of these people?" the answer is "Well duh."

I don't know the solution. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree AMIB that there is "a general decline in civility" If admins do this, what hope is there about general civility? Ikip (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ikip, I could just as easily have used you as an example. Collectonian's comment above or your comment are examples of the sort of distraction; well, isn't the accuser just as bad? Doesn't the accuser have an ulterior motive? It's a hairball of obnoxiousness in response to obnoxiousness. I don't doubt that ThuranX is both instigated and instigator; the difference between the two is slim. When most of Wikipedia's dispute resolution is based around amicable discussion or removal of troublesome users, what do you do where you have a whole sphere that is nothing but fistfights? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Take it to RfC/U - if there's a case make it there. But I would caution that the whole 'deletionist vs inclusionist' discussion has clouded the issue. It doesn't help that both of these terms get thrown around as epithets (not in this discussion but in general) and that doesn't help outsiders form an opinion on the issue--Cailil ^talk 17:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am neither an inclusionist nor a deletionist (AFAIK), though I have had some unpleasant experiences with Thuranx. His personal attacks and bad behavior, and generally hostile tone is a constant in his contribs. A warning would be roughly as effective as a barnstar. This user is clearly not understanding that what he is doing is wrong. IronDuke 04:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with IronDuke here. I fail to see how this entire complaint about ThuranX is a vast inclusionist conspiracy to get him. ThuranX makes many good edits, and so long as folk agree with him, he is a charming little fellow. When people disagree with him, his behavior gets really unfriendly. My first run-in with him as a newbie nearly made me leave the Project right then and there. I wonder how many other new editors simply leave, thinking that ThuranX' behavior is not only on par with what they should expect (not to mention tolerated). In itself, that makes ThuranX a net loss to the Project; we cannot afford to scare away editors who need to be encouraged, not shoved off the cliff.

I am not defending the others' actions; clearly, they aren't angels here. That often muddies the waters enough that admins give up trying to suss out the truth. The same complaints about ThuranX keep coming up, and he has made it clear that he considers each complaint to be the product of morons. How many RfC's does ThuranX have? How many AN/I complaints? How many WQA? Are they all stating the same problem, and have those diffs that make us cringe?

I don't know that a short-term block will do any good. I think we all understand that some users cannot - or will not - alter how they choose to interact with the online world. I'd suggest mentoring, but again, I think we know that ThuranX is too proud or stubborn to accept that anyone else can help him improve. Indeed, I think its clear he doesn't ever think he's wrong.

Maybe what's needed here is a Civility Parole. It has been used with some success in the past with other users that have recurring civility issues, and it seems to have the benefits of positively reinforcing civil behavior while instantly arresting uncivil, attack-y behavior. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen civility parole in use before, but it sounds like a good idea, better than either ignoring the problem or a ban. (I agree with your assessment that ThuranX makes useful contributions, as long as others agree with him.) How would a civility parole work? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was used for DreamGuy last year. For the most part, it has served to curb that user's more aggressive tendencies. The way it works is that the user is enjoined from being uncivil. If the user acts in an uncivil or attacky way, the block is quickly investigated and escalating block periods are given. The down side of this is that users who particularly dislike the user on probation, some false positives can occur. In the aforementioned user's situation, some editors would adopt a hyper-sensitivity to incivility from the user. Such situations are frequently unfair, as the user can be blocked at the drop of a hat. Care needs to be taken to ensure that the user under probation was indeed trying to be civil. It has worked with DreamGuy somewhat, which - not to sound mean - has served to curb a lot of that behavior from permeating discussions and edit summaries. I'd like to stress that we cannot think we are changing the user's personality - no one changes unless they want to - but it can add the carrot and the stick to the equation. If they edit politely, they get to continue editing. If they don't, we have a right and a responsibility to make sure this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit peaceably - the user is blocked to protect everyone else's ability to edit in a positive environment. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A while ago, before I started editing here, there was a series of hoax articles concerning one Vitus Barbaro, amid claims that he came from a noble Italian family and was involved in a wide variety of activities. A partial list of the articles involved can be found at User:Barneca/watch/Barbaro. There was a great deal of sockpuppeteering and AfD, ANI and Talk page discussion in which the various perpetrators continued to claim that everything they had written was true. The various socks came from the Chicago, Illinois area, in particular Fenwick High School (Oak Park, Illinois). There is now a similar series of articles: Battle of Lemos, Don Manuel Joseph Martín López de Prado Rodríguez Díaz de Armesto y Varela, X Baron of Lemavia and House of Lemavia. All of the edits to these articles are by new accounts with no edit history. Perhaps not so surprisingly, when I did a search on Google for "Baron of Lemavia", I found a link to "Lopez De Prado, Baron of Lemavia Location: Chicago, IL". None of the multitude of references that the various editors have provided mentions a Baron of Lemavia or a Lopez de Prado. They keep referencing books which, may, in fact, prove that their claims are true, but which nobody is going to be able to find. None of the various wesites they cite actually supports the claims, and in general, when they cite a website, it's to a main page, not to a particular page which supports the contentions. Now, I may be way out of line here, and these may in fact be valid articles, but it reads a lot like the Barbaro hoaxes which I found fascinating back when they were being fought. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found one more: Order of León-Sable. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who then was a gentleman?, I'm sorry to hear about User:Barneca/watch/Barbaro. As bad as an experience it may have been, this doesn't make other people guilty. First you accused me of being from Chicago, and I have proven you wrong (follow my IP address). Second, you said there were no references to these battles, and I proved you wrong again sending you the article of Dr. Brian De Toy. Third, you asked for a website (as if websites were the only acceptable source in Wikipedia), and I even sent you a link extracted from a history book fully dedicated to the "Batalla de Monforte de Lemos" ( http://www.1808-1814.org/articulos/monforte.html). Fourth, you said this was a hoax, and I pointed out websites citing the list of people killed that day ( http://club.telepolis.com/apenela/HISTORIA.htm). Fifth, you started to nominate a whole bunch of articles for deletion without reading any source. Sixth, every time I prove you wrong, you keep shooting in the dark for the next "nice try". Please, I understand where you are coming from, but as a new contributor I find hard to believe ONLY VETERAN CONTRIBUTORS CAN WRITE? This would be the end of Wikipedia.

A hoax? This link comes straight from the Ministry of Culture of Spain. These are protocols of nobility about the House of Lopez de Prado, another article you nominated for deletion without ever reading it: http://pares.mcu.es/ParesBusquedas/servlets/Control_servlet?accion=2&txt_id_fondo=184080

I hope this answers all your questions and we can keep working together. (Qqtacpn (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I never said you were from Chicago, I said a Google source shows that someone claiming to be Baron of Lemavia is from Chicago. Are you now claiming to be Baron of Lemavia? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1-Your link to mcu.es is dead, and 2- a search for "Lopez de Prado" comes up with lists of archives, not articles. None of the lists can prove your claims. 3- telepolis.com appears to be a social networking site, and therefore not a reliable source. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that brings me to another question: How did you, Niaps (talk · contribs) and Primadodelemavia (talk · contribs) happen to decide to come to Wikipedia and edit the same group of articles at the same time? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 08:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some more fuel here: User:Qqtacpn, User:Niaps, User:Primadodelemavia, User:167.206.29.162, all have been editing the same closely related articles as pointed out above, no prior history apart from a few edits on the IP, User:Qqtacpn, User:Niaps, and the IP are also involved in articles related to Napoleon (Talk:The Crime of Napoleon, Napoleon I of France, Talk:Peninsular War, First French Empire, Talk:Napoleonic Wars, Arc de Triomphe) where they are fixated on painting Napoleon as a genocidal maniac of the caliber of Hitler and on the claim about a "murder" of a thousand of Spanish civilians during the Peninsula War, in connection with the articles currently under AfD. I am not familiar with the Barbaro hoaxes, I wouldn't think this is related though, this here looks to me like it's a case of original research by someone obsessed about that Don Manuel bloke and events surrounding his death. Equendil Talk 08:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Qqtacpn (talk · contribs) identifies himself on Talk:House of Lemavia as the author of the lemavia website. Mathsci (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are also these edits on es.wikipedia [21], who edits here with the same IP 69.120.8.27 (talk · contribs) and seems also to be connected to the author of the website. Qqtacpn (talk · contribs) made this edit on en.wikipedia [22], an exact translation of what was added to the corresponding article on es.wikipedia [23] by the IP. Mathsci(talk) 10:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered all your questions for hours. You have made very offensive accusations based on:

• 1) Your inability to read Spanish.
• 2) Your lack of insterest for sources published in paper. You only accept websites as sources.
• 3) You are not interested to search the websites of the Spanish Goverment I have provided (search "lopez de prado", between quotes, at http://pares.mcu.es/ParesBusquedas/servlets/Control_servlet?accion=0).
• 4) The fact that my area of expertise (War crimes commited in Galicia during the Peninsular Wars) has offended a group of French Wikipedians (Equendil, Frania W., etc.).
• 5) Ridiculous suppositions (do I live in Chicago? Are these 5 users in the same Continent? Why are they interested in similar topics?)
• 6) Discrimination based on being a new contributor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qqtacpn (talk • contribs) 11:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone with access to this Encyclopedia (http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/geneal/index_gc.html), available at the Library of Congress and everywhere in the Spanish Speaking World, please go to Volume 72, pages 101-120. Or go to the http://www.granenciclopediagalega.com/, also available in the Library of Congress, and search the article dedicated to Lopez de Prado. These are but a few more proofs that these individuals are making false accusations. I do not doubt your intention is right, but the conclusion here is that a very small number of Wikipedians ignorant of well published research actually have the power to remove legitimate content. Fine, if this is how flawed Wikipedia is, please go ahead and remove these articles. They belong to the paper encyclopedias available in the Library of Congress. End of discussion. (Qqtacpn (talk) 11:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I took up Qqtacpn’s request to search the Spanish Archives portal using the given query. It turned up several individuals named, in part, “López de Prado” or “de Prado”, but none with the name he has supplied as the X Baron of Lemavia, Don Manuel Joseph Martín López de Prado. Furthermore, “Lemavia” produces zero hits on that site – not even the page that Qqtacpn provided a link to originally – and which doesn’t mention Lemavia (as other than a search term). Googling “Lemavia” turns up an interesting entry: Dr. Lopez De Prado, Baron of Lemavia, has an Amazon.com wishlist! This suggests we might have some COI issues here (and who knows, possibly BLP as well). Askari Mark (Talk) 04:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threat

This seems to be a legal threat [24] [25]. Mathsci (talk) 11:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. I have not reviewed the rest of this thread, but that is a clear threat worthy of a block, regardless of any other actions. J Milburn (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Username redirect

User talk:WikiProjectSpain redirects to User talk:Qqtacpn. Two points here. Is WikiProjectSpain and acceptable username, and surely a redirect is an admission of sockpuppetry? I don't know exactly, but I feel it's relevant to this discussion. WikiProjectSpain on Commons has uploaded images relevant to this, with 'own work' as copyright descriptions, which would make him a very good artist, and therefore worth asking where he got his source from. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 12:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There seem to be multiple problems with this user. He has uploaded some copyrighted images onto wikimdedia commons claiming them as his own work. Here for example is a book cover by the living illustrator Richard Hook [26], a detail from one of the plates inside the 2004 book Spanish Guerillas in the Peninsular War by René Chartrand, which corresponds to this wikipedia image [27] (now deleted on commons [28]). Mathsci (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Jarry1250, if you go and read the history, you'll find that the redirect is part of an account renaming, by EVula, that took place precisely because the username wasn't appropriate. The redirect isn't an "admission" of anything. MediaWiki creates it automatically when a bureaucrat renames an account. Uncle G (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, that would explain it. Sorry, my mistake. The account remained active on commons, but that's being dealt with. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 09:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another sock?

Irmandino (talk · contribs), whose first edit is to Irmandiño, an article created by User:Qqtacpn. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was no hoax - Please set the record straight

Askari Mark, thank you for verifying the sources. Let me clarify a few of your comments:

• 1) You have found about 10 people from the House of Lopez de Prado in the Royal Archives, who are listed as noblemen. Well, this debunks those accusations of hoax.
• 2) As you may know, the Sala de Hijosdalgos only deals with noblemen who want to be inscribed as such in another location, normally when they move from a distant land. Since Don Manuel Joseph Martín López de Prado never changed residence, he didn't need to appeal to the Sala de Hijosdalgos.
• 3) You have also found mentioned Don Andres Lopez de Prado, listed as Knight of the Order of Carlos III at the Royal Archives. As you probably know, this is the equivalent in Spain to the British Order of the Bath. Most of its members are Grandees, the highest nobility in Spain. Again, the claims of hoax are ridiculous.
• 4) I have provided numerous certified transcripts at http://s591.photobucket.com/albums/ss358/qqtacpn/, where you can find Barons of Lemavia being addressed as such.
• 5) Dr. Lopez de Prado has never been mentioned in any of the articles. The claim of possible COI, BLP also falls apart.

In summary, accusations of hoax have been proven wrong, and they MUST be withdrawn. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:House_of_Lopez_de_Prado should be removed. Besides, these articles were deleted by my own request (G7), and I do not want them re-published. Please read User_talk:Qqtacpn#Accusations_of_hoax_must_be_withdrawn.

People who made those accusations never took the time to verify the sources. I want to end thanking Askari Mark for taking the time. Thanks. (Qqtacpn (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

As someone who's spent a lot of time on the Barbaro hoaxers, this sure does smell pretty similar, right down to insisting that all mention of the hoax be whitewashed from the record - presumably so it can be shoved our way in a few months' time. This bunch, like the last, seems determined to test our reliable sources guidelines to the extreme by editing their bizarre stories into other web sites, then trying to cite them here. Keep these on your watchlists, all. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ESkog, your comment is unworthy of Wikipedia. You have failed to proof your accusation of hoax, now it is time to repair the damage. Again, these articles were deleted at my own request, I do not wish them re-published, and I have stated I'll abandon Wikipedia as soon as you recognize your error. It is called fairness and presumption of innocence. Show to the public that you know how to amend your mistakes. The alternative is public embarrassment from academics and historians who know about these facts and do not have Wikipedia's approach in high regard. Set the record straight, and you will regain my respect. (Qqtacpn (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The record seems pretty straight, and I don't seek the respect of those who come here to play games with us. I have better things to do than continue this latest in a long line of pointless conversations, so you'll forgive me if this is the last you hear on the matter. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Qqtacpn if you actually read what Askari Mark, you will see that he as well as other editors have set the record straight - by showing that sources do not back up your claims. I also find it disingenious when you claim the articles were deleted at your request, since you made no such request until some of your articles had already been speedy deleted as hoaxes and the others were well on their way to being deleted as hoaxes in Afd. Edward321 (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edward321, you have accused me of a hoax without providing a proof. Askari Mark went to the database I provided, and he found that the House of Lopez de Prado exists and is a member of the nobility. Please acknowledge your assessment was wrong, as a matter of fairness. Thanks (Qqtacpn (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Askari Mark already provided the proof that your claims are false. Your own sources don't mention the House of Lopez de Prado, nor the Baron of Lemavia, nor anything about any of the several articles that were created by you and rightly and properly deleted as hoaxes. Edward321 (talk) 00:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edward321, once again you are intentionally making false statements rather than admitting your mistake. For the last time:

• 1) The House of Lopez de Prado is repeatedly listed as a noble family by the Sala de Hijosdalgo of the Kingdom of Spain. Example: http://s591.photobucket.com/albums/ss358/qqtacpn/?action=view&current=10.jpg
• 2) The Battle of Monforte de Lemos has been the object of study by numerous scholars, among them Brigadier General Manuel Garcia del Barrio, Prof. German Vazquez, Prof. Brian De Toy, Dr. Luis Moure-Marino, etc. Example: http://www.1808-1814.org/articulos/monforte.html
• 3) Contemporary letters of British Officers to the Royal Admiralty give testimony of the Battle of Monforte de Lemos. Example: http://s591.photobucket.com/albums/ss358/qqtacpn/?action=view&current=Transcript_LetterMcKinley_ProfBrian.gif
• 4) The House of Lopez de Prado has been object of study by a number of publications, among them the Encyclopedia Garcia-Carraffa and the Grand Encyclopedia Gallega. Example: http://s591.photobucket.com/albums/ss358/qqtacpn/?action=view&current=Encyclopedia.jpg
• 5) Members of the House of Lopez de Prado have been awarded some of the highest nobility honors of the Spanish Empire. Example: Protocols of the Order of Carlos III on Don Andres Lopez de Prado (http://s591.photobucket.com/albums/ss358/qqtacpn/?action=view&current=C-III-Exp1207_005.jpg)
• 6) Certified transcripts of official census of nobility list the Baron of Lemavia. Example: http://s591.photobucket.com/albums/ss358/qqtacpn/?action=view&current=scanCME.jpg
• 7) Living members of the House are Knights in some of the highest Orders. Example: http://s591.photobucket.com/albums/ss358/qqtacpn/?action=view&current=Malta2.jpg
• 8) The Society of Lemavia is an institution of Nobility recognized by the Kingdom of Spain: http://s591.photobucket.com/albums/ss358/qqtacpn/?action=view&current=ANVMLRMI.jpg
• 9) The Order of Knights of Leon-Sable is a registered institution of Nobility by the Kingdom of Spain: http://s591.photobucket.com/albums/ss358/qqtacpn/?action=view&current=Aprobacion_OMNLSBL.jpg
• 10) Additional documents have been presented at http://s591.photobucket.com/albums/ss358/qqtacpn/

Administrators, this is our last attempt to try to solve amicably this dispute. If this is not resolved within the next few hours, the Society of Lemavia will present an official complaint to Mr. James Wales in the form of a public letter sent to the media. No legal actions will be taken, however the names of the administrators who promoted these false accusations will be listed. A number of University professors, some members of the Society, will support this letter of complaint. I sincerely hope you prevent this measure by immediately rebuking those users who made accusations of hoax. Thanks. (Qqtacpn (talk) 03:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I strongly suggest you withdraw the threat in the previous paragraph. It may not be a legal threat, but it is a threat none-the-less of off-wiki action to be taken against editors with whom you are in conflict. And it is simply not acceptable on the project to use threats of any sort to attempt to bully others into doing what you want done. So please retract the threat from here and from your talk page. - TexasAndroid (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Qqtacpn, Edward321’s reading of my findings is closer to being correct. My findings did not show that your articles are a hoax, but neither did they prove that they were not. As I stated, I found entries on a number of individuals holding the name “López de Prado” – not all of whom were nobles, by the way – including Don Andrés López de Prado, who holds the merits you described – and this indeed shows that a Sala López de Prado has existed. However, I was trying to confirm on your behalf whether the subject of the articles which have been called hoaxes truly existed in the sources you provided; unfortunately, I found no mention of Don Manuel Joseph Martín López de Prado Rodríguez Díaz de Armesto y Varela, X Baron of Lemavia, who is the main subject of one of your articles. Demonstrating that the one exists does not prove the existence of the other. (Also, the search returns were not just from the Sala de Hijosdalgos; judicial and other records were presented as well.)

In short, I can find no proof one way or the other whether these articles are legitimate or hoaxes. In fact, the lack of reliable sources begs the question of whether some of these subjects are sufficiently notable to have articles of their own. As for the potentiality for COI, if you are this living Dr. Lopez de Prado, Baron of Lemavia – and I am in no wise trying to “out” you – and you are writing about a distinguished ancestry, then yes, there could be COI (and there are easy ways to work around that). I have examined a few (not all) of your recent links; they are what are called “primary sources” and you need to be aware that for Wikipedia’s purposes, independent, third-party secondary sources are preferred. If you will read about Wikipedia’s guidelines on primary, secondary and tertiary sources, you may better understand why this is so. Regards, Askari Mark (Talk) 04:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Askari Mark, we may not agree, but I respect that you bring your arguments to the table. At least you have taken the time to check some of the sources (maybe the problem is, I gave too many?). We have also provided encyclopedia articles, which are not primary sources. I can send you more encyclopedia articles on this family if you give me an e-mail address. From your comments, I also deduce that you are not familiar with this topic. Is there anyone with a Ph.D. or M.Sc. in Medieval Spain who can settle this for good? No disrespect (particularly to you), but I feel like trying to explain basic stuff to a number of all-wise high school kids who cannot even read Spanish. (Qqtacpn (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

(note that an encyclopedia is a tertiary source, not a secondary one. that's why we don't cite Britannica directly unless we have to, other sources are preferred).

Good point. However, we do no longer want these articles published in Wikipedia. Those contributors who have called these articles a hoax should read those encyclopedias and acknowledge they made a mistake. But the problem is, they have called it a hoax without being able to read Spanish or having any expertise on this subject. Is this always the case in Wikipedia? (Qqtacpn (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Why isn't this at the Spanish wikipedia

I searched the spanish wikipedia and I couldn't find any mentions of either the house of Lemavia[29] or the relevant López de Prado person [30]. I could only find "Sánchez-Prado", who is neither the correct person nor a noble.

I'd suggest the creator to head to the Spanish wikipedia and write an article there about the House of Lemavia, in a place where all editors can read the sources, and then translate it here if it gets accepted as an existing house. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enric Naval, I appreciate this question. We started with the English Wikipedia version because Spanish encyclopedias, Genealogy books, publications of the Asociacion de Hidalgos (http://www.hidalgosdeespana.com/) have studied this family extensively. We (incorrectly) assumed Wikipedia editors would be able to read Spanish (our mistake). People at the Society have these articles translated in German, French, Portuguese and of course Spanish. But at this point, we are no longer interested in publishing in Wikipedia. We simply want those administrators who called these articles a hoax to withdraw their accusation.

Could you please explain the meaning of these sources I provided to those people who are calling it a hoax? Although they cannot read Spanish, they do not refrain from throwing accusations. Thanks. (Qqtacpn (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Obviously not or the Spanish Wiki would have articles. That wasn't even a plausible explanation, nor a very artful dodge.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see, that's why you were so keen to reach a premature conclusion of hoax. I understand it and excuse it as such. It's probably our fault in part as well, we expected too much from English Wikipedia. (Qqtacpn (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

An expert I am not, but I do know enough to understand what I read and to search for facts – especially reviewing the evidence someone presents for their point. In a way, yes, you did offer too many sources – most particularly those which did not directly provide proof that the specific articles claimed to be possible hoaxes – Battle of Lemos; Don Manuel Joseph Martín López de Prado Rodríguez Díaz de Armesto y Varela, X Baron of Lemavia; House of Lemavia; and Order of León-Sable – are indeed historical events, people and entities. After wading through a number of your links, I was able to confirm (from a primary source) that Don Andrés López de Prado was a historical figure and a noble, which confirmed that there was an historical Sala López de Prado – but there are no articles on these that are being called hoaxes. Unfortunately, none of your links that I’ve gone through provide any evidence one way or the other that Don Manuel or the House of Lemavia exist. (I have not searched for the others.)

This does not serve your cause well because one characteristic of hoaxers is that when asked for sources, they tend to provide lots of sources which don’t prove their point. That is why so many editors here remain hostile and unconvinced of the authenticity of your work. Nor are they likely to be convinced by your photo gallery of certified documents regarding information in primary sources; unfortunately, as I have personally encountered, there are hoaxers who convincingly forge such material. Indeed, these problems lie at the heart of why Wikipedia discourages the use of primary sources. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anybody can edit, nobody is required to be an expert to write on a topic (nor, on English Wikipedia, fluent in a foreign language). Thus Wikipedia encourages the use of reliable secondary sources written by experts who do have full command of the relevant primary sources – knowing which ones are or are not fully accurate or are biased.

Enric Naval’s suggestion of starting on Spanish Wikipedia is a good one. If your work satisfies the editors there, it’s much more likely to be accepted here, since those editors have fluent command of the language in which most relevant sources are written – along with readier physical access to them for verification, if need be. I do not know an expert on medieval Spain, but I would recommend that you post relevant queries at the Military History Wikiproject – particularly at their Napoleonic era task force and Spanish military history task force – and Wikiproject Spain. Regards, Askari Mark (Talk) 02:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies accepted

Any other of the offenders wishes to retract and receive a nice bottle of the best Spanish red wine in reward? Just read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Qqtacpn#Apologies_accepted, confirm you withdraw your accusation of hoax, and on my honor of a Spanish hidalgo, you will receive a bottle of the best Rioja within 2 weeks. (Qqtacpn (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Not a single person has apologized to. Just stop.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Restored from archive. Nothing can be done on the back of two comments, so this remains unresolved. Hesperian 12:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Are we ever going to do anything about Rotational? This user wars interminably over two layout issues, upon which he disagrees with both consensus and the Manual of Style: he hates "=="-level headings because they put a thin grey line across the page, and he hates right-floated right-facing images.

In the last week alone, he has edit-warred at List of Southern African indigenous trees and woody lianes, Jean-Louis van Aelbroeck, René Louiche Desfontaines, Antoine Risso, and Heinrich Schütz; and that is not to mention the many pages where there is no edit war solely because no-one has stepped up to revert his tendentious changes. Other recent edit wars include Magellanic Catalogue of Stars, Franz Sieber, NGC 5679 Group, Walter Hood Fitch and Eucalyptus flocktoniae. Before that it was Joseph Maiden, Barnard 68, Nils Johan Andersson, Katey Walter... that takes us back to the first days of March, when he was warring on about twenty pages simultaneously. It seems he always has at least a few edit wars on the go, and always over the same issues. I don't know what pages he'll be edit-warring on in a fortnight, but I can guarantee you he'll be edit-warring somewhere, if something isn't done about him.

He was blocked indefinitely for socking under his old username "Paul Venter", but talked his way out of the block by denying he was the same user—a denial that is now obviously, even openly, a lie. He was reported for edit warring here, and here, and here, and here. He has been warned on his talk page innumerable times. A great deal of time has been wasted arguing with him. He has even been blocked once. But the warring just goes on and on and on. Hesperian 01:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The Paul venter sock case was at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Paul_venter.
• This is the discussion from November 2007 where Rotational gets unblocked, after indignantly protesting the assertion that he is Paul venter, but without actually denying it: Rkitko's accusation of my being a sockpuppet is based on purely circumstantial evidence with possibly a touch of vindictiveness.

I suggest that we impose an editing restriction. Admins could tell Rotational he must stop revert-warring against other editors who are formatting articles in accordance with the Manual of Style. In particular, he must not revert war on heading levels or on the issue of right-facing images. (He strongly opposes the standard formatting of the header line of reference sections: see this edit from May 11. He is relentless on that topic). EdJohnston (talk) 04:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support restriction. Rotational has been warned far too many times now, and as far as I can tell, they are not a benefit to the encyclopaedia. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 04:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support restriction as one of the editors who frequently has to clean up after him. It is also worth noting he has several pages in his userspace, which at one point he created cross namespace redirects to, and had categorised, though quickly the redirects were speedy deleted and the categories removed a couple of days ago. I suspect this action was to circumvent the MoS. Jenuk1985 | Talk 09:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support restriction, what do you mean "two isn't enough"? Of course it is - one is enough. The key is, did any admin disagree? and no, no one did. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The user has fundamental disagreements with the MOS, but unfortunately seems to prefer warring in articles rather than discussing his issues at WT:MOS or elsewhere. The amount of disruption that resulted at Walter Hood Fitch was totally excessive and shouldn't be repeated in other articles. Papa November (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I support this, so assuming EdJohnston supports his own proposal, that makes six supports and no opposes. Would an uninvolved party please frame precise conditions and consequences and inform Rotational? Hint: The above "must stop revert-warring against editors who are formatting articles in accordance with the Manual of Style" will only result in hair-splitting arguments over what the Manual of Style says and whether an edit can be seen as in accordance with it. "must not revert war on heading levels or on the issue of right-facing images" is much better. Hesperian 23:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. See WP:RESTRICT. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is absurd, but not altogether unexpected considering the quality of some of the the learned figures taking part in this kangaroo court. There is a clear directive in the MoS and I quote:

• It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left (for example: Timpani). However, images should not be reversed simply to resolve a conflict between these guidelines; doing so misinforms the reader for the sake of our layout preferences. If an image is reversed or otherwise substantially altered, there should be a clear advantage to the reader in doing so (for example, cropping a work of art to focus on a detail that is the subject of commentary), and the alteration must be noted in the caption. Am I to understand that you have without consensus decided to throw out this particular guideline OR have you decided that I of all WP editors will not be permitted to enforce it?. Do try to think clearly before replying. Rotational (talk) 14:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • • A "clear directive".... riiight. If the MOS contains anything at all that can be fairly called a "clear directive", it is the first dot point of that section, "Start an article with a right-aligned lead image or InfoBox". Hesperian 23:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well......something had to be placed first because historically that's the way it happened, but its position in the list doesn't make it the most important, in fact its presence in the MoS is suspect because there is no compelling reason aesthetic or otherwise for its use - in short it is indefensible. Rotational (talk) 06:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see; so "clear" means "clear if I ignore the direct contradiction that I disagree with". Hesperian 07:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits like this violated other MOS guidelines by causing unsightly text-squeezing and stripping the alt-text from an image, so please don't pretend to be valiantly defending the MOS! You should start a polite discussion about the matter at WT:MOS and present your concerns and proposals clearly. It'll work out far better for you than edit-warring at individual articles. Also, once again I'd encourage you to discuss policy rather than questioning the intellect of other editors - it's not doing you any favours. Papa November (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're comparing edits look at this and tell me that the layout is an improvement AND conforms to MoS. I'm certainly NOT defending the MoS but rather pointing out your inconsistent interpretation of it. I'm not asking for "any favours", but rather that you acquire an evenhanded approach. Rotational (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the above means "Cygnis insignis is as bad as me and should be treated the same way." An inspection of Cygnis' contributions will clearly demonstrate that this is not the case. Hesperian 23:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, inspect closer. Rotational (talk) 06:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The MoS contains conflicting guidelines - indeed the quoted text acknowledges that contradiction - yet you have taken one of those positions (that it is "often preferable" to do something) as a justification for edit-warring across multiple pages. I would ask if you have a similar justification for your position regarding level-two headings, but it's irrelevant. The consensus is very clear that your actions are disruptive and need to stop. Do try to avoid making any further personal attacks when replying. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've marked this as resolved as no further admin action is required here. There is still disagreement over the MOS issues, so please sort it out at WT:MOS rather than clogging up the admin board. Papa November (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reopened this thread following a request from SheffieldSteel. However, please restrict your discussion here to whether or not the editing restrictions against Rotational are justified. I have started a discussion at WT:MOS#Centre-facing images and L2 headers for you to resolve the style issues... please don't let the debate spill over onto this thread. Papa November (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Rotational had a sincere disagreement with the WP:MOS, you would expect him to work to get it changed by consensus. Ad-hoc revert-warring on the layout of individual articles doesn't seem to be good faith. We shouldn't allow the uncertainties in the manual of style to translate into indefinite tolerance for revert-warring on individual articles. He has been wasting the time of other editors. Please don't assume this is a new issue, where a slightly-misguided editor has to be pointed to the proper channels. It's a matter of his entire history on Wikipedia. His above comments don't address the problem he has created. Compare his unblock request from 2007 with the current debate; he has learned nothing, and does not wish to compromise in the slightest. He has not accepted Firsfron's request to him from 2007: I will ask that you attempt to follow the guidelines set out at WP:MOS (already linked on your userpage) concerning headings (WP:HEAD). If you need assistance, I would be happy to help out or give advice. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Has somebody pointed out to Rotational that the thin lines go away if he changes his skin?
  • Yes. Repeatedly. I don't recall ever getting a clear answer why he doesn't like that solution, other than because I proposed it. --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't even take a style sheet; just changing your preferences for skin: I use Classic myself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• That failing, a consensus on each article is a sounder argument than MOS, most of which was never consensus, and is now imposed out of a preference for any consistency over diversity. (If nobody at the articles cares, why should ANI?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • People at the article do care. There are a group of people who edit in the same fields as him (e.g. botanical illustrators). He pops up on their watchlists giving an article an ugly layout that he alone likes, on the basis of some trivial vexillogical quibble; they revert back to something attractive and (incidentally, if you like) in accordance with the MOS; there is an argument, possibly an edit war. A few days later he pops up on their watchlists again, giving a different article the same ugly layout; they revert; they have the same tired argument, possibly another edit war. Watch, rinse, repeat. Ad infinitum.

    I think everyone, even Rotational, will agree that only Rotational likes Rotational's layout, and everyone else hates it. That fact alone ought to be sufficient to restrain Rotational from repeatedly applying it to articles. But it is not. Rotational continues to edit and edit war in an attempt to force articles to use his preferred layout, even though he knows everyone but him thinks it hideous. And people are sick of it. That is the problem here. The MOS only comes into this as as a surrogate for "the layout preferred by everyone except Rotational".

    Hesperian 23:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • And that, unfortunately, is the case to block. We should use the layout preferred by many even if MOS were against it; if MOS abided by policy, we would then change MOS. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Sanchez, aka Bluemarine (talk · contribs), just posted to my talk page, accusing me of vandalism somewhere. He is, as far as I can tell, still under an indef. community ban. It appears his Arbcom site ban ended in January but I see nothing at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine dealing with ending the community ban. The last action I see is this past December where he was placed on a limited unblock with conditions (see the very bottom of his arbcom page). So, can we find out and get a clarification on this? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 04:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also note his editing at the Matt Sanchez talk page. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 05:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up about this thread, Allstar. Bluemarine's arbitration ban expired on 1 April 2009. This is the first time since then (that I'm aware) when he's returned to editing. He might not understand that the community ban remains in place. Have emailed him to ask whether he understands this; awaiting reply. (I've been mentoring Bluemarine/Matt Sanchez since his siteban, mostly at Commons). Durova^Charge! 05:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have received a reply; he wasn't aware that the community ban remained in force after the arbitration ban expired. Have asked him to edit only to his main account user talk until this gets sorted out. Durova^Charge! 05:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked him via edit summary when undoing his edits to the article about him's talk page, not to edit until clarification was obtained as to the status on the community ban. He ignored me, undid me, and continued on. I assume he will now stop since you've had contact with him? Additionally, since he's under an indef community ban, why is he even able to edit? Shouldn't his account have been blocked from editing? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 05:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine#Limited unblock with conditions explains this.  Sandstein  06:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's right. It kind of caught me by surprise this evening while I was working on other things. Matt would like to request a repeal of his community ban; it's been a year. In this unusual situation, how do we go about clarifying the matter. According to many people a community ban is a block that no administrator is willing to unblock. He is unblocked, so how do we clear the air? Durova^Charge! 06:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, following up. Matt tells me he's been receiving offsite harassment that pertains to Wikipedia. Haven't seen it myself, although the arbitration case did establish that he had been harassed extensively. My advice to him was to forward evidence of harassment to ArbCom, if it's demonstrable that it originates from an editor. He did not discuss who (if anyone) he thought was the source of that problem. Seems to be a little confused, so I've asked him to monitor this discussion and post nowhere other than his user talk until things are sorted out. Will be heading to bed now, so please be patient. Durova^Charge! 06:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info Durova. Whoever is harassing him offsite, if they are a Wiki user and it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, should be dealt with for sure. However, regardless of that, he is still under a community ban. I see that Arbcom per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine#Limited unblock with conditions unblocked him with stipulations as to what actions he could perform on Wikipedia but I'll also note 2 things in regard to that: A) Arbcom shouldn't have overruled the community and unblocked him for any reason whatsoever. Additionally so with the reason for the limited purpose of his making contributions related to increasing the accessibility of Wikipedia to users with handicapping conditions. Seriously, go against the will of the community and unblock someone on behalf of handicap people? and B) That unblock pertained to his Arbcom ban only. Now that it has expired, and since he's still under community ban, he should be blocked from editing except for his own talk page and the talk page be temporary and it too blocked should his community ban continue to stand. I've got no opinion at this time as to whether or not the community ban should be lifted but as it stands now, it's still in effect and should be enforced. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 07:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Actually it is precisely ArbCom's function to overrule the community on occasion. The community's actions are subject to review by ArbCom and sometimes they overturn the community's action. Durova^Charge! 14:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Durova has said above, a community ban is usually expressed as a block that no admin is willing to lift. Since any single admin can overturn a community ban, ArbCom, consisting of mostly admins, certainly can do so as well. If that approach still scales with the number of admins we now have is a subject for another time. Anyways, given that Matt has sat out the year, and is a productive contributor to our sister projects, I think he is one of the rare breed that deserves a second chance. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if any single admin can overturn the will of the community, that policy needs to be addressed as well. Not here of course but somewhere. Why does 1 person get to overrule many? As I said, I have no opinion at this time on doing away with the community ban but I am skeptical.. For 4 months after the beginning of his Arbcom ban, he evaded his block via sockpuppet as evidenced by the block log at his Arbcom page. Just today, I witnessed sockpuppeting by him over on Wikiquote (I know it was him because he made changes to the page about him there under an IP - when he normally uses the name Bluemarine there too - and then came over here and left a note on my talk page while logged in as Bluemarine accusing me of vandalizing his Wikiquote page even though the only edit I ever made up to that point to that page was adding a Conflict of Interest tag to it). When and if a discussion on the community ban materializes, I'll deal with these issues there. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 07:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Yes, been working toward change in that part of the banning policy for over two years. Got overruled by the consensus. If you'd like to change consensus, by all means join me in doing so after this dispute is settled. Durova^Charge! 14:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought a ban was agreed upon by consensus and that to un-ban also required consensus. If not, then there's no practical difference between a block and a ban. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are significant differences. See WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that there is supposed to be a difference, and that's the point I'm raising. I'm not seeing anything obvious on who has the authority to lift a ban. But I thought that was supposed to be by consensus, not by an individual admin deciding to do so. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where ArbCom makes a decision, I imagine it simply supercedes lower decisions, and Jimbo can overrule ArbCom. Elsewise, the hierarchy which certainly appears to exist, would not. In short -- action de novo would be needed to effectively overturn ArbCom. Collect (talk) 11:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, OK, so did an admin make a mistake in this case? I never heard of this Sanchez guy, I'm just asking what the rules are. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, no admin made a mistake. He essentially was under 2 bans.. one indefinitely by the community and one for a year via the Arbcom case. The Arbcom ban has ended. The community ban hasn't. So, the mistake is on the part of Arbcom for unblocking him with stipulations that he could only upload files "so that handicap users could access them" and he could only edit his user page and talk page, while he was still under a community ban. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 11:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on bans and blocks: My reading of the above leads me to think that community bans and de facto bans are being confused. A community ban (discussed fully) requires a community consensus to lift (though ArbCom may lift if they decide community input/process was insufficient to legitimately establish a ban). Any admin may lift a defacto ban, as it really just overturns an indef block made by another single admin. I do agree with the above that MS was under two separate bans, and that while the AC sanction is over, the community ban is still in place, esp. as the AC motion does not address the community ban.
• Agree with Schulz above that we should probably re-visit the community sanction, especially if Durova is keeping an eye on things (but unfounded accusations against current editors would have to stop -tired or not) . . . R. Baley (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sanchez posting in this thread

I just noticed from Sanchez's contribs that sometime during this thread, he made a post here in this very thread, despite being told he was still under community ban. It was undone by Durova so I didn't see it. I'll address the allegations in that post: lies. I don't know the man's phone number, never have known the man's phone number, don't even know his Twitter account name, never have known the man's Twitter account name, don't know the man's email addresses and have never in my life sent the man an email to any email address. Posting that only proves to me that he hasn't changed one bit. I demand proof of these accusations by him, against me, or else he needs to knock that off right now. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 11:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allstar, he was confused. It was the wee hours of the night in his time zone and nearly midnight in mine. Now in spite of my declaration that I was heading to bed, and request for patience, I awaken to discover this new subthread has been open for hours. This is very disappointing. Durova^Charge! 14:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's also very disappointing to see myself accused of such things Durova. If it were you being slandered and accused of such gross violations, I highly doubt you'd have even went to bed on it. How is one "confused" when they make posts like that? If someone were stalking me, calling my personal phone, sending me harassing emails and harassing me on Twitter, and I knew who it was, I'd certainly remember and not make such an enormous mistake as to be "confused" and post someone else's name as the "stalker". - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 18:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I sympathize. I have seen no evidence that you were responsible for any of that, nor was your name discussed specifically before he posted. That was one reason why I made last night's final post (didn't want to draw attention and/or doubts attached to your username, which was the reason for not naming you). Very difficult situation to rise up at the very end of one's evening.

Matt has been subject to a very serious offsite harassment campaign, as noted in the arbitration finding. So far as I know, the individual responsible for it was sitebanned long ago. Last night Matt mentioned that offsite harassment had either continued or resumed, and I advised him that if he had evidence linking ongoing harassment to any current editor then that should go to the Committee (per the general instruction from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jim62sch#Grave_real-world_harassment). I had also advised him to post only to his user talk until this matter is cleared up, and given him a link to this discussion so that he could monitor its progress. The unintended result of that was that he got very confused. You have my apologies for the I played in that chain of events; its outcome was unintentional (this was why I really hoped to get a night's sleep in my body before resuming). And if there's need be explicit about an issue that seems to loom close whenever this biography comes up, my own views about LGBT issues are very different from Matt's. Durova^Charge! 22:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting the community sanction

Per suggestions above, let's revisit the community sanction. What seems sensible is to implement a topic ban under mentorship and restrict him to one account. Bluemarine (who is Matt Sanchez) is fluent in four languages and has a history of useful contributions at Commons.[31]

So suggesting the following (based upon Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Bluemarine#Limited_unblock_with_conditions):

Bluemarine's community ban is modified to a topic ban from the Matt Sanchez biography, and from LGBT topics and related talk pages, broadly construed. He is limited to the use of one account. If Bluemarine violates the terms of this restriction, or makes any comment reasonably regarded as harassing or a personal attack, he may be reblocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator.

Would appreciate the assistance of a second mentor, if one is willing to step forward (seeking volunteers). Durova^Charge! 17:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this has gotten pushed so far up the page that you may need to start a new section on it, referencing this section of course. As for the suggestion itself, what is the time constraint on this topic ban? Also, let's change "he may be blocked" to "he will be blocked", difference in may and will. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 02:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the main idea here is to bring in the good he can do for the site without reigniting old fires. Do you think this proposal would manage the major concerns? Durova^Charge! 04:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have concerns. First, the nature of Bluemarine's actions were so egregious as to support not one but TWO bans. Second, while I grant that he may have been confused about when the bans ended, he didn't choose to ask Durova, who has faithfully mentored him, but began editing again. Third, one of his quickest edits was to accuse an editor here of harassing him. Whatever time it is, that's unacceptable. I do not - at this time - support a modification of his community ban, while at the same time congratulating him on his success on other projects. - Philippe 04:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite inclined to agree with Philippe. The vitriol (calling other users "faggot" among other choice things), the blatant disregard for policy and for the bans (still editing via sockpuppet 4 months into the bans), socking on other projects now (see Wikiquote), asking for meatpuppets via his Twitter account (see the Matt Sanchez article's talk page for that), Uploading of copyvio files (he's had many files deleted for claiming ownership but later found out to be copyvios owned by other sources).. I just don't see why he can't continue to contribute to sister sites while still community banned here. His mode of operation is completely established and are we sure it won't happen on other articles in which he's been the cause of disruption to (Ann Coulter specifically) but which aren't covered under such topic ban? Despite all of this, and my better judgement telling me not no but hell no.. I'm willing to go along with the following:

Bluemarine's community ban is modified to a topic ban from the Matt Sanchez biography and its talk page, and from LGBT topics and related talk pages, broadly construed. He is limited to the use of one account:Bluemarine. He is not to upload any files of which he does not own. If Bluemarine violates the terms of this restriction, or makes any comment reasonably regarded as harassing or a personal attack, he will be blocked indefinitely by any uninvolved administrator.

That's the best I can muster right now. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 04:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to Philippe, there was a specific and unusual provocation behind Matt's recent edits. I have no reason to believe Allstarecho was responsible, but Matt has been targeted for very serious harassment. During last year's arbitration someone hacked into Matt's computer, posted a (possibly altered) personal chat log of Matt's to the arbitration case pages, and according to Matt the hacker also cleared out his bank account. Someone runs a hate site dedicated to Matt and also impersonates Matt on the Internet. Recently a query came up at Matt's bio talk that seemed like a plausible claim (supposedly Matt had tried to canvass for Wikipedia editors on Twitter), and when I queried Matt about it he got upset because Matt had never canvassed on Twittter; that was the impersonator. Matt's been getting other offsite harassment recently also, which I hadn't been aware of.

So in short, Matt wasn't flying off the handle for no reason at all. He has been provoked for a long time by someone who is very patient and diligent about it. Matt wasn't aware that the second ban still existed, and I wasn't aware that the harassment had continued. Durova^Charge! 05:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Police notified

Not sure if this is the right place for this or not. But this user keeps changing the content of Together Through Life with bomb/death threats. Some examples of his work: "Opps, seems like I just shot someone in the houes, I am warning you give me the $100,000 or the whole family will be dead" and most recently "I will blow the fucking brains out of every one of these motherfucks, come to [street address], Ellenbrook or I will kill the fuckers." Should this be taken seriously.. or is there some special procedure that should be followed? I checked the IP address and that address exists where the IP is coming from. Thanks --T'Shael MindMeld 08:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone local should phone the police, threats like this should be taken seriously. If I remember correctly it's a felony as well. Matty (talk) 08:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His IP is out of Perth, Australia..not sure who is from there that is on here right now. I'm in Texas, but could still call 9-1-1. Terorristic threat is a felony in the US. Any suggestions? --T'Shael MindMeld 08:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ellenbrook is in Western Australia, just outside of Perth. The address is also a real address. Worryingly, everything seems to check out. I'm not sure if the American police would be able to contact the local authorities effectively, but if you feel comfortable you have nothing to lose calling. Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm might be useful reading as well, this threat seems pretty credible even if it is a joke. Matty (talk) 08:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this whole thing has kinda creeped me out. If things didn't check out so nicely, then I wouldn't worry. I'm going to try to locate the number of the police in his area. --T'Shael MindMeld 08:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The number (131 + 444) that the local police here gave me doesn't seem to work, so if anyone is actually in Australia and feels compelled to call the authorities - please do so. --T'Shael MindMeld 09:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That telephone number will not work for international callers. The ordinary telephone number for Ellenbrook Police Station (2 Civic Terrace, Ellenbrook, WA 6069) is +61 8 92 97 98 00. An automated message will direct you to either 000 or the above number. Dial '1' after you are connected to reach an officer at the station. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 09:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I would also suggest someone oversight the edits with the address in them, unless they need to stay there for the authorities. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 11:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep that in mind and remember to email oversight in a day or two if no one contacts the local police. The IP has been blocked for three days but I believe the threats of violence should really be looked into. I'll try emailing the Perth police after I find a working email to notify them but in all honesty their were separate edits made over a day so I don't really think this matter is an immediate serious threat of violence, and i'm hoping i'm right. That said, the nature of the edits leads me to think there is a serious underlying problem with the person making them and the police need to be notified (i wont quote anything here as they'll end up being oversighted in the end). Hopefully i'll be able to get in contact with them soon but i'd urge any admins/users from the Perth area to notify the police as well. Matty (talk) 11:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given further consideration I have called SA police and have notified them. Please do not oversight the edits.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Police have sent a patrol car to the address mentioned and the computer crimes unit are investigating the IP.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. Does this mean the edits can be oversighted now or do the authorities still need them to stay in the history? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 02:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm expecting a call back from Paul (computer crimes unit) detailing the result of the investigation. Until such a time I think that the pages should not be oversighted, I had a hard enough time explaining that anyone can edit wikipedia and I would hate to oversight them while he still needs them ;-) I'll email the oversight team when he gives me the ok.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for keeping us up to date. --T'Shael MindMeld 05:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The police sent a patrol car out (without the $100,000 of course!) but no one was home (or no one answered), They said they would send another out tonight and get back to me tomorrow. They said the IP originates from that rough area so they are going to make inquiries as to why that specific address appeared in those messages. Paul has explicitly asked that the edits are not oversighted as they may be needed for legal reasons.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 12:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that if there are legal concerns as to whether or not to oversight the edits, it might be in the best interests of the police for them to contact the Foundation so that appropriate steps to back up any evidence can be taken. - Philippe 04:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The oversighters OTRS list has already been emailed notifying them. Prom3th3an (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Get off that doppelganger. :P - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 05:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Its my old username (before rename) and I sometimes instinctively log into it without thinking.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 06:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

I'd like to get some additional eyes on the recent actions of PirateSmackK (talk · contribs). Specifically, the editor tagged an article as {{db-fagottry}} [32] and moved another editor's userpage to "Pedobear"[33], pretended to be a clerk[34], whacked another editor with a trout when he disagreed with a speedy tag[35] and recently engaged in some tendentious editing after I tried to explain CSD nuances [36] and [37]. I think we have a bigger problem than any one of these instances. Toddst1 (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of that was a month back and the page I tagged was basically vandalism. All my actions are in good faith. I've written some articles too, and helped in New page patrolling. If I come across a page that meets CSD, I tag it otherwise remove the tag. Also I have the right to put forward my point if there is a disagreement, your wish if you want to call it TE. PirateSmackK^Arrrr! —Preceding undated comment added 12:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Granted it was three weeks back, but can you explain how moving another editor's userpage to "Pedobear" is anything other than unacceptable? Likewise for tagging an article with {{db-faggotry}}? Ideally I'd like to see some sign that you realise these were not good-faith edits, and have learned from the experience. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, my interactions with him have lead me to conclude a lack of maturity rather than any malicious intent. I imagine he's fairly young. That said, it does seem less and less likely that he will adapt to the expectations we have for editors regarding behavior. I'd be in favor of mandatory counseling, such as being assigned a mentor, preferably someone who has successfully turned disruptive editors into productive ones. I'm afraid I don't have anyone in mind, however. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote on User:Taxman's Talkpage earlier, I find a lot of PirateSmackK's edits increasingly suspicious. His refusal to answer (and quick removal of) questions about his behaviour by User:EVula[38]and myself[39] [40] is at best unpolite, but the removal of a comment by Ironholds[41] from Taxman's Talkpage is basically vandalism. "Testing the MOVE button" by moving another editor's account[42] is bad enough, but naming that new account "pedobear" removes the last shreds of good faith I had. Furthermore I have doubts about the "test" excuse because the edit summary claims "rename user, per request in email"[43]. Then there's this odd RFA vote[44], the removal of my SD tag (db-vandalism) from Instant beach (a nonsense article about water), followed by an accusation of being bitey[45] because I tagged it. Oh, and then there was tagging an article with db-faggotry, of course.[46]. All this stuff just doesn't add up in my book. One minute he's the clueless newbie creating silly redirects[47], the next he seems to know all about WP policies or plasters specialist tags on pages. This was his second edit[48]. He added a userpage to the Alison article[49] and then claimed he didn't know the difference between "famous" and "notable". There's this edit summary, and every message I ever left on his Talkpage is removed within minutes and never answered (or archived) [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55]. Then there's the constant begging for rollback and admin rights, and whenever you want to discuss his actions with him he'll throw WP:AGF at you. (See also this discussion).I no longer believe PirateSmackK is a newbie or very young. Some of his remarks on other people's Talkpages[56],[57][58] suggest to me he's got quite a history on WP. I know Checkuser isn't for fishing. I'm not sure if a check could still be considered fishing, though. Yintaɳ  13:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the editor does claim to have previously edited as an IP, but I do agree that there are two patterns of response to any criticism: either invoke AGF or accuse the person trying to provide guidance of some wrongdoing - neither of which shows any level of responsibility for his/her actions, as evidenced by the teflon response above. The editor had rollback removed within 24 hours of getting it and clearly shows no grasp of CSD policy. I support the suggestion about this editor needing a mentor, and perhaps a 6-month topic ban for NPP and CSD issues. Toddst1 (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPP topic ban is not appropriate just because I don't let incorrect CSD tags stand. At least I'm not tagging software with db-A7 as you did, toddst1 PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 14:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't rise to the bait, Toddst1. This thread is about you, PirateSmackK. Let's stick to the subject . Problems with Toddst, if any, can be discussed in another thread. Thanks. Yintaɳ  14:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Struck 'bait' remark after discussion with Nihiltres [59]Yintaɳ  15:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was just an example. I know Toddst1 is an experienced admin, but hey, topic ban someone just because you disagree with them on an issue? PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 14:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you, calm down. PirateSmackK, the issue is in your perceivedly immature actions, not whether or not your CSD was right (in fact, that "{{db|faggotry}}" bit would have been completely normal if you had used the more typical {{db-vandalism}} instead). Yintan, don't escalate things unnecessarily. PirateSmackK, find a mentor, please. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 14:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the pattern of behavior over the time frame involved I can only conclude the user is doing it knowingly. I would support any responses as reasonable and encourage the minimum amount of time be spent on the issue. A required mentor, then failing that stiffer sanctions wouldn't be a bad route. Topic bans wouldn't be out of order if there are ongoing problems in certain areas. - Taxman ^Talk 16:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed sanction

Proposed sanction: "Topic Ban for PirateSmackK (talk · contribs) on NPP and CSD related edits for 6 months or, if editor finds a willing administrator, will be reduced to Probation (Supervised editing) for 2 months." Toddst1 (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose because CSD is not an issue. IIRC I have never tagged any article for speedy deletion when it didn't actually meet the criteria. Uninvolved administrators are free to browse through my deleted contribs and post diffs to any such tags I may have placed. Its just that Toddst1 who wants to get me banned from CSD for a petty disagreement. PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 19:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is that nothing described above by any editor constitutes a problem on your end? You've done nothing wrong? Nathan ^T 22:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, but only because I think six months is far too long and harsh, not because I don't think there is a problem. A proposal I'd support would be to make it clear to PiratesmackK that he is right on the edge - read the CSD criteria, use them correctly, avoid silly things like {{db|faggotry}} or next time it will be a topic ban. Ironholds (talk) 08:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Addendum, per the discussion above - I'd be more than happy to mentor PiratesmackK and keep an eye on him if he'd agree to that. Ironholds (talk) 08:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support sanction for 6 weeks > I think that 6 months is over the top, but anyone who manages to come up with {{db-faggotry}} and then defends themselves, needs a period to cool off and consider whether or not they want to constructively help Wikipedia, and if so, how. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, way too long for something that really amounts to a woeful lack of judgement. I use the word woeful and I mean woeful. He needs to get his act together to avoid it happening again. Then and only then shall we "sanction" him.  GARDEN  08:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you look at it carefully, it's definitely not just lack of judgement, it's intentional. - Taxman ^Talk 12:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Supervised editing for 2 months sounds good to me. A 6 month ban is very long. I hope Ironholds and PirateSmackK can get this mentorship going. Yintaɳ  10:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I've left a message on his talkpage offering to mentor him. I hope for his sake that he accepts, because while showing a woeful lack of judgement is bad, showing a woeful lack of judgement and then refusing offers of assistance is to me evidence that they aren't interested in being helped, and I for one would switch to supporting the ban until they can get their act together. Ironholds (talk) 11:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  So did I, but...[60]. Hey-ho, never mind... Yintaɳ  14:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. - Taxman ^Talk 12:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I could not fail to disagree with you less ;-) Yintaɳ  12:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 2 month sanction I, too, think that six months is a bit too long, but I'm finding it hard to believe that we're dealing with cluelessness here, and throwing AGF around like it's going out of style does not instill much faith in me for his edits; selectively removing warnings and the overall disregard for good-faithed attempts to correct his behavior are also a major factor for me. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - PiratesmackK has agreed to me mentoring him/overseeing his edits. I guess this is essentially acceptance of the initial proposal, namely that he be under supervised editing for 2 months. I recommend we stick with this; if he fails to change then he'll be slapped with the heavy end next time. Ironholds (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indianwhite Indianwhite|talk has made a series of edits on BLP subjects as well as on historic and contemporary subjects. Most if not all the edits have been reverted by other editors. A typical pattern seems to be to add data or change data in the infoboxes, such as this one and 3R edit war or peacock issues. The edit is never sourced and whenever a caution or tag is given, the note is removed abruptly from the editor's talk page (not that there is anything wrong with that). At this point, my antenna is up but nothing more... Should this go on, I think a few questions may be arising. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, based on their editing style and content, I'm pretty sure that Indianwhite (talk · contribs) is related to 119.95.180.16 (talk · contribs). Mosmof (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC) edited to add And judging by edits from 119.95.176.131 (talk · contribs), now I'm certain that this user and dynamic IPs from the 119.95.x.x range are the same. --Mosmof (talk) 01:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editor hasn't been notified, but I've done that now. I'm having trouble with him at Mons Graupius Dougweller (talk) 11:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user must be stoped! He is in a rampage, adding an enourmous amount of unsourced data to an enourmous amount of "battle" articles! And he immediately deletes warnings from is talk page, does not reply or enter into debate, and does not fill in the edit summary exlaining his actions. The Ogre (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and he is reverting all the sound reversitions of his edits. The Ogre (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hit 3RR on User talk:Indianwhite but I can't revert as that would put me at 3RR. As I'm involved I can't block him but someone should. Dougweller (talk) 14:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, 3RR doesn't apply to one's own user space... --NE2 14:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! The Ogre (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, meant Mons Graupius. He's the one blanking his page, I'm not reverting his blanking. Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, I noticed that his most recent edit to Mons Graupius was to add the information already in the article to the infobox. If it was ok for inline, what's the problem with putting it in the infobox?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No edit summary, part of a pattern, reverted by not just me but continuing to put it back, unresponsive on talk page, and the figures are dubious and Tacitus is thought to be exaggerating (as it says in the article). I'll add something about that, but the main problem is the pattern of no edit summaries and lack of responsiveness. He's collecting a lot of warnings and comments over the past 3 days, continually blanks them, as is his right, with no response. Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptonio (talk · contribs) has been leaving some odd messages on talk pages recently.[61] Some of them tell editors to go away or that they are expendable and/or unintelligible. I'm not sure what's going on with this editor and, to be frank, I'm concerned for them.

• Samples:
  • "BTW, check my contribs really quick, the last 10 or so could make your day better. lol",[62]
  • "i must tell you, that the space you and others want to use to tell the world how great Israel is, has been confiscated in order to let the world know, something the world already knows. Beatles kick ass. Well, I guess that just makes you expendable here in Wiki, don't let the door hit you on your way out! Some people are tools, some are weapons. Care to guess which one are you?",[63]
  • "dude, seriously, you need a vacation, i am worried about your health. Lately, you have not been making any sense in talk pages, you are reading things wrong, and you seem to have a major problem with NPOV. Seriously dude, take a vacation. A long vacation.",[64]
  • "well you are a tool my friend. A tool fan that is. I am glad that you enter and exit certain articles, like the baseline does in Tool songs. You must be a drummer. Well, let me tell you my friend, that Wiki does not need you at all in project like I/P conflict. But, we have great opportunities for growth, in areas like Star Trek Oral Sex Child Support and all types of offshoots that you can imagine. Please, feel free to investigate around and leave I/P for ever. Thank you, have a terrible time at the poker tables.",[65]
  • "Well, welcome to Wiki .. Hope you don't stay for too long!",[66]
  • "push these crazy ideas that make you and others like you, look like Satan compare to Arab fundamentalists(really, take it from an experience observer). I can really honestly say, you should drop Wikipedia, and take the others with you.",[67]
  • "In due time, your suspicion that all will go to hell when it comes to I/P articles in Wiki, will come to be, and we will have to score it as a Mossad victory."[68]

I'm thinking this should be reviewed by a couple people. -- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: I was a bit concerned for Cryptonio but, considering their response below, I'm now more concerned for the project. Creating a collaborative atmosphere in these sensitive topics is hard enough without people asking those whom they disagree with to leave the project adding that they "look like Satan".[69] I personally do not find the entire list above "humorous" or "lol" worthy. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

These are quite troubling. A block is certainly in order, with subsequent mentorship when the block expires. IronDuke 19:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are quite funny. And the way this dude has posted them, is taken totally out of context(and provides evidence of of certain editor's style of work here in Wiki). The subjects here are renowned pro-Israeli editors(except a few of them) of the kind that pushes Israel's POV blindly at the cost of Wiki. This, editor, that has brought this concern of me to this board, has a history of his own of "you have not been making any sense in talk pages, you are reading things wrong, and you seem to have a major problem with NPOV." Exactly what I let him know, but of course, in a humorous way that allows him to clearly understand the point. He's concern for me? they are only words and no threat was giving. I actually, recommend for everyone in here to go to the edits themselves and get a quick laugh. Some of these editors don't care about Wiki, all they care about is to represent the rights of others except Wiki. They see Wiki as a tool for their 'war mentality, instead of seeing it as a tool for knowledge.

The reason at large, why articles concerning I/Ps are the way that they are, is because a 'standard' was semi-established, when certain editors, in good faith or not, started to 'produce'(instead of creating) articles that were a carbon copy of already written articles from CIA's Factbook and the US's State Department. Through wikilawyering(and other practices) then, undermining the same rules that was brought to standard, in order to revert that activity, that presented a major danger to Wiki's independence, many of these articles remain intact.

The process, that has been on going, to make these articles 100% Wikipedian, has been an arduous to many editors. Recently, three very pro-Palestinian editors, but at the same time, ACADEMICIANS with pride of their Wiki-work, were recently dismissed in favor of giving certain editors a voice that goes against the load thinking of Wiki. These editors, that would under normal circumstances address a conflict with their best tools from the beginning, had to rather rely on their wits and anger in order to bring down the stonewalling that these 'cliques' present all over these articles.

Wiki has faltered in this matter. Wiki has taken the side of Anti-Wikipedia in order to forcefully give statue to a practice that is very much Anti-Wikipedia. The practice is Anti-knowledge, Anti-Reasoning, rewarding instead "group mentality" and "point-fixing"(the practice of sourcing one's beliefs and POV). We should not be afraid of quarrels in articles like Star Trek Oral sex and Child support, they are of a different kind, and even though the subject matter at hand is one of many, it provides precedent and will be looked at when considering other matters throughout Wiki.

Wiki is not a democracy, and the first victim of democracy is common sense, and so, Wiki is not under no obligation to give voice to the voiceless, or promote empirical ideals. Wiki has a self-inflicted responsibility to always improve itself, that just because there is an article that covers a subject, under no circumstances means that the subject is already covered, and thus we should move on to the next. Relevant information is a by-product of necessary information and it should be given the least amount of space when space itself, through rationale, dictates so. The judge in all of this, cannot be time, and it cannot be a judge itself. The judge of thought questions and preposition, should be the ability to comprehend an argument through the eyes of Wiki, and not through the eyes set on NPOV. There is a POV that matters and shouldn't be ignored, and that is Wiki's POV.

It wouldn't be difficult to bring examples, where even the least capable of administrators would have little difficult siding with Wiki's side. Administrators cannot continue to act as if they are solving dispute when in all reality they are admonishing editors at the expense of ignoring the question and argument that is brought to them. Was not, the same dispute that editors were told to solve on their own, what brought these editors to these boards in the first place? Why think, that editors started arguing and insulting one another, and never tried to actually solve the dispute? Wiki will not flourish under the current atmosphere. Wiki is not rewarding education and dedication, Wiki seems to be rewarding fanaticism and a sense of undermining Wiki itself.

If, argument and heated debate, insults and the rest, provides better results, the result expected by administrators, Wiki must stand aside or set the rules of engagement, so that Wiki would have the last word. This means, that as long as Wiki continues to give voice to those seeking their own, without regards of the platform, Wiki will continue to view dispute as children behaving badly, instead of reasoning that one must be right and the other must be opposing, not the fact or the truth, but process.

Allow Wiki to be Wiki. If solution is found to certain problems, do not get involve, simply because someone has ask you to.

Thank you, and read those links please. They are quite troubling! Aghast! I would mentor Jok! Cryptonio (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeewd. I'm with Crypt on this one. Those pro-Israel editors are nothing but trouble and destroy the very fabric that makes wikipedia so neutral, objective, and tolerant. In fact, let's just rename wikipedia. We'll call it...Cryptopedia. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"so neutral, objective, and tolerant". You need to understand these concepts in order to use them. You see Wiki is not neutral in the sense that there is no dispute, is neutral because it allows discussion. The act of tilting an article to one way over the other(over that discussion), is not being neutral, but engaging in POV-pushing. So thus, discussion shouldn't be used or needed in order to fix POV.

Objective is not getting every single detail about a subject matter down on paper. Objective is to be able to "judge thought, questions and preposition, by comprehending an argument through the eyes of Wiki, and not through the eyes set on NPOV." In other words, that you bring a source, that in your opinion is adequate for the article, does not merits opposition, but rather consensus that indeed is necessary material. Now here is the magic of Wiki, when you are asked to present your view on inclusion, you must be aware, that you cannot use your 'opinion' in order to reach consensus, you must rather state your case from Wiki's POV. This does not mean, that you feel, think, or reckon, that the reader needs that information, but rather that the reader's experience would be enhance by the addition of said information. When Wiki is held to these standards, there is nothing like it. Trouble is, that one marginal bit of information, for the most part, will invite terrible information in order to balance it. The editor, must be aware, that the objection of other editors, to add or remove information, is not solely based on their view, but also based on their view of Wiki.

Why doesn't Dispute Resolution work? Simple. It doesn't work because we don't accept judgment on a matter we feel so positive about, and thus, through arguing, if feel we could delay a ruling for eternity. The solution is never to stifled discussion, but to stifled ignorance(and ignorance is not the absence of knowledge) but rather "the rejection of acceptance to a contradictory logistical value". In other words, every argument must be brought to the table etc, and it is expected that consensus rises out of that, and if it doesn't, then consensus would be neither remove, modify or add said information.

Finally, tolerant. This is actually a very grave mistake on your part, to think that Wiki is tolerant. It isn't. It does not give you the right, any right, because it doesn't have constitution. Because reality is tilted towards "Westernrism" we equate a free man to democracy and other ideals that does not enter the realm of Wiki. To be tolerant, only extends to being neutral(allows discussion) but it doesn't mean that it needs to give you time to state your claim, or your bias. It doesn't need to respect your bias. If you don't think of Wiki as being a source of knowledge, you will view Wiki as a source of expression. You are going to feel as if you are entitled to a platform for your views. The rules of Wiki, are binding only in Wiki, thus, your ideas and beliefs of what a fair system should be, only extends to your immediate territory. Yes, you may very well think Wiki is tolerant, but when it comes to the job of Wiki, Wiki is, should be unstoppable. Wiki, on this subject matter, has not been tolerant, it has been fooled into thinking it needs to respect all editors(again, a westernerism). not all editors are created equal. Equal weight covers the information, not the editors. Wiki allows equal footing at the start of discussion, but does not require for all to finish at the same time, doesn't even help for all racers to finish the race. Cryptonio (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you for real? Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You enjoy my jokes more. I'll give this example in good faith. Say that there are two opposing views on a matter. Listen, this is the world wide world, this is not uncommon at all, people deal with this kind of stuff everyday without major fuzz, but only if both people are reasonable. Wiki would love to have those opposing views presented, but first, it must make a note that there are two opposing view. That we make that small mention, is worth a lot of trouble. Then, we must put those two views in perspective, paying close attention to the interaction between them. If the conflict arises out sheer POV, as a last resort, consensus should be the inclusion of both opposing views, in relation to the represented capacity of both views. If one view, is being presented as a replacement, it must be looked at very closely, because change is a human trait that doesn't allow us to actually practice it. If the view is being presented, as a substitute, on grounds that it should be looked at as standard here on Wiki, consensus must arise from accepting, that the view is relevant without the mention of the opposite view. Thus a reader will always benefit from consensus that was reached, by a process. If the view that has been presented as the standard in Wiki, is now viewed as having a challenge, that is, that it no longer can stand on it's own, the immediate remedial is not to add the opposite view, but to make mention in the article that such view could be notable(immediately). Then consensus should concentrate, in the addition of the opposing view, but only as a mention, that is notable. All of this is reached through the understanding of current Wiki-policies. Cryptonio (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You take a long time to explain nothing. Your comments are very uncivil. I don't think a block is in order, yet, but continuing to make those remarks would most likely result in one. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 22:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to attack you to defend myself. I can simply ignore you. Cryptonio (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And besides, I was brought here. I didn't know you even existed till a few minutes ago. As far as I'm concerned, I can extend myself worthy, to the silliness, if I so choose to entertain. I'm already looking forward to sending you my good night wishes. word. Cryptonio (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{out)WP:DFTT Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reading through some recent edits of Cryptonio (talk · contribs), I'm not clear on what he's trying to say, or what he's trying to do. But it doesn't seem to be helping Wikipedia. Can anyone else summarize, concisely, what the issue is? --John Nagle (talk) 05:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John, I think the issue in a nutshell is simply that

• working in the I/P conflict area for an extended period produces a form of battle fatique
• Cryptonio has decided that he would prefer to stay away from this area of Wikipedia from now on
• these are his parting messages which for the most part express the kind of frustration many people seem to experience at some point

I think raising the issue here was probably counterproductive. I would advocate just letting it go as more pragmatic. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many users, including myself, have received blocks for far less during I/P "battles." Crypt has been hostile and abrasive in previous discussions, so this really isn't that surprising. I'm all for jokes and laughs, but telling people to basically g.t.f.o through thinly-veiled "humor" is hardly an excusable product of "battle fatigue". I do not endorse a block however. I'm just saying the bar seems to apply to some but not all. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a bar, but its not a cool kids type thing, sometimes, when all the stars align and god slowly whispers your name in a seductive tone, and you happen to lose your cool right when the community feels a subconscious yearning for drama, larger powers come into play and to diffuse the whole thing the adults tell everybody the equivalent of mom yelling at the misbehaving children to get out of the house and go away so every can just relax instead of spanking them. It's a decent outcome. Think of it like a defensive penalty in football. It's like the play never happened. --M^ask? 10:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working to resolve a situation where a series of IPs and sockpuppet accounts keep adding historically incorrect flags to the article on the Sultanate of Rûm. The page was semi-protected recently, and Orkhan ankara (talk · contribs), who had been dormant for some months, stepped in almost immediately to continue adding the flags. Yesterday I received this notice on my talkpage, threatening to start a Facebook group (presumably to continue the edit-warring) [70], and discovered that the same user had posted a similar threat [71] to User:mynameinc, who is also interested in Turkish and Ottoman history.

This user has been reverted several times by multiple editors beginning in November 2008 [72] and urged both in edit summaries and on his talkpage to engage in conversation regarding his changes (I have a long list of diffs, just ask). English is not this user's first language, but that doesn't account for the unwarranted hostility with which he has met attempts at discussion. He has made ethnocentric [73] , [74] (please note that to the best of my knowledge, no one involved in this dispute is Armenian) and apparently sexist attacks [75], and twice threatened to start a campaign of meat-puppetry (diffs above). Edit patterns suggest also that this account may be a sock of indefblocked Orkh (talk · contribs) (please compare the contributions of blocked sock Huckelbarry (talk · contribs). I think at least a warning is in order, and I would appreciate some extra eyes on this user. Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Passes the duck test as another block evading sock of Orkh. Orkh has block evaded with sockpuppets before (Huckelbarry). I have indef blocked Orkhan ankara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking this out, though I fear we will see him again at some point... Kafka Liz (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damiens.rf (talk · contribs) is on what seems to be an apparent crusade against most images I have uploaded, especially regarding fictional characters. If not that, then soap opera articles in general. As seen here, some of his deletion nominations are valid, but there other deletion nominations by him that are plain silly (in my view). Examples would be nominating images such as Famous Luke and Noah kiss.jpg, which there is significant critical commentary about and is a famous kiss, in addition to Lnlwedding.jpg (which is also quite significant, as I stated there in discussion).

Damiens.rf's sweep deletion nominations of a lot of images I have uploaded is also quite stressing to reply to one by one, and the tag alerts (before I reverted them) took up most of my talk page. Am I really expected to comment on so many image for deletion discussions within the same span of time? And is there nothing that can be done when images are wrongly nominated for deletion like this? Do I have to simply comment on it, and let the file for deletions "decider" resolve this even when the image is perfectly valid within the article? Some of these deletion nominations by Damiens.rf appear to be bad-faith editing, not good-faith. There are other editors who feel this way about some of Damiens.rf's image deletion nominations, and I hope that they comment here on this matter as well. Flyer22 (talk) 00:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked over all of the nominations, but I do have to say that this appears to be a bit POINTy and nominating this many images for deletion is disruptive as well. Rather than go Twinkle crazy, actually communicating with the uploaders would be the right way to go about this. AniMate^draw 00:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This certainly isn't the first run-in a user has had with Damiens and his image deletion rampage. A quick view just now of his contribs is revealing. Most of the images he sends to Ffd are because they are "Decorative non-free screenshot. Helps nothing in understanding the article.". He also seems to have an agenda regarding any LGBT images which involve any sort of affection between the subjects of the images. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 00:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that a few of these images are clearly not "decorative," but illustrating key points in articles, like the Noah/Luke kiss screenshot. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most if not all of Damiens deletion nominations are valid. It would be wise for Flyer, AniMate and Allstarecho to all learn a little something called WP:AGF. Also, Allstarecho please do not make false allegations. That's extremely disruptive. CADEN ^{is cool} 01:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing others of making false allegations, when they aren't false, is also extremely disruptive. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 02:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! I always assume good faith, except for when edits are clearly not being made in good-faith. I stated above that some of Damiens.rf's edits are valid and that some are not. You want me to assume good faith in an editor who is experienced with Wikipedia's image policy and yet somehow manages to nominate all these valid images? He clearly is not reading some parts of the articles these images are next to before nominating them for deletion, or he is flat-out acting in bad-faith. Either that, or I am to believe that he does not understand when an image is serving critical commentary or is supported by the text noting that significant moment. Flyer22 (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that all of these deletion nominations appear to be questionable and possibly part of some kind of vendetta against soap opera images. If you look at the order of his nominations you'll see he went pretty much in the order that the articles appear in the soap opera section of the List of fictional supercouples with a few deviations. Also, he canceled one nomination after I explained how it was valid. My explanation would have been unnecessary had he read the article since what I said was already stated on the page. He doesn't seem to be reading the articles or even the captions to see whether or not each image adds to the article since each nom has almost identical wording and description whether they match or not.

I'm willing to agree that some of the images deserve to be nominated. I'm just not sure Damiens.rf's reasons for the mass noms aren't questionable. Rocksey (talk) 01:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damien has indicated on his talk that he has no intention of stopping his actions or responding here. Regardless of the merits or non-merits of his actions, refusing to engage with other editors in a collegial manner when asked to do so is not the way to do things. Exxolon (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Telling someone they are "welcome to try to give me any contentful adivice", shows they have great contempt for their fellow editor and shows the user is quite arrogant (in this user's opinion). I would recommend all nominations be reversed until Damien comes to this discussion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the predictable support from Caden (cue: AniMate is being a bully), does anyone think these nominations are a good idea? And since when did Twinkle templates and copy pasting the same rationale 50 or so times replace communication? Despite one assertion above, these aren't all decorative and if he's unwilling to communicate in response to our concerns, I suggest his nominations be closed. AniMate^draw 01:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't blame Damiens for refusing to respond here. More than likely too many editors have burned him in the past. That sort of thing occurs too often on wiki. CADEN ^{is cool} 02:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He has likely burned too many editors in the past himself. Flyer22 (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with AniMate, all noms should be closed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the both of you. Keep all noms. CADEN ^{is cool} 02:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) 2 to 1 for removal of noms. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the removal as well. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 02:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do as well. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 03:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which one of us is going to give it a go and remove the nominations or should we let an admin do that? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An admin would likely be the one that needs to do this but they seem to be scarce judging from their minimal participation in several threads on this noticeboard that need attention. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 05:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admins iz taking advantage of temporally localized failure of external fusion lighting function to sleep, eat, game, work (sigh, wanna go home). I recommend placing a note at the top of the section DamienRT started editing in the files for deletion page, pointing here at the discussion, but not removing or blanking or striking the nominations yet. More awakey people can review it and decide to do that or not in the morning. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have done my own suggestion re. the notification over the nominations under discussion, and am now ending my workday and going home to sleep, eat, probably not game, and not work. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I am only here now because of chronic insomnia, but I am in no state to deal with complex issues until I finish my sleep- assuming I get the chance. We are not automata, however good a service we try to provide. Rodhullandemu 06:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have temporarily removed his nominations from Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18 and Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 19 and placed them on those pages respective talk pages, pending the outcome of this issue. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 09:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi, Allstarecho. Please understand that this was not a wise move. The nominations themselve can make no harm by just sitting at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18, so there's no urge to remove them. Your move, actually, hinders discussion by hiding the nominations from a broader audience. --Damiens.rf 13:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite amazing. It's not sufficient to highlight the problem. In fact, Damiens is being referred to as being "on a crusade", engaging in "bad-faith editing", claims of him violating WP:POINT (by a poster who hasn't reviewed the entire case no less), being on a "deletion rampage", inferring he has an LGBT agenda, having a vendetta against soap opera images, has contempt for fellow editors, and is arrogant. Has not a one of you read Wikipedia:Assume good faith???????? From Wikipedia:Five pillars: "Wikipedia has a code of conduct: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil...and assume good faith" The miserable conduct displayed by several editors in this section is appalling. You are blatantly violating core principles of Wikipedia. If you can't comment on a disagreement without casting aspersions on the editor you are in disagreement with, then don't comment. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Allstarecho[reply]

As I stated above, "I always assume good faith, except for when edits are clearly not being made in good-faith. I stated above that some of Damiens.rf's edits are valid and that some are not. You want me to assume good faith in an editor who is experienced with Wikipedia's image policy and yet somehow manages to nominate all these valid images? He clearly is not reading some parts of the articles these images are next to before nominating them for deletion, or he is flat-out acting in bad-faith. Either that, or I am to believe that he does not understand when an image is serving critical commentary or is supported by the text noting that significant moment."

Allstarecho is quite familiar with Damiens.rf's editing style, and has seen these types of silly deletion nominations with Damiens.rf before. After an editor does what Damiens.rf has done this many times, it is quite difficult to assume good faith in that. This editor hardly replies about his deletion nominations when challenged, such as not commenting on them in files for deletion when they are challenged. Why? Because he almost always feels that he is right regarding deletion nominations, no matter what. Is that not arrogance in cases where he is clearly wrong? What is appalling is that an editor on Wikipedia is allowed to get away with what Damiens.rf has been getting away with, or at least getting away with sometimes. Flyer22 (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• While an interesting response, it fails to address why it is necessary to assume bad faith in reacting to this situation. Assuming bad faith doesn't bring any greater ability to the table than assuming good faith here. Further, the insults cast at Damiens are wholly unnecessary. Lastly, this is content dispute, and not much of an incident if at all. You disagree with him on content. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It is an incident for the reasons I stated above. You disagree? That is fine. But I cannot assume good faith in what I strongly feel is bad-faith editing. It is not that different than addressing a vandal, in my view. I am not truly calling Damiens.rf a vandal, but these types of irrational deletion nominations are very disruptive to Wikipedia in a way similar to the unconstructive edits of a vandal. He is experienced in nominating images for deletion and knows the rules, and yet he often goes after perfectly valid images. I am suppose to see that as a mistake, when he has done it so many times? If so, it is a costly mistake that he should have learned from by now. Flyer22 (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And now you're referring to his edits as irrational? Flyer, cut it out. Now. He obviously does not feel they are perfectly valid or he would not have nominated them for deletion. You disagree with the validity, that's all. Your disagreement with his assessment of validity doesn't make him irrational or a bad faith editor. Assuming bad-faith is disruptive to wikipedia, not nominating something for deletion. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of his deletion nominations are irrational, yes. As I stated on my talk page, reporting to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is also about reporting incidents you feel are unjust and the reason for it. If one wants to call that assuming bad faith, then so be it. But I felt that what I stated was useful, as did other editors here. We are not some lynch mob going after an innocent editor here; this is an editor we feel are consistently acting in bad-faith. Removing his nominations were noted as highly inappropriate, but what I stated here was noted as valid by more than one editor. Flyer22 (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have looked at some of the noms and !voted on them. It appears that Damiens mass-nominated all fair use images in certain articles except fot the first fair use image at the top of the article. Now, the articles had too many fair use images, so most images were nominated correctly, but some noms were incorrect because there was a critical commentary so they weren't only for decorative purposes. That being said, the captions in the photos didn't make explicit that the justification existed, at least one of the photos was placed very far away from its corresponding critical commentary, and the placement of the photos gave the impression that they were only decorative. Also, some of the photos are borderline, and even some of the ones with commentary could wind up deleted.

To me, it seems a typical case of several editors having diverging opinions on how many non-free images you can fit into an article with breaching wikipedia's fair use policy. (IMHO, as a personal assesment of what path of action would serve wikipedia better, editors who want to keep the photos should improve the captions and placement of the ones that have commentary about them, instead of complaining about them being nominated. Photos with no commentary should have a proper commentary added or be removed.) --Enric Naval (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enric, thank you for taking the time to vote on some of these images. I get your point about not complaining. But, as stated above, I felt that this incident was in need of complaining about. It was not simply a matter of disagreeing with an editor, or else I would not have taken it here. Flyer22 (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical comment of the deletion template

Please don't put a "|" character between the caption of the photo and the deletion template because then the caption does not appear on the page, I had to look at the source code to read the captions. Maybe this a Twinkle problem? --Enric Naval (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Wholesale removals of properly formatted and not obviously disruptive file deletion nominations may be sanctioned as vandalism unless there is clear and sustained consensus for such removal. The nominations currently visible on Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 19 are not obviously disruptive because they provide deletion rationales that are not prima facie unreasonable. Whether these rationales have any merit is to be decided in the individual deletion nominations themselves, but very similar nominations could probably be merged into one discussion thread.  Sandstein  16:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently are missing the discussion regarding how the noms came to be in the first place. The image rampage, and that's what it is, is currently being disputed and therefore they should be removed until the matter is settled. I'll also note that since my actions, the user has now taken to having issues with an article I wrote, no doubt on purpose. I'm just appalled to see hours later that nothing has been done regarding this wholesale image deletion spree. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 20:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous whining from editors and administrators who should know better. Damiens.rf has a long history of NFCC enforcement, which (speaking from experience) is one of the most difficult jobs on the project due to the emotional ties some editors have with their articles, and their insistence on seeing any sort of action against them as a "crusade" or POINTy behavior. Guess what: The rules apply to everyone equally. Yesterday it was TV shows and album discographies and Australian politicians. Today it's soap operas. Tomorrow it will be some other topic that has too many non-free images. To those accusing Damiens.rf of whatever it is he's being accused of: It's not about you. Stop trying to turn it into a personal battle. Show how your images meet the rules, or make them meet the rules, or shut the f up.</rant> howcheng {chat} 20:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your "rant" was doing just fine until you said "shut the f up" and all the points you made were completely wiped out by that one sentence. Sad, you actually made a good point or two in there. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Howcheng and Sandstein; hear hear. Not offended by "shut the f up", though it could have been better put. --John (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. It's nice to see someone making an effort to enforce non-free content policy, and we ought to be grateful for that; at the same time, it's a shame that they are apparently not taking enough care when deciding what should be nominated for deletion. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that going even a little too far almost always causes a backlash like this one here, it's an area which requires great delicacy and care to avoid unnecessary confrontations, which are ultimately highly counterproductive.

In that light, I am not happy at all with the situation. The bad feelings this has caused are not helping rational NFCC work.

Recall that Betacommand eventually got shown the door. Even if the policy agrees that this type of work is required, even if someone has to do it, there are times where the person doing it is the wrong person. I don't think Damien is necessarily a permanent problem - but the initial approach was far too pushy, and there's a perfectly legitimate need that he be urged to dial it back to avoid having this sort of blowup happen again... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@NeutralHomer: that's why it was a rant. :) howcheng {chat} 22:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howcheng, I do not feel that anything I have stated on this matter has been ridiculous, nor was I trying to make it mainly personal. But if you come back to Wikipedia one day and see your talk page filled with image deletion nomination tags, some of which are valid images, you try not to be highly annoyed and feel that it may very well be about you. This was done after Damiens.rf had already nominated two images of mine, one of a non-fictional nature, a few days ago (which, yeah, he had a point in nominating those for deletion). It's difficult not to think that he has gone through your contributions snooping for images you have uploaded. In this case, I see now, however, that he was likely targeting images through List of fictional supercouples, like Rocksey noted above. The problem, despite any annoyance I have had with Damiens.rf about this matter, is that some of his image deletion nominations are plain wrong. And his doing this with a lot of images in one swoop is a problem, especially in regards to editors who have valid images up but are too "whatever" about things to speak up about the matter or do not come on Wikipedia as often to defend or tweak their image placement/commentary in time so that those images may be spared. I am glad that several editors here have not "shut the f up" about this matter. I agree with SheffieldSteel and Georgewilliamherbert. Flyer22 (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am reviewing GAN Robert C. Michelson and it is becoming clear that the (virtually sole) editor of this article, user:Firewall, is either Dr. Michelson himself or a person very close to him. (e.g., because in reply to my comments he in no time provided very intimate details and pictures of the person). Besides, most activity of this user is directed at this article. Advice needed.NIMSoffice (talk) 04:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems primarily to be a non-urgent content dispute, so not really the sort of thing ANI is for. Users are allowed to edit articles they have a conflict of interest in as long as they take due care - see WP:COI. If he isn't writing it in a bias fashion and it passes GA standards (regardless of who the editor is) there isn't a problem. Ironholds (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last time Robert C. Michelson was at GA, I didn't get the impression of a COI, and the user seems genuinely interested in improving the article and making it non-promotional [76]. If the article is neutral, balanced, covers the topic well, and conforms to the GA criteria, I don't think it matters who writes it. Nev1 (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a backlog forming at Wikipedia:Requested moves. We require the attention maybe 1 or 2 administrators. One of the most recent edits I did at WP:RM pertains to the 14 May "First (Song)" and is non-contentious. All it needs is an admin to make the move. I imagine there are probably a few more like this. --CyclePat (talk) 05:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would offer to help, but I don't have the status yet ;) C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 06:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just cleared the backlog. If there are any which are definitely uncontroversial, you can use {{db-G6}} and then move them yourself. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Declined. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Grant.Alpaugh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Grant.Alpaugh is requesting an unblock at his talk page. I would suggest that discussion continues there.--Stephen 07:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I analyzed the edits of Grant.Alpaugh. I believe he should be given a second chance. I'm willing to unblock Grant.Alpaugh. I will talk with the blocking admin first. AdjustShift (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user has 12 blocks on his record, since March '08. He has been unblocked five times based on promises to edit better in the future. I suggest that an indef block is the right thing in his case. Let him reapply in a year's time. He is well-intentioned, but seems to suffer from WP:OWN on the articles he works on. Since he gets into wars constantly, he may drive others away and is not a net benefit to the project. If you include a block log on a previous account, his troubles go back to 2007, so any promises of reform have a hollow ring. (He should have figured out how to work with others by now if he was ever going to). EdJohnston (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More than a month is needed in my opinion. Further the user hasn't come to terms with all the things they were blocked for, ie meatpuppetry. Obviously if consensus proves otherwise I won't object, but I think it's too soon and today's apology didn't cover everything. Nja²⁴⁷ 14:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep him blocked. Net drain on the project, no indication in the unblock request that he's about to change his ways, and a long record of re-blocks that suggests quite the opposite. Perhaps in a year he may still be interested and have learned he can't game the system.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A month is definitely not enough time. This user was on his very last chance with a 0RR restriction and was still reverting. I'm not sure there's anything that can convince me he will not return to the bad behavior that got us here. I agree with Ed, a year at least. It was my ruling when declining his last unblock request that the community had lost patience with him. Mangojuice^talk 15:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I have just  Declined ([77]) the request for unblock. — Aitias // discussion 17:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

There may not be anything wrong, but this needs some eyes and I'm about to go offline. Special:Contributions/72.144.208.87 has gone through and made unsourced changes to population and changed the census information in a number of articles over the last few days. S/he may be right, or it may be vandalism, I'm not certain. Putting it here because it needs some eyes that I don't have the time to give right now. If these are good changes, great. If they're bad, they may need to be addressed. Thanks to whoever has a few moments. StarM 12:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick sample check shows that the figures being changed are supported by the official websites linked in the infoboxes, so I doubt there's a problem. Rodhullandemu 12:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a problem with IPs changing numbers without making an edit summary. A lot of times it will be stealth vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The worst kind, IMO. Perhaps I'll drop a note on the IP's talk page. Rodhullandemu 12:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all, calling this resolved now StarM 22:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 1027E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor with ongoing COI/ownership issues. Just in the last day or two...

• User:Threeafterthree corrects the lead of Errol Sawyer per WP:MOSBIO, 1027E reverts it without explanation
• Threeafterthree returns the edit citing the policy and requests a talk page discussion; 1027E reverts it and ignores the talk page
• User:TheMindsEye removes a ref for not containing info on the subject; 1027E reverts it w/o comment
• I restore TheMindsEye's edit stating the rationale is valid; 1027E reverts it
• I leave a warning on 1027E's talk to ask her to stop with these unexplained revisions and User:Hoary backs up the ref's removal with a talk page explanation. 1027E instead reverts the removal again and again.

1027E has a long history of doing this. When she does finally offer a rationale for such edits, it's usually meaningless - or it's accusations of racism or sabotage. The second green-highlighted paragraph here is very telling about the editor's behavior and COI. An admin suggested I bring this up here. Maybe a block or a topic ban is warranted?  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 14:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might also be pertinent to add that a CheckUser report I'd previously requested confirmed that 1027E has likely been involved in sockpuppeting, although the clerk admin declined to take action for the moment.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 15:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User has been previously warned for exactly this sort of thing - I'd support a topic ban, but I'm not optimistic. It seems to be a problem with the users attitude, which is something that would continue wherever. Still, worth a shot, and at least it gets him/her away from that area in particular. Ironholds (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user is basically an SPA, so she only really edits the one topic. I support a block over a topic ban though, at the very least to circumvent the talk page harassment spree and sympathy canvassing 1027E would in all likelihood inflict on other editors.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 16:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked for a week in the first instance (which may seem harsh, but looking through the history I think it's probably overdue). Hopefully it will encourage the editor to take notice of advice and to realise that our policies are there for a reason. We'll see what the response is - maybe they'll come around, but if not I'm prepared to extend to indef. Incidentally, a link to the CU case would be useful if we find we need to restrict some other accounts too. Hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 17:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I've also blocked Mbinebri for 24 hours for edit-warring on the above article. EyeSerene^talk 17:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Anon Ip has been making vulgar edits to different sites. The behaviour seems to go back to Nov 08. User talk:69.244.9.109 and the vandalised pges are Operation Repo and Rusty Cooley. I'm sorry i couldn't add the diffs you will have to go to the page history.Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a dynamic IP address and it's unlikely they are the same user; the warnings are OK but there's little we can do unless they go on a vandalism spree, in which case a report should go to WP:AIV. Rodhullandemu 16:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"My apologies If i posted in the wrong area.Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please note that Keltie reverted 4 times on both the Amy Robach and Jenna Wolfe articles in less than 24 hours today.‎ A WP:3rr no no. Admin action must be taken. CADEN ^{is cool} 17:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please file the report at WP:AN3 with the requisite diffs, etc. –xeno ^talk 17:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to report yourself too - is there an edit warrring/gaming the system noticeboard, or will this one do? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the specific edits, Keltie changed something the IP did and then Caden reverted, Keltie re-reverted, and back and forth to 3 reversions each.

Keltie's initial change was part of several edits and not a simple "revert" on the IPs edits, though part of it was undoing that specific change last night.

Caden - you have not commented in any of the edit summaries or on any talk page as to why you reverted. One could stretch 3RR to cover her - but typically, we don't, as she didn't "just" revert the IP.

With an equal stretch we can point to your edits as sterile reverts - no edit comments, no talk page comments - and please be aware that 3RR is not an entitlement, but a hard limit.

Please take this to the article talk pages and explain yourself. Failure to WP:AGF and sterile revert warring with someone, reporting them to ANI after a sterile revert war, these are not good things. You really don't want admins to take action here. Trust me. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both given 24h to think about it. —Travis^talk 18:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Username reminds me of former arbitrator User:Kelly Martin. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And User:Caden is now requesting an unblock so if anyone wishes to review the blocks, feel free to do so. Thanks —Travis^talk 18:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: I am copying the following statement from User talk:KeltieMartinFan ([78]), as requested by KeltieMartinFan (talk · contribs):

I have reasons to believe that Caden (talk · contribs) has some unsettling grudge against me which stemmed from an incident that occurred on this noticeboard two-and-a-half weeks ago. Therefore as a way to get back at me, he puts his hands on certain articles which, up until that particular point, he has no particular interest in, but are of my personal interest nonetheless. I believe that he is only doing this simply as a way to get under my skin. The incident from 2.5 weeks ago did not fall in his favor, and I think the bitterness of all that still lingers with him to this very day apparently.

He left a comment on my talk page shortly after the forum closed on that particular incident saying ‘’I will be watching you closely.’’ In my opinion, the way he wrote this particular comment on my talk page, it came off as if he was going to plan some type of personal revenge against me the next time I did any type of edit on Wikipedia, constructive or not. It’s one thing to keep an eye on a particular editor to see if he/she does anything that constitute a violation on here. But to keep what appears to be a 24-hour surveillance on a certain editor, and react to almost every single edit he/she makes, even if it is a justifiable one, that comes off, simply put it, as one particular editor planning a personal vendetta on another particular editor. If I’m not mistaken, that would be grounds of violation under the Wikipedia:Civility guidelines on the part of the perpetrating editor.

As for this current incident at hand, ‘’Caden’’ has been doing edits on one of my particular article of interest as of lately, the Deal or No Deal (US) models. While the edits he put on this article does come off as constructive, it does not excuse the fact that he has never touched this article ever until May 8, 2009. The only reason I suspect that he is doing it now is because of me and the whole initial incident 2.5 weeks earlier.

The Deal or No Deal article is only one of three articles of my own interested that ‘’Caden’’ has been messing with so far. The other two are Amy Robach and Jenna Wolfe, talk-show personalities for The Today Show on NBC. I made edits on these two articles only because facts on these two articles were not entirely correct, and I simply wanted to make them exactly so. Shortly after I make this minor corrective edits, ‘’Caden’’ would come in and revert virtually all corrections I made back to the original “not-entirely” correct facts. This has been going on three times in the last 24-hours.

And to add insult to injury, he gave me this warning[[79]] for this edit war that he himself started. I did not even go past four reverted as he stated.

Once again, this is all stemming back from an incident that happened 2.5 weeks ago. To say the very least, I am very disappointed that this particular editor has been carried on this grudge against me for as long as he did. ‘’Caden’’ has a recent history of uncivility towards other editors than myself. I strongly recommended an administrator hand some type of warning down for his incivility against me. I do not get involved in ‘’Caden’s’’ personal interest here on wikipedia whether it’s Major League Soccer, Penthouse or anything pertaining to the adult film industry because they are of no interest to me. I do have respect for others editors and interest in these particular articles, and will not mingle in their businesses. Apparently, ‘’Caden’’ cannot do the same for others. It’s very unfortunate it has to come to this. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

— Aitias // discussion 19:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's true that Caden is engaged in what might better be termed as WP:HARASSMENT - and I'm not saying it is true, but if it is - then the factually incorrect 3RR violation complaint could be part of that pattern. Caden's incivility is, of course, a long-standing problem. I would like to point out that a few weeks ago, Caden warned me to stop watching his user talk page. Not to just stay off it, but also to stop watching it. So I stopped watching it, in case he's monitoring my keystrokes. But I can still watch other user talk pages. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On review - Caden has not edited those two articles before today, and KeltieMartinFan has done so regularly for some time.

I am concerned that this constitutes wikihounding - editor with a personal grudge, articles they have never edited before, a sterile edit war...

I'm going to initiate a discussion with Caden on his talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This shows Caden's animosity towards Keltie. As usual, Caden complains about a user being a bully, and he goes on to threaten to kick Keltie's ass. If I didn't have a background with Caden, I'd unblock Keltie without reservation as it seems obvious he did this specifically to bother Keltie. Frankly, I don't think Caden is an asset to the project at all. AniMate^draw 23:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, Caden has also been vocal in the controversy at Carrie Prejean, which used to be a redirect to DoND before the whole Miss USA kerfuffle. So while I suspect, both from the Robach and Wolfe edits and from what I've observed of his actions in the places we've crossed paths before, that he's hounding KeltieMartinFan, it's at least possible that he started editing the DoND article innocently. John Darrow (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

as I have no history at all with either user that I can recall, and no concern with the topic, I did the unblock on KMF, saying "per AN/I." It seems clear enough what is going on, but i leave it to further discussion whether a longer block on the other editor is appropriate. DGG (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(self-reply) On the other hand, the sudden arrival of User:Corpiestre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (contributions), whose immediate and only purpose is to complain on other users' talk pages about how Caden was treated, reeks so much of block evasion that it will make it very hard to ever again WP:AGF with Caden. SPI/CU, anyone? John Darrow (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More likely it's another sock of the User:Fondesep and User:Horneldinkrag family, whose puppetmaster has yet to be identified. Trying to implicate Caden would be the M.O. of the guy who tried to implicate User:Axmann8 a month or two ago. That doesn't mean they're the same one, though, as there is no shortage of weirdness on the internet. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of those posts doesnt sound like Caden to me. But I'll bet dollars to donuts that Caden retires or gets a perm block by the end of the week. Guyonthesubway (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What, again? But you're right, he's really pushing the envelope this week. On the other hand, the impostor turned out to be an old "pal", the latest entry in the Pioneer Courthouse sockfarm, maybe trying to branch out a bit from the rut he was in. Speaking of dollars to donuts, that reminds me: Did you hear the rumor that Krispy Kremes may soon be declared a drug, due to their effective use against hypoglycemia? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Unsurprisingly, the sky has failed to fall. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure if this is the right place to report this, and I have my doubts about the sincerity of the threat, but 71.16.45.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edited here saying that "A cyberworm is in wikipedia u must leave this on for 2 days or it will destroy wikipedia and all computers on it." Apologies if I'm reporting this incorrectly or in the wrong place. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we're all doomed then, 'cos it's gone already. I'm gonna sing the Doom song now. Doom doom doom doo-doom doom.... SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're off key just a tad, Sheffield. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The old Dragnet theme would seem to fit: Doom-da-doom-doom. Doom-da-doom-doom-DOOOOM. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, now the Dragnet theme is stuck in my head. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The story you have just seen is verifiably true. The user ID's have been changed to protect the guilty. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Click the link I posted above. Make sure you watch the entire thing. Problem solved! Meanwhile... no other vandalism from this IP, and no DOOM as yet either. So that's good. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, he may have gone back in time and irrevocably changed the future, and we would never know it. Hey, it worked in Star Trek. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Block request Can the IP be reblocked? Its last block was for three months in February. Enigma^msg 19:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IP comes back to the Clover Garden School; presumably a wee bunny rabbit will unleash the apocalypse. Acroterion _(talk) 20:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better that than the Sta-Puft Marshmallow man. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please quickly restore Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie? Per the discussion at DRV, it's being listed as a featured list. -- Biasprotector (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's quite accurate. Enigma^msg 19:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see, we've got a new editor referring to multiple previous discussions trying to list an article that doesn't exist anymore as a featured list and posting a lengthy attack at everyone who doesn't share his/her viewpoint masquerading as a DRV request. Nothing dodgy here, right? Tony Fox (arf!) 19:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An account created today and their first post is at WP:DRV... If someone's up to it, WP:SPI looks like a proper avenue. Icestorm815 • Talk 19:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a strong suspicion of who this particular editor is. Anyone familiar with all the drama caused by the Rachel Corrie deletion knows what I mean. I'll try to put together a case later. I think checkuser would be the best thing, but I'm not sure if this meets the criteria. Enigma^msg 19:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the account was blocked, so nevermind. I still think checkuser is worthwhile, though. Just blocking the sock isn't getting to the root problem. Enigma^msg 19:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. More ducky. I have a sense that a "Plaxico" moment is coming. MuZemike 19:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per the Paperwork and Bureaucracy Reduction So We Can Actually Write An Encyclopedia Act of 2009, I don't think it's necessary to go to SPI. This is obviously an alternate account created to pursue a contentious agenda in projectspace, and as such I've blocked it with a request that the editor use his/her main account for such matters. Checkuser might still be useful if there are further concerns; I'll leave that to you guys. MastCell ^Talk 19:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good user ID, though. We need more users engaged in protecting bias. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahahaha. You never fail to bring some levity to the situation. Not only is it a good user ID, it's an apt one as well, knowing the sockmaster. Enigma^msg 19:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, did I miss out. I will say that I'm not sure about removing the DRV discussion. There are some legitimate concerns about speedy closing an AFD days early. And as silly as the "we should limit ourselves to people who qualify" nonsense at DRV sounds, it's actually the same argument I was having with numerous editors (see the end here), so it's not so ridiculous as to be considered vandalism. Enigmaman, I would ask that you reconsider and replace it for legitimate discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a disruptive sock puppet of somebody ricky, they should be blocked, ignored, and all edits reverted. If you think that decision from a few weeks ago (or any other editor in good standing) needs a new hearing, file a DRV. The one as filed was basically an attack on other editors/admins and some special pleading about only rachel corrie experts opinions counted, or something. Bali ultimate (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted myself per Ricky's request, although I do agree with Bali. That was my original rationale. We are not in the business of pandering to sockpuppets. Ricky, like last time, I know you'd rather discussions be kept open, but I think the initial comment poisoned the well and the DRV here wouldn't be productive anyhow. Do with it what you will. Enigma^msg 20:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd rather one of the people who argued about its closure actually do a DRV instead but there is a fair issue, sockpuppetry aside. Thanks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Would an admin please look in on this editor? They are adding libertarian-related categories to numerous articles, including many in which there is no support in the article for the cat. They have continued doing this, which seems to be their primary task on WP, despite being notified by myself and User:David Shankbone of the problems involved and, worse, they are doing it to articles about living persons, raising BLP concerns. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 19:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the term "libertarian", as the Wikipedia categories use it, was created in post-war America. The editor in question is retroactively applying it to individuals who died before this period.[80] [81] [82]  Skomorokh  20:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• He is also removing the Libertarian category from articles like [Bill Maher, who self-identifies as a Libertarian, as is mentioned and sourced in Maher's article. This is POV-pushing, since some Libertarians don't consider Maher to be one by one standard or another. -->David Shankbone 20:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note at his talk page. Something else I noticed--all three of the images he's uploaded have been deleted--two as "permission-only" images and one for an invalid rationale. Blueboy96 20:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, as there seems to have been no response to the numerous concerns raised on this editor's talk page, and it's a lot of work to follow someone around cleaning up this sort of mess. No objection to unblocking if/when the editor engages in some sort of dialog and agrees to stop the categorizing spree. MastCell ^Talk 21:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – There is no possible admin action that could deal with this, if any dealing-with is necessary. The Bureaucrats' Noticeboard would be the appropriate venue. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the liberty of striking the resolved notice: RFA can't be resolved here, but potential copyvio and vandalism is appropriate for this noticeboard. Durova^Charge! 23:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See subsection below - Copyright violation issues / evidence do belong here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a serious concern about a recent RfA of User:FlyingToaster. It only scraped through, and would have failed (by my reckoning) with only a couple of support votes. It was contentious because of concerns about content creation (or lack of it), and appears to have succeeded only because FT claimed to have written "156 articles". See some of the comments, for proof that the claim seems to have persuaded a number of supporters.

I have carefully researched these articles, and I find that as well as a significant number of disambiguation pages, a large number of the 'articles' are plagiarised directly from internet sources. Most or all of the 40-odd articles on Roumanian generals are plagiarised from a single source. Many of the more substantial-seeming articles are directly plagiarised, without any modification of phrasing or order or other softening. One article was already plagiarised and was only wikified (extensively) by the FT. But why did she not spot this, given it was obviously so? This shows a serious lack of judgment in a person who is supposedly chosen for just that quality.

I want to know if all of those who supported this RfA would still do so, if shown full evidence of the plagiarism, which was clearly performed in an attempt to gain credentials. If the election were rerun, would we get the same result? Is it in my power to ask for this?

I have a full set of links for those who ask. Peter Damian (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let me go ahead and ask, then. Can you please post the links that support this serious accusation? Also, why didn't you post them already? — Gavia immer (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this belong at WT:RFA or WP:BN. –xeno ^talk 20:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xeno is right. If you think consensus was misjudged because the !votes in support were not as heavy as they seem, WP:BN is the place to raise the issue. This does not need any admin intervention and it thus not correct here. Regards SoWhy 20:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I agree with Xeno as well. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we're dealing with serial plagiarism and copyright violations, this might be the appropriate venue. AniMate^draw 20:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Xeno in terms of closing issues, but another thread here may be warranted for the plagiarism concerns alone, if Damian can substantiate the claims. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we would all be interested in seeing substantiation of these claims. If they are accurate, that would be the proper time to reconsider the RfA. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Animate: granted, but that issue is merely presented as a platform for the OP apparently trying to re-open a closed RFA. –xeno ^talk 20:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tag the articles and request deletion through AfD. We can reconsider this issue after a consensus has formed on if the material is indeed plagiarized or a copyright violation. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if those claims were correct, this is not the correct venue because it does not require immediate administrative intervention. WP:AN would be the correct place to discuss those claims. As for the RFA, it's up to the crats whether to reconsider the closing (after some evidence was shown), so for that I think it should go to WP:BN. Regards SoWhy 20:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not posting in the right place. I shall collect the links - though many have already been posted at Wikipedia Review, and put them on WP:BN. It is late here, will be back tomorrow. Peter Damian (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation evidence and discussion

I disagree with some above who feel that this is the wrong place. There are two issues at play - one, whether the RFA results were questionable, which is a BN issue, and two, whether the editor is involved in plagarism or copyright violations. Major copyright violation cases are perfectly at home here.

I do not prejudge the latter issue - without the diffs and links there's no evidence on hand yet - however, if they are found to have been doing that, I believe that there's no precedent that being an admin (of any duration of experience) is any sort of insulation from being indef blocked for blatant copyright violations.

I sincerely hope that this is a mistake, and that that's not the case - I always hope for an AGF success, and untangling these types of incidents is always ugly - but if Peter has evidence and believes that's what's happening then it should be brought forwards here for review. Please present it as neutrally as possible when you have a chance tomorrow and let us review the information.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree. It's unfortunate that Peter brought these allegations, then signed off for the evening. I'm doing some minor investigating, but have ten other things going on right now offline. AniMate^draw 22:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.  Just wanted to say that I don’t mind any investigation people would like to make.   I do not believe I’ve committed any plagiarism, and I endeavour to always cite sources correctly and summarize contents of external sources in my own words.  I do think that I’ve become a better article writer over time, and as such my early work has various problems that my current work does not.  However, I feel confident that I have not committed plagiarism.  I hope that if I’m judged on my content, that it’s over the span of content and learning over time rather than on any beginner’s mistakes. Thank you, FlyingToaster 23:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom?

This seems like the kind of thing to kick straight up to Arbcom. They're the ones that do the deadminning, after all. Jtrainor (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're not there yet. If Peter Damian's claims show plagiarism, blocking would be more appropriate. FlyingToaster believes that they won't, though her first act as an administrator was sending out RfA thankspam that contained a copyright violatioin, so... AniMate^draw 23:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a punitive block rather than preventative and inappropriate. If she has been plagiarising (no confirmation yet), perhaps she didn't realise (she claims innocence) in which case she can be shown how to avoid it in future. Nev1 (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voluntary resolution

FlyingToaster will probably log on soon and confirm this; we got introduced today and have a proposal to resolve this proactively. FlyingToaster wasn't aware of a problem until very recently and is willing to fix it. Here's the suggestion: she'll start a page in user space devoted to this. People who find problems will be welcome to list them there; please be as specific as possible. Meanwhile she'll go through her mainspace contributions starting with new article creations[83] to add quotation marks, improve paraphrasing, etc. as appropriate. She's being polite and cooperative and there doesn't appear to have been an intent to deceive, so let's give her the chance to get it right. Durova^Charge! 00:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a curious definition of the word "proactive", which I'd always thought meant taking steps to avoid problems, not reacting to them when they materialise, as in this case. Let's hope that these allegations of plagiarism are unfounded, but let's also hope that if they prove to be true then FlyingToaster does the honourable thing. Frankly I have more faith in the former than the latter. Once again an administrator is smiled on for behaviour that would get an ordinary editor blocked. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, the allegations are of actions that happened before she became an admin and have only just come to light, so this has nothing to do with admin corruption etc. Nev1 (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She appeared to have been genuinely unaware of a problem before this came up, and wants to get it right. Durova^Charge! 00:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then she is evidently unaware of wikipedia's policies on plagiarism and copyright violations, and so unfit to be an administrator should these allegations be substantiated. Agreed? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but this talk of blocks makes me uneasy as at this stage it would in no way be preventative. Nev1 (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not proposing a block; what I'm proposing is a desysopping if these allegations are substantiated, as I'm quite certain they will be. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She is not unaware of Wikipedia's policies on plagiarism and copyright violations. It was an issue in her first RfA. (See my oppose, #27. During that RfA, she was also requested to remove a fair use image from her userspace.) I'm sorry that I did not catch that there were other issues. If any additional copyright infringements were placed after February of this year, I would find that pretty concerning, since we talked about it at length then. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The allegations came to light because someone took the trouble to check whether the claims made during her RfA were actually true or not. Many didn't take the same trouble, or indeed any trouble at all. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At DYK, we had many editors do this same thing and none of them were blocked, especially when they put a citation to the source material but didn't quote (as it showed intent to cite but was still done improperly). Ottava Rima (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't asked for anyone to be blocked, either here or ever. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Agreed with Nev1: WP:COPYVIO says "Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material despite appropriate warnings may be blocked from editing by any administrator to prevent further problems. In extreme cases administrators may impose special conditions before unblocking, such as requiring assistance with cleanup by disclosing which sources were used." She has already acknowledged the problems and agreed to help with cleanup, so a block would do nothing other than delay resolution. If someone wants to start a conduct RfC in addition, that might be feasible. Although I'm a hardliner on plagiarism (see the proposal talk page; I tried to get it upgraded to guideline recently) it seems right to give her a chance before taking things to the next step: she's being receptive to feedback etc. Durova^Charge! 01:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good, but that would only be an appropriate resolution for an ordinary editor, not for a newly promoted administrator who is charged with enforcing rules with which she is so obviously unfamiliar. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't use the word "obviously" myself, since no evidence has been presented. If some articles are copyright violations tag as prods speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G12, if plagiarised from a single source, send to AfD. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't prod copyright violations. We handle them as per WP:CP. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, was confusing prods with speedys. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She shouldn't be blocked, as this doesn't appear to be malicious, and I'm fairly certain I'm one of the first people mentioning this as a possibility. As for a desysop, there aren't really many options. This coupled with her copyright violating thankspam, would make a voluntary resignation common sense, but we can't force her to resign. An RfC seems like a fine idea, but nothing said there would be binding. Really, this is just embarrassing all around and there really should be a binding process. AniMate^draw 01:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we just drop this blocking thing? I've never suggested she should be blocked, just desysopped. After all, it's no big deal, right? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To confirm this, Durova and I spoke and she was very helpful on this issue. There are several actions I will take to improve my created articles which have raised concerns and to better the sourcing and quality of the summaries of sourced content. As Durova said, I plan to go through each article with a fine tooth comb and further improve them, soliciting feedback along the way and charting the progress as I do so on a posted subpage. Comments from people who find problems will be gladly incorporated via this subpage. I'm confident that through this effort any concerns will be laid to rest. FlyingToaster 01:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though this is obviously jumping the gun somewhat, what if concerns are not laid to rest? I'm not much of a WR reader, but the thread on this over there points me to the article you started on Homeokinetics, and I can't say I like what I see there in terms of how you used your first source. If there are other problems along these lines, I have a feeling that LessHeard vanU 2 may seem all too apropos. Like I said I'm somewhat jumping the gun since we'll need to look more closely at your article work and I recognize that and am very much open to the possibility that we are talking about a couple of isolated incidents, but there's cause for real concern at that article in terms of some pretty basic copyright stuff. Regardless of how this plays out, rather than simply being "confident" that any concerns will be addressed, I hope you are open to the possibility that that will not happen and that you will have to proceed accordingly. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly obvious that a conduct RfC and possible arbitration would happen quickly if she misused the tools in this area. So how about a voluntary pledge from FlyingToaster to avoid using admin ops on copyright issues until she's on a firmer footing with regard to that? Durova^Charge! 04:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm already only planning to use admin tools in areas where I feel I have a thorough understanding and great deal of experience, I was already not planning to be involved in copyright issues (except for speedy deletion of blatant copyright violations) for a very long while, if ever. I'm happy to make this pledge official and state it here. FlyingToaster 05:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec with FlyingToaster, replying to Durova here) Certainly that's a very reasonable suggestion, but I take a longer view of this, and my concern here is not necessarily that FlyingToaster will somehow misuse the tools in the area of copyright (in fact that strikes me as unlikely). We are writing an encyclopedia, and admins are, or should be, those editors whom we deem especially familiar with the general way in which we go about doing that. While we can all acknowledge that admins are in a sense just "janitors," they are also supposedly expert Wikipedians who have special privileges as a result, and of course are often described as such in the press. Ultimately we want to be just as, if not more, respected as Britannica and the like (though we have some problems in that regard, obviously). In that context it strikes me as exceedingly, exceedingly problematic for us to say "this is one of our most expert editors and hence an admin" and then also have to admit that said editor seems to have some issues with copyright (and by extension plagiarism) that would cause me to take one of my undergraduate history students to the woodshed. As I said above I still need more information on this situation and would like to see more detailed explanations from FlyingToaster, but my initial impression here is not a good one (incidentally I've cut Homeokinetics, a topic about which I know absolutely nothing, down to one sentence until we can figure out how to rewrite it, see here for the previous version where there is perhaps some stuff that is salvageable).

I should mention that I understand and fully believe that there was nothing nefarious or intentionally bad in what FlyingToaster did here, but that when it comes to plagiarism, here on Wikipedia or anywhere else, that absolutely does not matter in the slightest (and ultimately plagiarism is what we are talking about, compare for example "Homeokinetics attempts to treat all complex systems equally, animate and inanimate, providing them with a common viewpoint" in our article with "Homeokinetics treats all complex systems on an equal footing, animate and inanimate, providing them with a common viewpoint" in the source). This is serious stuff, and "sorry, I didn't know about that, I'll work on it" does not remotely cut it as an excuse for a Wikpiedia administrator. Given what it is we are doing here, I don't see how anyone could seriously suggest otherwise. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entire result of the RFA was influence by her supporters hectoring (and continuing to do so) the opposition about her prolific and amazing content creation - it seems "amazing" is the word. She should do the honourable thing and resign, and use the time to sort out these pages. This is exactly what happens, when people who know nothing of Wikipedia, pop across from IRC wanting to be Admins - picking up the 100 automatic IRC votes along the way. Giano (talk) 06:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BN

I have raised it here. I am less concerned with copyvio than with the fact that the candidate in an RfA made a claim about '156 articles' created, when over 40 were plagiarised, and most of the rest were stubs or DABs. Peter Damian (talk) 06:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of this article has essentially created a chapter outline form the book. I removed that as it looks to me like a derivative work that would not be acceptable under Wikipedia:Copyright violations as not being releasable under the GFDL. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Blocked as VOA. –xeno ^talk 20:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=291017746#Uncontroversial_requests while obeying move requests I found this move reqeest:

Rubeus Hagrid → HAGGER? — Capitalization, formatting etc. — Ymreh lol (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted it and not obeyed it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, looks like someones getting desperate--Jac16888^Talk 20:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As with another user I recently declined to unblock, note the ananym of the username. Desperate, indeed. I wonder if there's a way for the abuse filter to look for these. —Travis^talk 22:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but why bother? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grawp? Desperate? It seems we have reached our pinnacle, everyone. Congrats all around!— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have the champagne! -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 06:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Toasts with a bottle of Virgil's Rootbeer*— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Toasts with goblin thudrud* -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 06:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could an admin please advise User:William M. Connolley that hectoring voters on an RFA, after its closure is not a good idea [84], particularly that of Flying Hamster's. Accusing oppose voters of slavishly following me, is a seriously bad idea. I had (notice past tense) decided to drop the matter of voters slavishly following anyone, but it seems that is not Connolley's wish. I strongly recommend one of you advises him to shut his misinformed mouth before all hell breaks lose. If this is the acceptable standard of Admin behaviour perhaps it would be better if they all stayed on #Admins and not visit here at all. Thank you. Giano (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, if Tex is bothered by this I'm sure he is more than capable of bringing it up himself. the wub "?!" 20:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't give a stuff how bothered Tex is by it - I am bothered by it! Is everytime one of Connlley's friends's is opposed to be blamed on me - is now opposing a chattering candidate to be a reason for attack? That sound to me like someone, or an entire group, is seriously worried. Giano (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very unusually, I agree with Giano. WMC's message, intentionally or not, comes across as intimidation, and that's not appropriate. Of course, very usually, Giano's tone is not helpful. Looie496 (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, Giano. I should feel special that of the 32 people who opposed Flying Toaster, William took a special interest in me a day after the RFA was closed. I don't know what I'll do now that his opinion of me has been confirmed, but I'll just have to live with myself knowing I have disappointed him. Tex (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not resolved at all! So I have removed tag. Is Connolley to be allowed to hector whoever he feels has not voted in a way in which he approves. Are all of IRC's candidates to be rubber stamped? Can we have an Arb's view on this? Is it worth voting on an IRC RFA in future, or shall we all just smile and ignore as they sail through with 100 votes from those temporarily breaking off from chattering.? Guidance please from an Arb, as it seems Admins are not to be trusted on such matters. Giano (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's just talking, I don't see that he's made any threats or anything at all. He doesn't agree with your reasoning and is wondering why someone else would. I don't see anything immediately actionable, that is what ANI is (supposed to be) for, and that's why I marked the thread resolved. –xeno ^talk 21:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm not 100% keen on the tone of William's message, but the fact that he's an admin is nothing to do with it, and I think it's below the threshold of when it's worth doing something about something. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 21:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire: Xeno had no business marking it resolved! Admins bullying and hectoring and trying to influence the results of future RFAs is very much a matter for this board. Giano (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a certain irony in your accusations of "hectoring" for something that he dropped 6 hours ago, and I get the impression he isn't going to influence Tex much. Just drop it yourself. Go write some articles or something, or even better improve those of Flying Toaster's that you find so deficient. the wub "?!" 21:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The irony is that you attempt to justify Connolly's poor behaviour by comparing it to Giano's. Since when was Giano the benchmark for administrative behaviour? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Show me where I tried to justify WMC's behaviour. I'm just trying to quell needless drama, this thread isn't going to achieve anything. the wub "?!" 21:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explain to me an alternative interpretation of "there's a certain irony in your accusations". The way to quell "needless drama" isn't by using a flamethrower. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? I know people that have flamethrowers, we could always try... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flame away George, if you think you're hard enough. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The internet would be more interesting if Flame wars involved actual flamethrowers--Jac16888^Talk 22:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, Connolley doesn't want to discuss it on his page either and keeps reverting those who do (check history), to his own preferred, if erronious and blinkered, version. Nevermind, I'm sure like number 12 busses another IRC candidate will be along very soon, and Mr Connolley can scream and shout at the opposers again. It seems none of his fellow admins seem to want to rectify the situation - I wonder why? Giano (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How would you recommend the situation be rectified?--Jac16888^Talk 21:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that the tone of his remarks was combative and ultimately unhelpful. IronDuke 21:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not admin but I've had a few interactions with them. Watch out how you talk about your disagreements, Always remember Assume Good Faith, this is important for all of us but doubly so for admin. Sometimes it's best to let things go for a few days then pick up the situation later.Again not admin but a friendly suggestion.Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What action do you want Giano? I personally think William Connolley is an intolerant, uncommunicative, unhelpful admin, and that Wikipedia would be best off without him. That at least sets my position clear (and looks like a cop out as well...sigh..sorry about that). I'm not saying the thread is good or bad - but demands for action/rectification need to be a little more precise than just "do something". Pedro :  Chat  21:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Completely agree. I'm hoping that LessVanU's current reconfirmation RfA will set some sort of standard, but there's nothing can be done here until something like that becomes the norm. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giano's attempt to ignite a flamewar seems to have been a bit of a damp squib, so I've had a go myself: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/05/wiki_wars.php William M. Connolley (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Connolley, if you want to exhort people to read your ramblings go to Wikipedia Review - they've got a whole crowd there who spend all day doing the same thing. Some suggestions for you;

1. Stop using rollback in situations where non admins would have it removed if they did
2. Respond to people - you're not actually better than the rest of us
3. Stop stiring the pot
4. Back off, take a break and come back when you can add value

Pedro :  Chat  22:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has had practically zero interaction with these characters, I have just one comment: Both Connolley and Giano should be absolutely ashamed of themselves with the sheer number of complaints that have been lodged against each of them in this and other fora. —Travis^talk 22:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I find it odd how questioning someone about their opinion in an area that is consensus based on a community that is consensus based is now "hectoring". If you have an opinion, expect it to be questioned, challenged, or the like. If you don't like it, then don't post it. WMC has a lot of real problems, but this is not one of them. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - I had tagged this as resolved, since no administrative action seems to be required. However, although this tagging has been reverted, I'm still unable to see exactly what the point of this wandering and ill-focussed discussion might be. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point of this "wandering and ill-focussed discussion" is for an Admon, Connolley, to be rebuked and made aware that such conduct is unacceptable. The whole of Flying Toaster's RFA was marred by hectoring and badgering of the opposition by those supporting - who knows what the true result may have been - otherwise? Not to mention the "100" or so articles that her supporters claimed she created 9see thread above). All that aside, to further pusue an oppose voter after the RFA has successfully closed smacks of hounding and harassment - are they no longer Wiki-crimes? Giano (talk) 06:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have such a number of irresponsible juvenile administrators precisely because the bcrats are easily intimidated by folks such as Connolley into rubber stamping their will on the community. This is part of the system that IRC has forced on the English Wikipedia (not on the other language wikipedias, thank god). There is no way to alter this course of development through a mere thread on this noticeboard. English Wikipedia starts to lag behind other wikipedias as regards content; and that's a good sign which may drain some of the stagnant water from this wikipedia rather sooner than later. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everyone, I have been on wiki-break for about a month now and I was just coming back from my break and I noticed this legal threat on my talk page here, being that I have never had a legal threat made against me before, and with my knowledge of WP:LEGAL I am reporting it here for an admin to review, From what I can see and the way he said "So let me use the trigger phrases" before his legal threat, it appears that this threat is only a ways to a means for this user because he wants his IP blocked anyways. Thanks and All the Best, Mifter (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should ask him to email OTRS so that they can put a {{consent block}} in place. –xeno ^talk 22:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has already been blocked for something else, and I removed the threat from your page as inappropriate. I recommend following xeno's suggestion. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Xeno :), I am currently typing up response to e-mail to him telling him to contact OTRS and request a {{consent block}} on his concerned IP's, I honestly had never seen the {{consent block}} template before so thanks for the help :). Thanks and All the Best, Mifter (talk)

No problem. I dug up the email address for you too: ( unblock-enwikiwikimedia.org ) –xeno ^talk 22:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have emailed them and copied the OTRS main mailbox - as one of the OTRS people I can handle it from here. I'm not sure that this was actually from who it said it was, but we'll take it from here.

I also permanently semi-protected the school's article, as that appears to have been the single most appropriate solution to the actual underlying problem... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The unblock-enwiki email address is closed and doesn't receive emails any more; it was decided that handling block/unblock issues through OTRS was unfeasible, and all emails are now replied to with an auto-reply saying for people to contact mail:unblock-en-l. If there is something that you absolutely need to send to OTRS that is block/unblock-related (such as this), please just send it to info-enwikimedia.org, like George did. Regards, Daniel (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I had to dig this up from unblock-en-l email correspondence, and didn't realize that email address was discontinued. –xeno ^talk 04:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be grateful if an admin would review my actions here[85], take further action to strip information out of the history as necessary, or tell me if I'm wrong. Thank you. Mishlai (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also taken action at the user's talk page. Mishlai (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Blocked three months for making legal threats AFD and AFD talk page courtesy blanked. MuZemike 05:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

68.5.237.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is giving Wikipedia 30 days to restore the Holly Landers article (deleted in Feb, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly Landers) or she will sue for slander, defamation, etc. I thought I should bring this here to ensure that an admin sees it. Dawn Bard (talk) 23:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 90 days per NLT, do we need to flag Godwin on this? –xeno ^talk 23:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Send a email to info-en@wikimedia.org and they will take it from there. Tiptoety ^talk 23:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, I've also {{courtesy blanked}} the AFD discussion. –xeno ^talk 23:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I blanked the AfD's talk page, removing the legal threat and the IP's attempt at creating a bio. If it's replaced, semi-protecting the page would be a good step. --auburnpilot talk 23:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently encountering someone adding in uncited information to the Actroid article, to whit, that the commercial robot was used in the final episode of BattleStar Galactica. While this is for the most part a content dispute, I am having the damnedest time pointing out to another editor that he cannot add uncited information. He seems to think he can. I've been going back and forth with this fine young gentleman, and I'm almost at the point where I ask for him to be blocked for disruptive editing. As I think he's just reacting to me (he's been following my edits around a bit over the past week), he doesn't seem to be listening to admittedly increasingly frustrated requests that he stop. Maybe someone who actually has the ability to place a bit more oomph behind their words could counsel the user on our OR and synthesis policy? I pretty much need to step away before I pick up a bat. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a 3rr warning to your opponent; you should both now back off from this for your own good. You are of course right on the content issue but being right, as you well know, is no defense for edit-warring. --John (talk) 23:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely realized what was happening, which is why I backed off and sought a saner path here. I appreciate your input, John, but I wasn't just looking for a 3RR warning to be given to the guy. I just wanted him to know he was wrong, and he had long since stopped listening to me tell him why. -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

On numerous occasions in the past couple months, RESKONIE has added the This TV Network logo and The CW logos to broadcast television station pages. These logos are not licensed to be placed on these pages and mass overlinkage is frowned upon. After a large blow up, The CW logo is actually only to be used on The CW page. The user has been warned multiple times about this behavior, including once today and still refuses to comply with rules and policy. Would an admin please step in? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like neutralhomer said, this has been occurring over many months. Look at the user talk page; you'll note there have been MANY personal attempts to contact the user, bring the user into the discussion, and to warn the user, as early as March 2009. Unless I've missed it, there have been absolutely no replies from the user. There was also a discussion/consensus on WikiProject: Television Stations; RESKONIE was invited to participate in that discussion via a personal message on their talk page. If you look at the history for KATU, you'll see a WP:TE pattern of additions by RESKONIE. tedder (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why the user replied and posted a message on my userpage. This user has been told many times to stop adding the ThisTV logo or use a higher resolution logo, but refused to participate in the many conversations about him.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 00:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted all uses of the image outside of the network article, and am adding a note to the image that it not be used for anything but the This TV or Weigel-related pages. Nate • (chatter) 04:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few days ago an IP editor left a !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oguzhan Özyakup that used very similar wording to User:Rirunmot (diffs: [86] & [87]). Suspecting this to be an attempt at !vote stacking, I left Rirunmot a message about it on his talk page ([88]). He responded tonight ([89]) claiming that I was mistaken. I then left him a message providing evidence for my suspicion ([90]). He then responded on my talk page using multiple question marks and an enlarged header asking me to perform an IP check ([91]). I asked him to stop using multiple question marks and enlarged headers, whilst telling him that only checkusers could perform an IP check ([92]). To which he responded with this rather uncivil message that continued to use the enlarged header ([93]). At this point, I decided that the issue was dealt with and I had no wish to continue the discussion. I asked him to refrain from posting anymore messages on my talk page ([94]). He did however post again on my talk page ([95]) and when I removed his comment, he quickly undid my removal ([96]) and proceeded to use a sockpuppet to leave yet another comment on my talk page ([97]). Whilst this is being investigated, could a sysop please protect my talk page? Thanks John Sloan @ 00:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:John Sloan disruption+harrassement+wrong accusation

I found this message in my discussion page:

"...To user Rirunmot" Please don't use your IP to !vote stack at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oguzhan Özyakup. It is considered very disruptive to the AfD process. Thank you John Sloan "..

As an unknown IP ( 88.254.131.185 ) used some words similar (or copied!) from the discussion page; it was enough to this user for addressing accusation of "disuptive behaviour".!

Please clear this problem with that IP; Really and sincerely, I have nothing to do with it..

If this user wants his page not to be edited this way or that, at least he can apologize for accusating innocent people (act which is a real and undiscussable INCIVILITY) Rirunmot (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

In my opinion, John Sloan should not have removed the IP's vote from the AfD as he did here. (An exception could be votes that are obviously from banned editors, which this is not). Tagging with {{subst:spa}} is often done. It is assumed that the closing admin will be able to adjust the AfD results as appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What John Sloan should not have done is the Wrong Accusation ! He MUST apologize for that (instead of deviating the problem and trying to show it is a problem of writing style on his talk page or so..).... Rirunmot (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was asked by User: Kingoomieiii to report the actions of User:Spooky873 and his Ip User:67.242.56.62. For more then a year this person has been edit warring Foo Fighters articles to remove the inclusion of Post-grunge from the Genre. As seen from his IP [[98]],[[99]], [[100]]. This has been done against The [that he tried to change with Meat puppets and Socks.]. His Sock Puppetry case can [found here]. Kingoomieiii lost his cool and started a Flame war on the Ip's talk page that I put a stop too and reported too Alerts. King then asked me to help him and I took in the case after we settled our differences as a neutral third party. However, after looking at the consensus and his actions, I agree he is a disruptive editor. Although I'm not quite sure what can be done. Thanks and happy editing.--SKATER ^Speak. 01:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coringa (talk · contribs) repeatedly inserts dubious information [101] (5x), won't provide a source when asked to, does not communicate, for some strange reason changed my signature to Jimbo Wales [102], he was reverted and warned for doing so, but he did it again [103], he also removed two warning messages from his talk page. Despite those warnings, he continues to make the same violations. He hasn't made any other edits. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An IP, who claims to be User:br4011, recently posted this request. Obvious sockpuppetry, of course. I am forwarding it here:

"Sir, I done a Wrong in a bymistake. for that Amalthea blocked my Account. Sir mother promise i'll not do this mistake anymore. Please forgive me and Please unblock my Account. I'am Asking Unblock Request for 1 week there not doing any thing. Please forgive and unblock me. I'll not Upload any imges without your or other Adminstration Help. Please unblock me sir.

br4011 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.47.245 (talk) 02:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC) "[reply]

The only interaction I've had with that user is leaving a welcome template on their page, so I don't know why they think I'd be able to do anything, but here it is. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 03:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then Azviz (talk · contribs) (the apparent sockmaster) needs to make his unblock request on his own talk page and not play these games by posting as an IP disguised as Esasus (talk · contribs) (a sock of Azviz via CU and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azviz/Archive). MuZemike 05:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps can someone of the CheckUser variety see if Br4011 = Azviz? We have the IP. MuZemike 05:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Levine2112 has been using IP socks recently[104] [105][106][107][108] and claims the text says nothing about Mysticism.

Levine2112 made this edit and the IP sock made this edit. See Talk:Chiropractic#Mysterious IP reverts for more evidence.

(diff) 01:07, 9 May 200918:00 The IP 166.191.166.100: Here the IP sock claims before Levine2112 disputed the text... Undocumented claim.

(diff) 01:29, 9 May 2009 by Levine2112: Here Levine2112 makes the same claim as the IP 166.191.166.100 and... Reverted to revision 288781918 by 166.191.166.100; actually I just read the source. It says nothing about Mysticism... see talk. using TW Levine claims the text is somehow not verifed but it is faithfully sourced. It was a very strange claim Levine2112 made that strangely enough the same claim was made by the IP. These two edits[109][110] can't be a coincidence.

The text is faithfully sourced "Chiropractic is rooted in mystical concepts. This led to an internal conflict within the chiropractic profession, which continues today." See Talk:Chiropractic history#Mystical ideas sourced.

Levine2112 has been given plenty of second chances[111] [112] and has been previously banned from chiropractic. See User talk:Levine2112/archive10#One week ban from Chiropractic and related talk pages. QuackGuru (talk) 03:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's proper procedure to notify a user when initiating a thread about them. I've gone ahead and let Levine2112 know about it. — Ched :  ?  05:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe User:QuackGuru is looking for this page rather than AN/I. Unomi (talk) 06:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]