• Support I have the utmost respect for Sarek. I think that the disrespect and the lying she did saying she wasn't a sock when called on it on her sock accounts just shows she thinks she is better than the rules here. It took too long to get some attentions to this matter to begin with until Sarek came along. Sarek you did the right thing here. Unfortunately she couldn't wait it out and started to sock almost from the beginning. An indefinite is the right thing for this. She has no respects for the policies of the project and the project is better without the problems. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportSocking this blatant could lead to nothing else. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 20:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - the only way to effectively deal with the problem. Socking is not the way to respond to a ban that had a timer on it, let alone any other situation, and doing so invites this response from the community. This is the correct page to be dealing with this, and it seems sensible to resolve an incident as opposed to leave it festering. There is no misbehavior by involved users here, and there isn't going to be (without sanctions being plonked on users who try to disrupt this discussion), unlike the other ban discussion, where some involved users refused to behave appropriately, admins and arbcom lacked the courage to intervene effectively, and the eventual ban process review that led to mostly flawed and and excessively bureaucratic proposals - those proposals are only effective (and applicable) to the users who historically have trouble conducting themselves appropriately; not the rest of the community.. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Letting an editor get away with this would send entirely the wrong message. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Strongly. She has been beyond blatant. She has lied and contradicted her former self in a self destructive manner. Although all ISP's can't be confirmed, I counted 26 socks on the Margaret Clark article alone and I believe socked as lately as the first week in June. This may not be the appropriate forum,but as a" Newbie" I was bitten almost to death by SRQ. She has no respect for anyone here in the Wiki Community. This has gone on far too long considering the extensive "evidence." It is unfortunate that an editor as talented and prolific as she was, has lowered herself to this level. I firmly believe we have no choice but to extend her banned/block to "indefinite." DocOfSoc (talk) 09:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I'm sorry, but socking to evade a ban is an enormous no-no. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 09:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Merridew has campaigned tirelessly to do away with the use of color in filmography headings. During a discussion at WT:ACTOR in which he inappropriately canvassed support for his POV, a table heading for the purpose of formatting a table was presented. The consensus on the discussion was to implement the use of that template, as is, with the color included. A discussion was opened at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#The use of colors in filmographies regarding the color. Consensus had not been formed there as of yet, but Jack went ahead and removed the color, literally jumping the gun and disregarding the discussion at hand, claiming There is no demonstrable consensus for this color and accusing the respondents that supported the use of color as "a group of friends acting as a bloc"and again dismisses opinions ontrary to his own as Why should you and mebbe a half dozen of your friends be allowed to rule over some thousands of articles?. Note that he also claims that "Someone has been evading, by any and all means, a consensus against this ornament for far too long.", presumably addressed to me, while he totally ignores that just as many spoke FOR the color in the template as his cohorts support his POV. That is a typical ploy, diminish the opinions that are against him and demean the editors who oppose it. The truth of the matter is that is also inappropriate characterization and outright dismissal of the opinions of the responders and he uses that to disregard everything that has been said. In fact, there is also no consensus to remove it, either, which is what was wanted when this was opened for discussion. The consensus for the general use of color hard coded into the table was inconclusive at the discussion at WT:ACTOR and it is shaping up that the consensus is again split, with equal numbers for and against. There is no consensus to remove the color either. This is yet another instance of his pushing his POV on the discussion and his sole decision that the discussion supported his actions. The discussion highlights the guideline (NOT policy) at WP:ACCESS#Styles and markup options, which clearly and decisively sets an exception for the point that The Simpsons group would be allowed the use of the color yellow. I contend his actions were grossly inappropriate considering it still under discussion and considering that he has actively lobbied against the color, he acted in a biased way to imposing his POV on the imagined results of the discussion. I do accept that a small contingent who decided to use a very light gray color between themselves and then proceeded to write "guidelines and policies" set the "consensus" site wide for enforcing their choice. Consensus by force is not consensus, and in fact, the "site-wide consensus" has been challenged by this whole issue. The next step will be Jack trying to push through to remove the tables completely, something he has been quite vocal about pushing. P.S. Someone might want to take a look at the post I made at the pump page about Merridew's wikistalking, denigrating and harassing me, as well, if you care to. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think changing the color of the tables in the middle of the discussion was disruptive. It's not fair to the editors who are taking the time to respond at the Village Pump if JM can simply make a unilateral move like that. And while this isn't the place to argue the color issue, it does make it easier to read. And what is a film actor without an easy to read filmography? I don't think this should be such a big issue.Malke2010 22:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been "jumping the gun", but I feel it was done in good faith. Your marginalization of "a small contingent" having written our "guidelines and policies", I feel, is an unfounded attack on Wikipedia's guidelines and policies.  Chickenmonkey  23:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, however you can turn it around. Don't muck up the discussion with trying to avert the issue. Show me proof that the standard table coding was not done by a small contingent. I don't think you can show that it was developed by a "large" contingent. And good faith is relative here, since Jack had less than stellar things said about him and he charged in there to make a pointy edit and before replying here, he moved on to another article to change it to blank tabling. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to feel -- and I'm not trying to turn this around or muck it up or whatever else you will accuse me of -- you seem to feel that any consensus that didn't involve you, doesn't count. Just because you don't know where the consensus is doesn't mean it didn't happen, and you should assume that the consensus was arrived at in good faith. Instead, you choose to take the same course that you're so offended of Jack Merridew taking: "accusing the respondents that supported the use of color as a group of friends acting as a bloc" and "a small contingent who decided to use a very light gray color between themselves". It's the same tactic and it's not very civil, either way. I've been a witness to this "relationship" between you two for a little while and I believe it is fairly equal. I repeat my suggestion, if the two of you can't find a way to be civil with each other, you should avoid each other. If you absolutely have to interact, I would suggest no further comments on each other and focus your attention on improving the encyclopedia. Obviously, you're free to take that suggestion, or not.  Chickenmonkey  08:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the reason why I've brought Jack's conduct re: me to this discussion. He absolutely needs to stop wikistalking and harassing me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Do NOT bite the developers

a small contingent who decided to use a very light gray color? One might root through the ancient history of MediaWiki:Common.css to find where the two shades came in to class="wikitable" but I expect it's old as hell, and mucking about in {{prettytable}} might dredge up older-yet history. One can't easily change this, either; it's now in shared.css, which requires developer access to change. These colours are bedrock; used on all WMF wikis and prolly most wikis running MediaWiki. Personally, I assume that these shades were chosen with considerable care with concern about maximizing accessibility and avoiding cultural sensitivities. Shared.css is for styling that underlays all the skins and the natural next level to consider overrides is Common.css and then individual skins. The most inappropriate level to specify a colour is hard-coded in individual articles. Jack Merridew 00:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't assume. And I find the insertion of the baby picture beside my post about this deliberately insulting and demeaning. Things regarding Jack need to come here to keep him honest. Consensus can change, which is the key issue to this table. You can't muster the consensus to support your stance and more editors, different editors, show up each time. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume good faith of the devs; WP:COMPETENCE, too. Try it ;) The baby picture was funny and seems to have been intended to lighten the mood. Cheer up, Jack Merridew 01:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I found out awhile back, the first photo on a given page will show up if you hover over the link, or some such thing. So putting photos on this page is not really the best idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think too many know that trick ;) Anyway, I hope you didn't fall for the suggestion that I posted the picture. I see it as a good faith comment by a neutral bystander. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crap, Jack. There was no suggestion whatsoever that you posted the image. If I thought you did, I would outright had said that. You do enough damage around here without martyring yourself needlessly. There was no such suggestion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wildhartlivie cannot edit anywhere without Jack following behind trying to dehumanize and demean her for whatever personal grudge he has on her. His spitefulness has been noted many times, even by administrators... but nothing ever happens and he's free to follow WHL to the next page and rinse and repeat the same bullshit. Sickening. Mike Allen 03:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how Jack followed Wild here. The thread is clearly about him, him joining it to defend himself isn't out of line. That aside, can you please substantiate your accusations of wikistalking?— Dædαlus^Contribs 07:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no one said he followed me to this discussion, I notified him, but he has suddenly appeared to disparage me on this very board in the past. I have been busy today with serious family issues, but I will gather diffs to show that he does. It will take a little time to do so, but they will be forthcoming. He also posts to IP editors talk pages against me just after I've posted there. There is no way he keeps those pages on his watchlist without following my edits. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Jack has been banned before for wikistalking, it's not like there isn't a pattern of the same behavior that people are going to view him through the distinctly not rose-colored lenses of. Yet nothing much ever happens and the same group of fellow travelers defend him at each step of the way.Shemeska (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um I was not talking about this discussion. Though the "accusations" are based on proof. Mike Allen 08:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is also demonstrably true that Wildhartlivie responds in a predictable way whenever JM happens to end up in the same part of the project as her - to flame out, outright accuse him of wikistalking her and to treat his edits as malicious. This isn't helping, and may be part of the reason that people don't really pay it too much attention. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This. Seriously, I'll be the first to say I tend to like Jack, but these two have a seriously unhealthy focus on one another. Surely Wikipedia is big enough that a way can be found for them both to just stop interacting all together, and if you must be in the same discussion, then don't response to the other. Is there such a thing as a topic ban where neither is allowed to reference the other by name or suggestion at all? As it is, the back and forth between them is really derailing the entire discussion re the template issues, and seems to be coloring the responses some. From my view in reading the RfC--ignoring all the bad faith suggestions re canvassing (evidence?), accusations on both sides of having "blocs" and "cabals", etc--that the RfC was inherently flawed. One discussion was for the template, one for the color. The former ended with consensus to use the template, while the later ended for no consensus on using the blue color - yet the template discussion was for it "as is" with the color - resulting in opposing results. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've ignored a lot of shite. I see a solid year of evading the communities input about this effort at WikiProject Branding. All sort of tangents and misrepresentations. The RfC did get off poorly. It began as a sort of quick nose-count by WHL of whomever was watching WT:ACTOR. I bumped that thread up to an RfC and then commented. At length over—what?—six weeks? The arguments agianst the various messes and issues re these filmography tables are well presented in there. There is talk on VP(pol) about running an RfC on colour and I could warm to the idea. I want to see a route forward to cleaning up the considerable mess of code that's strewn about an in awful lot of articles. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I've endured a whole lot more shite from you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack you know you've been following Wildhartlivie around. You showed up at many articles and conversations that you could have only gone to at the same time as WHL by using her contributions. The behaviors of Jack at WP:ACTOR shows the type of treatment he gives. He knows exactly what buttons to push on WHL to get her to respond in kind, and unfortunately she takes the bait way too often. Articles he showed up at are Cher, Charles Karel Bouley, Kate Winslet and the list goes on. He also goes to user talk pages where WHL is having a conversation with an editor like for instant User talk:Logical Fuzz and User talk:My account now (this one was proven to be a sock like she said it was.). These are just a few examples of Jack showing up to tell WHL whatever. There are a lot more of these but I feel this is enough of a sample to show that there is a problem that needs to be stopped. Thanks for taking the time to look, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User WHL has a long history of reverting any changes she disagrees with as being 'against consensus'. This seems to be a clear case where there is no consensus to support her proposed change to color table headings (other than the usual suspects MikeAllen and CrohnieGal -strange that she accuses Jack of having a cabal or a cohort when these two seem to pop up in support of every controversial change she makes), yet she refuses to follow her own guidelines and leave well alone. Not only that, but to accuse a user of wikistalking her when in fact she is the one who is putting incivil and downright rude remarks about him on third-party editors' talk pages is utterly hypocritical. Suggest user WHL takes a long look at her own behaviour before drawing other editors to AN/I Little Professor (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terima kasih, which is bahasa Indonesia for thank you. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Little Professor, you have your agenda for showing up and commenting here. I can substantiate that too. Removing embedded notes, which you were told to stop ring a bell? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I do remember you taking ownership on several pages, using hidden embedded notes such as this to enforce your 'correct' version of the article and claiming consensus backs your view, when in fact the evidence would appear to the contrary. You have a history of ignoring other comments about your ownership issues, taking them as personal attacks rather than constructive feedback about your behaviour. It's perfectly appropriate for me to comment on this issue when it turns up on AN/I again, that's hardly 'having an agenda'. For the record, I couldn't give two hoots whether the first line of a table is grey or blue, which is why I haven't commented on the RFC or the Village Pump proposal. The issue is your pattern of behaviour in attacking another editor for violating your ownership of pages, and the tenuous/false claims of consensus to back your personal opinion, which several other editors have commented upon. Little Professor (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, with the seemingly dislike you have for all of us at WP:ACTOR, why did you sign up for it? --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @ Little Professor, have you even looked at what this is about? I don't pop up at every situation and I also don't always agree with WHL. I tell her when I do not agree via email so that what I say can't be turned around and used against her. What you are saying above doesn't fit the situation at all. There was a consensus at WT:ACTOR for the template with the color at least the way I understood it. The discussion was ongoing when Jack took it upon himself to start deleting the color from the template and was told to stop doing it by an administrator. (dif upon request but I believe it is at Jack's talk page or the template page, I'd have to look). You are coming to aid a friend, good for you. I do not deny I am friends with WHL and never have. It is recorded in the history of my contributions. That being said, I don't come to a situation without looking into the what is going on and getting the facts straight. Unfortunately it doesn't look like you took the time to do that which is an important step to take. Sorry, but you are wrong about this and I gave some difs. I can get more if needed upon request. I am done for today but I just couldn't let that comment of your's stand unchallenged. Have a good night. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"You are coming to aid a friend" - to my knowledge I have never had any kind of interaction with Jack Merridew before. I'd appreciate it if you would either substantiate or withdraw that remark. Little Professor (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I would greatly appreciate if you would withdraw your unseemly arbitrary comment of, "other than the usual suspects MikeAllen [...]". Thank you. Mike Allen 01:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Little Professor is absolutely correct. Just about every one of the many disputes WHL ends up in can be traced back to her habit of claiming ownership over articles, reverting edits she doesn't like as "against consensus", and being rude to the editors who made the edits.—Chowbok ☠ 17:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The original RfC was quite a mess, sprawling over multiple subjects. It also raised project-wide considerations at a local level. At WP:VPP, there is currently a proposal for a specific, targeted discussion on table top colors with a wider audience, and I imagine that conducting such is the only way to resolve this. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moonriddengirl is probably right about that, but I don't think this current noticeboard cycle is about the color of the templates. JM seems resentful of WHL's efforts on actors/film articles. He seems to pick issues just to get a predictable response out of WHL. WHL then sees the issue as an attack on her and the article. And then JM comes back with a provocative edit like reverting the color in the templates. This is disruptive behavior. It seems like JM is just challenging WHL's dominance on these articles. I can understand why she might be looking at every thing he does now as an attack. I think JM is a good editor, but right now the issues are clouding his judgement. And it's come to the point where there's overreaction on both sides. JM, my advice is just drop the color issue and start finding common ground with WHL. She's really very easy to get along with, and you'll find you both have a lot more in common than you realize.Malke2010 14:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Don't edit war over the colour of templates. Robofish (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, I am working up a list of diffs to offer proof for wikistalking. That will be posted in a bit after I've assembled it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on assembling diffs regarding his wikistalking. It is a lot more involved and detailed than even I recall. I will finish it tomorrow and post it here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have assembled some diffs that support my contention that Jack Merridew wikistalks me. I think it is better link than posted here as it will overwhelm this page. I might note that the page itself was nominated for deletion in less than 24 hours after I began assembling evidence by Chowbok, who also has a bad habit of following me around, but tacks on the overt action of posting on talk pages overt personal attacks about it. The link to the evidence I've assembled so far is at User:Wildhartlivie/Stuff. The deletion page, which has overall support to keep for this issue is at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wildhartlivie/Stuff which also has some support for my contention that Chowbok, who nominated it for deletion, who incidentally is the only one saying delete, has a personal vendetta against me. As for the diffs I've assembled, they cover in most part and especially on the articles, about a six week period. There are still 3 months worth of diffs that I haven't gotten assembled yet, but they basically reflect the identical stalking, harassment and attempts to intimidate. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to note right now that Jack Merridew keeps reverting the filmography at Scarlett Johansson from using the template that DOES have consensus for use, to a sortable table, saying the "color" doesn't have consensus. In fact, however, the template does have it. I put the templates back in tonight and within two minutes he reverted with no explanation. He has done this repeatedly to this article. The template has consensus for use and this is quite typical of Jack's conduct toward me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack changes the template to what he believes is consensus, and he's "jumping the gun", but you change an article to what you think is consensus, and that's okay? I believe, it would be best if any of these types of edits were withheld until after the discussion is concluded. That way, we'll hopefully avoid any further edit warring or disputes or personal attacks or any such things.  Chickenmonkey  08:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, JackMerridew should not be changing anything right now. And WHL is correct, the consensus is there to keep it. What JackMerridew perceives to be consensus seems to be the problem here. And I was not aware that JackMerridew has been previously banned for wikistalking. Administrators should take note of this previous behavior. Any editor here who feels they are currently, or have been recently, stalked by JackMerridew, please post diffs for Admins to see.Malke2010 14:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, for clarity, the table was not employing the template until Wildhartlivie added it, while the discussion is still going on. Hopefully, after the page is unprotected (if that occurs before this discussion ends), it will be left, as is, until the discussion ends. There's no deadline for Wikipedia and there's no reason to make such an edit that will clearly be challenged and result in a needless edit war. It just makes sense: nobody should add the template anywhere during discussion and nobody should remove the template anywhere during discussion. That way, hopefully, personal attacks and some wikistress can be avoided.  Chickenmonkey  19:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um no. Jack knows full well that there is consensus for the use of that template. Also, he is the one who first added the template [8]. Then a couple weeks later, he goes on his "make tables sortable" tear here. I objected then, [9]. Jack proceeded to revert each time the template was returned, at one point calling me a disruptive editor and saying don't be disruptive. His buddy Chowbok jumped in to revert someone else here, in support of Jack, something he often does. There is no consensus for use of a sortable table and to remove the template. Jack knows that. And remembering the non-consensus supported "Tables by Jack" only came up because I was asked above to prove that he wikistalks me. That he reverted my edit within 30 minutes is even more indication of stalking. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this issue, on that article, occurred already is further reason to avoid making that edit until after the discussion has ended. Also, honestly, I saw the edit, too, and I was going to revert it in favor of waiting for the discussion to end (just as was done when Jack edited the template).  Chickenmonkey  01:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack didn't say he changed it because of a consensus. Please go read what he said. Then Chowbok who's not been in on any of the discussion that I'm aware of changed it back to what Jack wanted because Jack wanted it. Their only reasons are that the sortable is better which is their POV. It doens't matter the article has been protected to their version so they should be happy. As for me, I don't understand why I should have to discuss my reasoning and they can just go and do whatever they want to without waiting for a consensus. It makes no sense to me thus I'm done for now. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was a staged provocation by WHL. The filmography for Scarlett Johansson has been sortable for more than a month and she chose this moment to edit war over it. It's been discussed at WT:ACTOR#Sortable tables, and like everything not to her liking, the thread has been tied in knots by her and her fellow club members. My view is that something useful, like sorting, is moar important than their blue. George Cukor#Filmography seems to have survived as sortable, for now... Sincerely, Jack Merridew 16:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refactor your personal attack. There are editors who agree with WHL just as there appears to be an editor agreeing with you which got the article protected. We are not club members. We are members of a wiki-project that you are also a member of. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JM, I shouldn't have to point out to you that it's trivial to make the template version sortable (I just did it there and it took me three seconds). Disliking the colour is all well and good, but let's not go misleading people as to what this debate is over. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that will need to be reverted ASAP, I believe. Most of the filmography tables use rowspans on the years and the sorting goes quite amok on those. I suppose it could be made optional somehow, like it seems you've done with the colour, and that could be useful. Making the colour and option is interesting, but we'll need agreement on the usage of that... Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And it was all reverted out, both on non-consensus grounds and that it broke stuff. I'll check back later. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, Dude, you've created the lamest edit war.Malke2010 23:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, it began about 9 months before I ever edited any of this stuff. You prolly need to read the RFC. Anyone who thinks this is just about 'blue' is missing most of this. It's about a clash between the technical realities of large scale software development and anyone can edit. Most editors are incompetent^{#1, not #2} to opine on technical concerns. See also: WP:RANDY. Jack Merridew 03:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which was the same basic malarkey that Jack spouted a long time ago when I asked him to explain what didn't work with the header being used. He told me essentially that I was too stupid to understand it, yet he explained it to a man. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone either block these IPs or initiate a rangeblock if appropriate? A few anon IPs from India keep spamming their website all over the wiki, wiping out inline references and external links in the process [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. I put a request in at the spam blacklist but there is a huge backlog going to May 25. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh nevermind, looks like someone at the blacklist page is taking care of it after all. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The same IP range, plus some throwaway accounts, are now spamming another URL, perhaps a mirror of the same domain. [18], [19]. Kindzmarauli (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The articles have been protected, so it shouldn't be a problem now. Netalarm^talk 21:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about that? MER-C 05:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted and semi-protected it, MER-C. Sarah 05:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've also reverted and semi-protected Kalasalingam University and Tipper Gore and blocked the latest IP. We really need to get these links onto the blacklist as they're obviously not going to stop of their own volition. Sarah 04:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Add the following to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist (copy and paste):

\bkhatana\.net\b
\bnitcc\.co\.in\b

(Don't ask about an RFA nom, I have exams.) MER-C 05:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Added. Guy (Help!) 17:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mk5384 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user is currently on a 1-week block following up on a 55-hour block for various forms of contentiousness. Venting is one thing, but he's threatening to sock and "settle scores" with various editors.[20] His talk page access is currently blocked, but I have notified him of this posting nonetheless. I pose this as a question of whether he should be indef'd and/or banned. I'm just one of many that he had a run-in with on the Black Jack Pershing article, and his approach seems to have gone on from there after he lost that battle. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had intended to bring up MK's behavior at RFC/UC, but this has now taken a much more serious tone. MK has been involved in a string of disruptive edits, personal attacks, and harassment like edits for quite some time. The complete listing of evidence links (which I had planned to use for the RFC) can be found here. -OberRanks (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an RFC would be more productive than a discussion here. This editor clearly wants to make good contributions, but is having a really bad week. It must seem that everyone is against MK, and no one wants to talk about the real issues (as MK sees them). In my experience, "Unblock request / declined" is not a good venue for resolving such situations; nor is AN/I. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bad week dating back to March? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, RFC would probably be best. In addition, if MK does return after his block and engages in even more personal attacks, it is likely he will receive an extremely lengthy block in any event. Same can be said if he uses sockpuppet accounts of ips while blocked during the next week. -OberRanks (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think an RFC/U would be a necessary first step here -- we shouldn't jump straight to a ban discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance of holding off with the RFC/U until MK5384 is in a position to respond? Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about we open a RFC/U, but let him have access to his talk page, so someone can post what he posts on his talk page to the RFC? Then he would be in a position to respond. If he abuses his talk page rights again, he can be reblocked without talk page access, and the RFC will go on without his opinion. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 19:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had not planned to file the RFC until after MK was unblocked plus a few days as well to give the editor time to ease back into editing and perhaps calm down a bit. It still might not be necessary if MK returns, agrees to work with others, and does not continue to engage in disruptive behavior. Its really up to MK at this point. And, in addition, we're not dealing with a vandal or a troll, we're dealing with a productive editor who needs some help. I truly believe there is hope here. -OberRanks (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that the threat to sock and settle scores was just bluster. If nothing of that sort apparently happens during the next week, maybe we should forget about that and just focus on future behavior issues, if any. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would an RfC be a necessary first step? A block is to prevent disruption. We have an open ended threat of disruption. He should be indef'd until such a time that the community is satisfied there is no further thread of disruption. Has an RfC on a user ever solved anything? ever?--Crossmr (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ObDisclose: I'm the "corrupt admin" that issued the initial 55 hour block, based on block record, and ignoring warnings and advice given to change approach. I have no strong view on what the appropriate next step is, just wanted to self-identify. Would be happy to see an outcome that ended up retaining a productive editor but lost the troublesome behavior. ++Lar: t/c 19:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Doubt so, read WP:OWB for more details. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 19:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the unsettling behavior and threating of block evasion, this leads me to believe that sooner or later we will have to eventually block him indefinitely. I agree on Crossmr's statement that requesting for comment on a user's conduct will never fix anything. Rohedin ^TALK 15:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there were evidence of block evasion, that would be different (and would be covered by WP:EVADE, which says that e.g. a reset of the block might be in order). If there has been any disruption since the block began, please post diffs. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 19:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC): John made this edit.
• 19:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC): Nev1 accused John of "puerile heckling" in this edit.
• Discussion ensued on User talk:Nev1#.22Puerile_Heckling.22.

  — Jeff G. ツ 01:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the noticeboard for things which require immediate administrative attention, not the noticeboard to alert everyone that two editors got into a silly little fight over nothing. Incidentally, {{UV}} needs curly brackets rather than square ones: all you've done is linked to the UV article twice. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Storm reached rim of teacup around 01:05, 9 June 2010. Occuli (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Murderdan537 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I first became aware of User:Murderdan537 because he blanked without comment a section of an article I patrol. Then twice again. Looking back over his edit history, most of his edits are to sanitize information about Cuban communism, swapping existing information for his own POV. Many times this completely reverses the meaning of the intended passages. Terrorists are not always freedom-fighters, dictatorships are not always revolutionaries, and so on. Those terms and those articles have very specific meanings and don't need to be manipulated by this user. Someone please have a look. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I went to notify this user, note they have been blanking out warnings on their talkpage to hide them. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to providing any evidence such as diff to support your claims TheZachDOTnet (talk) 05:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Murderdan537 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked 24h by Cirt for vandalism. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may be a little late to the party here, but I still want to chip in. You accuse the user of POV pushing, but the articles he edits have an anti-cuban POV. For example his last edit to Scouts-in-extris is perfectly neutral and you are the person pushing a POV insisting on terms as "totalitarian" and "regime". [21]. The article Corruption in Cuba has a POV tag for a reason as it is extremely one-sided and Politics of Cuba should probably get one as well, looking at some of the statements made. Yes this is all sourced information and he deleted some of that without comment, I am not defending that. I think accusing him POV pushing is not fair though, as he only tries to obtain a NPOV in articles about Cuba. Further more blanking warnings is allowed per WP:blanking and your insistent re-adding of the warning template was totally uncalled for. Yoenit (talk) 06:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... that doesn't make much sense. If there are lots of reliable sources calling it totalitarian, then it's not POV to call it totalitarian. And how exactly is "regime" supposed to be POV? It refers to a government or governing philosophy. Shimeru 09:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that certain countries (the USA for example) have a very different view of Cuba to the rest of the world. If you buy Bacardi in the US, it is labelled as Puerto Rican rather than Cuban, because there is an embargo on goods from Cuba. Referring to Cuba as a "totalitarian regime" comes as second nature if you've seen that sort of terminology used by the media all your life. Cubans are portrayed, if at all, only as people desperate to emigrate to the US. And so on. When one factors in the high proportion of American wikipedia editors, the current situation becomes more understandable, I think. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be thinking of Havana Club: genuine in most countries but a Bacardi copy in the US. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 13:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with "regime" is that it has a negative ring to it. I know the dictionary doesn't say so, but have you ever heard it being applied to the US government? if not, than why should we refer to the Cuban government as such? Totalitarian is a term historically applied to Nazi Germany and the Sovjet Union under Stalin and is also very negative.Yoenit (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have heard the word "regime" applied to the US government, but mostly by the Tea Party movement, so I can see that it might be seen to have negative connotations. Still, "totalitarian" is clearly NPOV. Anyone got a neutral synonym for "regime" (unless, of course, that term is used in the sources.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still not sure I buy that, as I see "Bush regime" and "Clinton regime" all the time in the US press (along with "totalitarian regime", "socialist regime", etc.), and not necessarily in articles critical of Bush or Clinton. But sure. "Administration" for one, if it's used in the sense of "Castro regime." "System of government" if it's used in the sense of "totalitarian regime." That's a little unwieldy, but so are most synonyms for regime in that sense that I can think of offhand. I suppose just "government" could work, although that could be a little ambiguous, depending on context. Shimeru 00:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User talk:XxxL0ST.S0ULxxx for a threat of legal action following the A7 deletion of an autobiography. The user has said "if I EVER see an article listing either myself, or D.O.T.S.; and full moderative control is not in my hands, then I WILL sue not just Wikipedia, but I will seek legal action against every one of you." Gonzonoir (talk) 07:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked pending withdrawal of the threat. Stifle (talk) 08:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Stifle. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Horkana has, within the last day or so, three times added (eg [22]) a huge nonfree image (magazine cover) to Jessica Biel, without providing a fair use justification for including the image in the article, apparently on the basis thst calling the image a "reference" overrides any requirements for justifying the use of nonfree images; the user is also removing a related fact/citation needed tag, despite acknowledging that the image does not support the claims the fact tag relates to. The image, as displayed, is about the same size as the main article text, and makes most of the other reference listings unreadable; it is purely illustrative, and fails the nonfree use justification standards. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warned Horkana about edit warring.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How could a non-free image rationale be required for a link, the image is not even being displayed, only a textual link? It is a waste not to refer to the image in some way or another, what is the best way to make it clear to readers this is available? I will use Template:External media instead. -- Horkana (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, and have replied at Talk:Jessica Biel. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Horkana inserted it again, so I blocked for 3 hours for edit warring.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valkyrie Red (talk · contribs)

I've just reblocked the above user for continued violations of WP:BATTLE, disruptive editing, inappropriate canvassing as well as a personal attack here on one of the users he opened a battleground with. My action and intent were focussed on Talk:Trojan War, and it is only after I blocked that I took the time to read his submission at WP:WQA that appears to be about me (without him having notified me).

I affirm that my block was issued in good faith and in ignorance of his claims against me, but as he started action against me, I request a community review of the block, as leaving it standing unreviewed under these circumstances would not be proper. Thanks. MLauba ^(Talk) 15:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see more diffs supporting the month-long block. I'm entirely willing to assume your good faith here, but reading the past couple of days worth of diffs, I'm not seeing grounds for a one-month block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compiling... Note that the length is due to repeated previous blocks for the same offenses. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm involved at the dispute at Talk:Trojan War. I don't think that Valkyrie's participation has been all that constructive, but I'm surprised to see a block. I see violations of WP:BATTLE, perhaps of WP:CANVAS. The personal attack listed here is small potatoes. Valkyrie has previous blocks, and in general seems excessively combative and unwilling to let matters drop...but I'm having trouble seeing how this justifies a block, let alone a month-long one. I would recommend unblocking, with the hope that Valkyrie understands certain elements of his editing are unhelpful. Perhaps a time-limited topic ban from Trojan War should be considered, but uninvolved editors should comment on whether that's necessary. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs:

• Opening a new battleground straight off his previous 2-week block for similar offenses.WP:ABF on the rest of the editors
• [23] Another battleground at Talk:Kesha
• disruptive removal of several other users' comments
• [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] Hostile and antagonizing replies to reasonable objections
• [29] [30] [31] (after one of the contributors previously roughly agreeing with him moved to a compromise) [32] Inappropriate canvassing and further violations of WP:BATTLE
• PA on one of the editors in the opposing camp, the final straw.

While none of these taken individually may appear particularly damning, this is a long-standing pattern of disruption.

If you go back to his contrib history beyond his previous block, you will notice that this user always uses similar tactics: picking up a (seemingly) minor issue on which there was a previously standing consensus, aggressively arguing while assuming bad faith and casting aspersions, canvassing others with biased statements, refusal to hear or acknowledge arguments, misstating other editor's positions, claiming consensus where there is none, but beyond that, every single time, it's not about doing what's good for whatever article he's fighting on, it's about winning. When he doesn't get his way, he eventually resorts to PAs.

After a block expires he moves on to other articles and resumes the same style of disruption with other editors. As there is a consistent refusal to get the point, a month-long block after multiple previous blocks for similar reasons appeared appropriate (and in-line with a prior warning, see lower part of his talk page here if you still have the patience). MLauba ^(Talk) 17:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That last link was the most-useful one, actually. I'd recommend letting someone else block next time, but I think this one was indeed justifiable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still doesn't see that it's his problem. The points he brings up aren't all that outrageous, but it's his continued aggressive behavior and his seeking of arguments that's really getting old and disruptive. I'm going to mark the Wikiquette alert as resolved now. Netalarm^talk 18:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With the additional diffs I'm less surprised by this block, but I have to say that I see other editors getting away with this kind of behavior all the time. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to contribute an additional complication. A glance at the user's talk archive history and a more careful look at the user's talk history will show a pruning of warn notices, blocks and comments related to controversy. While I'm all for users managing their own talk space as they see fit, the actions here demonstrate a clear intent to mislead. Because of the continual gaming the system, I've exhausted good faith with this user and have ignored him as best as possible. I am surprised it took this long before the block length was extended to a month (5 previous blocks). Other users might be annoying, but that truth doesn't excuse this user's long history of disruptive behavior. I'd be hard pressed to find diffs where this user made positive contributions of any variety. Based on history, this user has demonstrated he or she is here for some reason other than creating an encyclopedia. BusterD (talk) 09:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Been having some trouble with a trolling IP for a few weeks now who was clearly a sock of somebody. Finally got aggravated enough to to open an SPI earlier today. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/173.52.182.160. Before i did so, i stupidly forgot to check the IP's global contributions, which i've just done. Here's a case of Malcolm editing logged out as the IP and correcting it.[33]. Malcolm is currently indef blocked, and has a long history of similar behavior under the username. Given his pursuit of me, i would have thought we had some history; but can't remember if I'd ever encountered him before. At any rate, this is a duck, and CU now seems unnecessary. It's a pain that so much sleuthing has to be done to confirm the obvious.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least two members of arbcom who I gave my IP numbers (they change from time to time) and who saw no reason to intervene. Anyone who looks at my edit history will see I did nothing that was not useful to WP. Bali ultimate's complaints are base on problems he caused himself, and have nothing to do with my contributions. Ciao. 173.52.182.160 (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed block evasion. Thanks. Would love to know the names of the arbcom members who are enabling you though, Malcolm, before you go. Care to share?Bali ultimate (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Little more info. Here's the indef/ban discussion for Malcolm [34] which also says that Malcolm was, in turn, a sock of indef-blocked User:Kwork.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not ask at the arbcom noticeboard? There is nothing unusual in my editing. Many blocked users make useful contributions, and as I have said there is nothing in my IP edit history that has not been useful to WP. Bali ultimate's only basis for complaint about me is that I got in the way of his editing goals. Bella ciao, I must go and have other things to do. 173.52.182.160 (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason a block should not be forthcoming? ClovisPt (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block means block, yes this too should be blocked and the edits reverted per policy. If the editor wants to return, do it the right way and go to your account, put up the template and state your case. Why block or ban an editor if they only come back reincarnated as IP's or another account? This is not acceptable. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TnXman blocked the IP for a week; however since it is so obviously a block evading sock and has been since at least the middle of April, on the basis that it's static I've extended the block to a year. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Only for background from a month back: User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive17#Malcolm_Schosha. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lib3rtarian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an SPA whose aim to promote the Movimento Libertario and its founders Giorgio Fidenato and Leonardo Facco on Wikipedia brooks no opposition -- certainly not Wikipedia's pesky copyright policy, anyway: the editor has uploaded File:Giorgio Fidenato.jpg and File:Leonardo Facco.JPG three (woops, four) times, despite multiple warnings on his talk page about the copyright problem. After they were initially deleted for lack of permission from the websites and Flickr account he'd snatched them from, he recreated the files, this time claiming they were his own work (somewhat implausibly, since he sourced them to third parties the first time he uploaded them).

He has since uploaded the copyvios File:First sowing GMO maize in Italy.jpg and File:Movimento Libertario rally in Pordenone.jpg, which, barring some intervention, will no doubt likewise keep reappearing as many times as they are speedied.

And just why, exactly, is EN hosting a bloated article manifesto about an Italian political movement and a pair of coatrack bios, authored by an editor affiliated with the organization, when the subjects aren't considered sufficiently noteworthy for Italian Wikipedia? Yeah, not sure either. -- Rrburke (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers' by Lib3rtarian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sorry Rrburke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but I have just questions on the legality of Article-entry at Wikipedia English, now I do not think that you are within the project or Wikiproject Libertarianism and Wikiproject Liberalism to judge with the necessary knowledge and skills content of this page. In addition, the page has already been approved as a permanent discussion above. What happened in Wikipedia Italian is regrettable, unfortunately for political and ideological reasons tied to the users of the Italian version of our page and its content was deemed inconsistent with the present zeitgeist among users. L736E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), that I remember how his approached in the past is not an authoritative source nor fair to have an objective version of events. I want also note that the presence of links to bibliographic reported refer to content on newspaper websites and third and authoritative information sites, outside the site of the Movimento Libertario. So I think your arguments are very disrespectful of myself and realized the purpose of the ML page. Bye.Lib3rtarian (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have deliberately violated the copyright because these images don't have any copyright itself. I also followed the instructions for compiling the most appropriate license for the photos, considering the examples already on Wikipedia without objection. ByeLib3rtarian (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images which appear on the Movimento Libertario website are copyrighted. They are not in the public domain nor are they released under terms that are compatible with the CC-BY-SA license. (See for example, the bottom of this page which states Copyright 2009 All Rights Reserved) Copyrighted images such as these can only be used if they meet Wikipedia's non-free content policy and guideline. They do not. (See #12 of unaccepatble image uses). The only other method for allowing the use of pictures is for the copyright holder to give an official release for licensing by the procedure outlined at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Unless that permission is obtained at the Wikimedia Foundation WP:OTRS office from the original copyright owner, the images must be removed from Wikipedia. — CactusWriter | ^needles 18:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The images have been deleted. I suspect from your note above, at your talk page and on the image's talk pages that you are profoundly misunderstanding the copyright law that governs the Wikimedia Foundation, User talk:Lib3rtarian. As our copyright policy points out, "All creative works are copyrighted, by international agreement, unless either they fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed." Even if you find an image on a site that does not indicate it is copyrighted, as User:CactusWriter rightly points out these are, you would not be able to import them without verifying that they are free, not simply widely used. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion about other issues. Given plausible misunderstanding of copyright policy and law, I have issued a clear warning. I believe if this contributor persists in uploading images without verifying that they are usable, a block will be necessary. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reference to the website "2009 Copyright Rights" text refers to the kind of web structure of the site but not in particular to the articles or images contents, so that the articles and image in particulars are freely copyable on blogs and other sites (example http://liberalismoonline.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/giorgio-fidenato-contra-el-estado-italiano/ and this this site http://www.pnveneto.org/2010/01/pordenone-una-fredda-mattina-d-inverno-riscaldati-dalla-liberta-per-giorgio-fidenato/ is of another political party very close to the Movimento Libertario but the presence of this images don't create problems to the Movimento Libertario, the same images there are here in this blogs http://lasentinelladellalaicita.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/la-rivolta-di-atlante/ and in this http://www.buraku.org/2009/11/19/tuti-i-schei-in-busta-paga/ Where is the problem if the Movimento Libertario don't protest (and it doesn't protest for the use of the image in the correct context like this)?. Then if the problem is their bureaucratic permission, tell you to me that address the Movimento Libertario should send official email to Wikipedia English to request permission to usage the image so I can notify to them the next day. However, the contents of the article is also in line with the criteria of Wikipedia Project Libertarianism (I forwarded the application), so I hope that there are no other issues at least on the content of the article. Bye Lib3rtarian (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict]That the images are being similarly misused by other websites and blogs is not a rationale for compounding that error by uploading them to Wikipedia. Since they have been published elsewhere, they are presumed to be copyrighted unless there is proof to the contrary. You adduced no such proof nor attempted to. Instead, you then falsely claimed to be the creator of the works (after they had been deleted for lack of permission from the copyright-holder). Did you suddenly remember that you had created them yourself just before you uploaded them the second time, but the first time you thought they were by someone else?

Additionally, the claim that the article was deleted ("censored") for ideological reasons, which you have made repeatedly and which earned you a block for a personal attack on Italian Wikipedia, is false, self-aggrandizing and self-serving: the article was deleted because you could not produce adequate evidence of substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources to establish that the subject merited a standalone article (Hint: two guys and a website don't meet the threshold). Please see leave off the fantasies of persecution and see the General notability guideline and Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. -- Rrburke (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The post by CacturWriter included a link to what is needed to get the needed permissions for the images. Ravensfire (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given his recent note at his talk page, I suspect granting him the benefit of the doubt was an error on my part. He says, "I uploaded the same image multiple times just because I have tried several times between the different Commons Licenses available at the time of the upload in an attempt to satisfy the licensing requirements of Wikipedia." The first time he uploaded File:Leonardo Facco.JPG, he placed "Oriana.italy" ([35])in the "author" field and listed its source as [36]. The second time he uploaded it, he kept "Oriana.italy" as the "author" field, but listed its source as "own work." The third time he uploaded it, he sourced it as "I (Lib3rtarian (talk)) created this work entirely by myself" and listed under author "Lib3rtarian". This does not seem like he was attempting to satisfy the licensing requirements of Wikipedia. It seems like deliberate copyright fraud. The first two times it was deleted (on Wikipedia; it's also been deleted twice on Commons), he was told how to verify permission, if he was in position. (He was told that in conjunction with other images, as well.) He's been given several block advisories in the past. Given what looks like deliberate efforts to obscure the authorship of that photograph and what seems to be a lack of willingness to acknowledge the issue, is a block at this time appropriate? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this user is interested in getting as much information about this topic onto Wikipedia as he possibly can and is not terribly fussy about how that gets accomplished or very concerned about whether the additions conform to WP policies and guidelines. That said, I have encountered editors in the past who genuinely appear to think that the "work" of uploading a file makes it their "own work." A little implausible here, perhaps, but there may additionally be a language problem that might justify extending benefit of doubt -- if you're feeling especially charitable. There'd certainly be no excuse next time. -- Rrburke (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that his response below and the one I've quoted at his talk page make a good case that it was not ignorance that led to his repeated violations of our copyright policy (in spite of clear warnings, including two explicit block advisories from March). It seems evident that he chose to ignore them because he does not take them seriously. I have blocked for 31 hours. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The images are useless public walk around the installation procedures images in Wikipedia are not the least understandable, in addition to being inflexible, I do not understand where is the problem in reference to a widespread image in the public domain. I noted then as Oriana.Italy or other alleged owners of the image on Flickr or other holders are not at all certain of the picture, nothing precludes their use (and thus an alleged harm to the copyright) on these platforms or improper transfer unsanctioned . Also repeat the question as surreal as Leonardo Facco, Giorgio Fidenato and the ML do not pose copyright issues ever to their pictures by their respective board on Wikipedia. Also do not understand why Rrburke continue to defend the shameful censorship suffered by myself and the Wikipedia page ML Italy, he doesn't not know that history, nor can know how to block user has deliberately prevented the update and after comparison being teased by people clearly definable certainly not liberals and libertarians and the inability to implement a serious debate has quietly allowed. Rrburke not know how to repeat the question of which interest is to deliberately (perhaps to please a few friends of Wikipedia Italy) I repeat my opinion as user is equal to that of the Wikipedia censors Italy, which have seen a movement-political party of their ideological rating as a "gang of dangerous criminals". I assume that Rrburke not even know the criteria and rationale to justify its hasty exit cancellation. Try reading the ML article heading and the various links to references / sources and see how the ML is not a combination of only 2 people but a real political organization in the Italian Territory with links to a culture (libertarianism) present in many countries (example Switzerland). The ML is a real movement-parties not a fake or not existing as others parties-movements that doesn't exist in the elections and in the society (but they are presents in Wikipedia Italy only because they have got a relation with some politicians or special interests in Italian politics and economic reality), news and newspaper and many websites in the references show what I write here about the ML. I know better than Rrburke the political reality and the italian libertarianism, I live in Italy and I khow also as Italian Wikipedia works than its English counterpart. So stop talking about a scam copyright since the ML never made complaints directly to the question in Italy and in this question in particular, I also received further informed consent of Leonardo Facco and Giorgio Fidenato in putting their pictures on Wikipedia. Moreover you who accused me of colluding with the two characters, when I could just be a person informed about the facts. I think that level of interest between the owner and Oriana.Italy The two main characters there is a great difference. I say give me a contact email and inform the owners of the images sent all the material for the consent. Do not create hype, since I have not stolen any plan on the H-bomb... Bye.Lib3rtarian (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lib3rtarian's responses to comments here and on his talk page, as well as in his unblock request, seem to indicate that he is unable or unwilling to accept Wikipedia's copyright policy. If he refuses to operate within our rules, I think he should be indefinitely blocked, at least until we have a reasonable belief that he understands the rules and is willing to abide by them. He's talking about obtaining permission for the images, which is good but there's still the underlying issue regarding his broad approach to copyright matters. We need to protect the project and I think it's completely unacceptable to allow him to resume editing as long as he's still refusing to accept that he cannot just copy material from elsewhere and post it here and then claim it's okay because the copyright owner hasn't complained. His comments about "proper usage" and such also seem to suggest that he doesn't understand that we don't do permissions that limit usage only to Wikipedia and once images and other material are uploaded to Wikipedia and Commons under free licenses, they can be reused by *anyone* for *any* purpose and that includes way that he might not consider "proper usage". Sarah 05:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The responses by User:Lib3rtarian indicate that they are not simply someone who "does not get it" -- rather this is someone who understands Wikipedia policy but refuses to accept it. The example given by Moonriddengirl shows Lib3rtarian has actively attempted to subvert copyright policy through deception. If Lib3rtarian cannot be trusted to edit within the rules, than they will be need to be indefinitely blocked. At this time, I have seen no response from Lib3rtarian which instills my trust. — CactusWriter | ^needles 07:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, me either. I will not myself extend his block, but I wouldn't think it inappropriate if somebody else did pending some plausible indication that he will abide by our Terms of Use. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The editor appears to be attempting to evade his block by editing anonymously as User:109.113.45.247. I opened an SPI case, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lib3rtarian. -- Rrburke (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Misread timestamps: withdrawn, with apologies. -- Rrburke (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to mention that I find the discussion on User talk:Inniverse disturbing. Inniverse was blocked as a sockpuppet by User:Kww on what seemed to be quite circumstantial evidence.

While I've had minor altercations with contributions and found him annoying as an extreme inclusionist, I felt that his edits weren't deliberately disruptive and didn't rise to the level of needing a block, so I rose to his defense. As did a few other editors.

I am disturbed by the block admin Kww's blatant disregard for assuming good faith:

• Kww implies that a new account can get into trouble if extensive Wikipedia experience is demonstrated from the start, and that this is evidence of sockpuppetry.
• Kww assumes that a new account showing experience and knowledge of policies must have had prior accounts in the past (rather than anonymous edits, or gaining experience through studying policies), and that this is evidence of sockpuppetry.
• Kww assumes that stale checkuser evidence revealing a geolocation similarity is enough to equate a nondisruptive account with a previously blocked sock.
• Kww asks questions of Inniverse in a "witch hunt" fashion such that, if Inniverse is indeed innocent, no acceptable answer is possible.
• Kww has created a Catch-22 situation where if Inniverse wants to make constructive edits as a registered user, he has no choice but to create another account -- and then be blocked because the Inniverse account has been branded a sock.

Inniverse may or may not be a sock of an old blocked account. At this point, I don't think that's relevant. There is insufficient evidence, only a circumstantial "possible" returned by checkuser. The point is, blocking this editor doesn't have the desired effect of preventing abuse, and Kww has demonstrated a "guilty until proven innocent" position that creates a difficult situation for the accused. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look at the situation. However, a checkuser "possible" plus behavioral similarities are usually quite sufficient to justify a block under normal admin response standards. See among other things WP:DUCK. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More often than not, an account that comes out the door know how our system works (especially the use of tags and such, though I merely use this as an example) tends to be a sock. I myself have never witnesses an 'experienced' new account that wasn't a sock. HalfShadow 18:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the talk page, you'll see at least one other user contending that Inniverse's behavior is not similar to the behavior of the previously blocked sock. I just think this editor hasn't gotten a fair shake. My account "came out the door" with similar experience, although I concentrated more on article content than Wikipedia maintenance. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not for me to say, really. I have no actual interest in the subject, I'm just explaining the admin reasoning. George'll find out what's what, I'm sure. HalfShadow 18:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to take some time - there were 18 named accounts and dozens and dozens of IPs involved here, so doing an in depth user history comparison is not a simple task.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this happen on more than one occasion by more than one admin. WP:AGF should trump WP:DUCK in most cases. What's the harm in letting a user edit until he/she misbehaves? At worst, the user turns out to be a sock and we block him/her and are done with it. Please, let's try not to alienate newbies because they are too knowledgeable. FunBob1986 (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

Agreed. The assumption here is that an editor who shows editing experience is a sock, and the fact is there are so many IP editors who make the jump to registering that it effectively becomes an overapplication of Occam's razor. I've looked over the page, but as I am not familiar what-so-ever with the alleged sockmaster, I can't review the block. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 20:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First things first: most sockpuppets are blocked on nothing but circumstantial evidence. The whole system is set up around admins evaluating behavioural evidence, not checkuser evidence.

Second, the question is not that the editor is experienced. There are numerous new editors that show signs of having experience that crop up every day, and I don't run around on a blocking spree dealing with that. However, when a new editor shows up that has signs of experience and matches the behavioural pattern of an indefinitely blocked user, I tend to take action. When a new editor shows up that has signs of experience, matches the behavioural pattern of an indefinitely blocked user, and geolocates to the same medium-sized city as the indefinitely blocked user, it's highly likely that I will block him. Inniverse stands accused of being a sock of Azviz. Azviz had numerous socks:

• Beltline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Thiruman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Olsys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rterrace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cochranerossst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alfnetwork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Varbas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wordssuch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Esasus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Unionsoap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Untick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 14Ave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Iwelak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Look at those contributions: Beltline (talk · contribs) spent most of his brief editing career screwing around with prod tags. Rterrace (talk · contribs) was obsessed with prod tags. Alfnetwork (talk · contribs) removed a prod tag as his second edit. Varbas (talk · contribs) deprodded numerous articles. Wordssuch (talk · contribs) deprodded for a hobby. Primarily AFDs and prod tags for Untick (talk · contribs). Inniverse has spent his editing career doing deprods and AFDs. The parallel is obvious. I can only assume that people that are saying "doesn't look like Azviz to me" aren't looking at Azviz's socks.—Kww(talk) 21:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What policies and guidelines are being violated by deprodding? None that I know of.

So if an unrelated and innocent editor comes along with inclusionist tendencies that spur him to deprod articles, he gets blocked on suspicion that he's the same as a stale sock account? What recourse would such an editor have?

It is quite conceivable that there are many editors on Wikipedia, who don't even know one another, with similar editing patterns. If you're an inclusionist extremist, the most obvious activity you'd undertake is deprodding. That doesn't make someone a sock. It does absolutely no good to ask what prior accounts Inniverse had, if he had none. You're basically saying that an innocent editor will be blocked on an automatic assumption of bad faith, when the edits are not disruptive, only annoying.

I also find it incredible that Wikipedia doesn't at least record the most recent IP address used for each account. Valuable information that could prevent arguments like this could easily be avoided if checkuser worked properly. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it were up to me, all IP information would be retained forever, and never discarded. What you are really objecting to is the whole sockpuppet detection/block process. It's primarily done on behavioural matching. Go look over WP:SPI, and see how many cases are processed on less evidence than this one. Having any checkuser information at all is the exception, not the rule. You treat "geolocates to the same city" as if it's a trivial point and it's not: I don't know exactly how many editors there are in Calgary, but there aren't thousands of them. The chances of such a good behavioural match and location match being pure coincidence are very small. The evidence in this block is stronger than it is in most. Misbehaviour from the blocked account is not required for a sock block, only matching behaviour. Evidence beyond reasonable doubt isn't required either, only evidence sufficient to convince one admin to block and all other admins that that block was not made improperly, even if the other admin would not have made the block on his own. There's certainly enough evidence here to clear that hurdle.—Kww(talk) 23:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been hesitant to weigh in because an AN/I can eat one's wiki-life for several days (grin), but I do not think Kww was too quick to act, nor was there an AGF problem. The current talk page doesn't tell the whole tale. The initial Inniverse as a possible sockpuppet review was here, redirected from my original post and was thoroughly considered (Including here) before anyone acted. The evidence is very strong that this user was a pro. I filed the initial request for a sockpuppet investigation and here is why: This user threw up some red flags for me when I went to the user's talk page to comment on a minor matter. (How the talk page appeared when I first saw it before my comment I noticed that Inniverse already had a pile of warnings on an account that was very very new, but for issues requiring sophisticated use of wikipedia. I checked contribs and noticed massive numbers of edits on each of the few days the account existed. I'm not an admin, but felt someone who was should take a peek. Usually when you see behavior that includes immediate proper use of syntax and templates, massive numbers of policy-style edits yet few article content contributions (most truly new wikipedians start by making article edits that are somewhat clumsy but improve with experience), plus dozens of daily edits and multiple talk page complaints on a brand new account, it's clear that someone with wikipedia experience is behind it. (talk page as it appeared immediately before the block) Then pleas of innocence combined with tenditious arguments are classic behaviors of people who make choices to be difficult on Wiki. Here, I respectfully beg to differ with those who say this user's behavior was not disruptive. Inniverse was already upsetting a fair number of other people. But the bottom line is if sockpuppetry itself is the first problem. And here, I think we have a sock. Montanabw^(talk) 07:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only account I have used are Julpet and this one. I have made other edits without logging in. Nobody has ever asked me the question: "What previous account did you have that caused you to gain considerable expertise in deletion related policies?". I was under the impression that I had annoyed other editors because I did not know what I was doing in relation to deletion discussions - but you are accusing me of being too knowledgeable? Excuse me, but that makes no sense. My talk page received several comments from users who were telling me to read the policy on deletion nominations and discussions to learn more about what I was trying to do. Earlier on this page it was pointed out by another editor that I was "almost certainly not Azviz, simply because [Inniverse] demonstrated an extremely superficial understanding of policy"[37] I thought it was my ignorance that you were upset about. Now you say my editing is too advanced? I was confused when I was accused by the admin who claimed that I made infoboxes on my first day editing as Inniverse. Take another look. It was a cut and paste. My first edits made were to try to perform a move by cutting and pasting the entire article into a new article name. I now realize that I should use a "move" to do this. I am just learning my way around Wikipedia - reading policy, cutting and pasting, and learning as I go. I am not guilty of what I have been accused of. Inniverse (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will point out that the alternate explanation for the move behaviour is that the tag has moved, and is no longer displayed for accounts that are not yet confirmed.—Kww(talk) 22:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to some edits that you made as an IP? - Mgcsinc (talk) 03:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will not point you to my IP edits as I have reasonable concerns for my privacy. Further, I now feel that whatever explanations I give will not satisfy those who have already made up their minds and decided upon their position. I am gratified to see that some editors have taken note that my account has been superficially judged by other editors who have jumped at conclusions and have slapped labels on me. I find it ironic the the blocking admin who is accusing me of having too much knowledge made this [38] comment to another editor with his 2nd ever edit (his first edit was to create his user's page). Conflicts are better resolved through discussion and finding a mutually agreeable solution. I will try to limit my involvement in this discussion. I hope and trust that common sense, fairness and the spirit and words of Wikipedia policy, in particular Wikipedia:Assume good faith are fully considered. I believe that I have the skills to be a good editor and I have respect for Wikipedia and its volunteer editors. I ask that you allow me to contribute to the project. Inniverse (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Will someone be kind enough to add Mgcsinc's question and my response to the on-going discussion.) Inniverse (talk) 04:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You probably should note this anonymous edit from nearly a month earlier. Think that anonymous editor signed his edit KWW by coincidence?—Kww(talk) 04:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not accusing KWW of any wrong doing. I am just trying to make the point that even new editors can have legitimate editing experience. That KWW edited as an IP prior to creating his account supports my argument. Inniverse (talk) 12:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I do not know whether or not this user is a sockpuppet; though this is a difficult sort of judgment to make, I think Kww is possibly right because the answers above do seem evasive. However, it is not ideal that Kww should be the one who made this block, because the basis of the block was behavioral evidence that the user was unreasonably opposing deletions, and Kww will surely not take it amiss if I say he is known as a relatively deletionist editor. Suppose a new editor came along, and engaged in very frequent consistent deletion nominations, while showing a considerable knowledge of the deletion process to the extent it might possibly be sockpuppettry, but there was no confirming checkuser. If I blocked that editor on the basis of the behavioral evidence, though I might be judging the situation perfectly accurately, I would be doing wrong, because I am about as inclusionist as Kww is the opposite. If I encountered such a situation, I should have either bring it here or to another admin board, or requested that an admin who I knew had a different orientation in this respect evaluate the matter. Had I done the block myself , I would expect to be expect--certainly if I did it with the experience I have now-- to be reprimanded. In fact, as a new admin, I made a block where I came a little too close to the line of blocking potential opponents, and though the block was upheld, I was indeed advised to unblock, and I did so, and learned from it & I hope have never repeated it. It is no reflection on Kww, likewise a new administrator, that he should do the same sort of thing I did, and i expect he too will learn that the only safe way of using the buttons is to avoid anything that might be seen as favoring ones one's own inclinations, even when fully objectively justified. It's frustrating, because he and I must wait for others to take action when we know we could do it fairly, but if anyone might think it unfair, we do better to put up with the frustration-- if only so that the people who should be blocked get blocked without such a question arising. DGG ( talk ) 07:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That could be true, though sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and he blocked the user as a sock because he matched patterns that Kww was familiar with. As an aside, I'm pretty bloody sick of the battleground mentality between inclusionists and deletionists. As an outside observer who doesn't self classify into either camp, I wouldn't have made a "Kww's a dirty deletionist so of course he would notice an editor hindering his deletionist pogrom" connection (extreme hyperbole added for comedic effect, I know you didn't phrase it as such). Syrthiss (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  For what it's worth, I was asked by e-mail to take a look. I think any examination of my block log will show that if I have any pogroms, it's against socks, not articles.—Kww(talk) 14:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, that was my point. :) Syrthiss (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Saj2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)

This user appears to have a history of tendentious editing. He definitely has a history of copyright violations as most of the pictures they have uploaded were deleted.. however, that is not what I am here about. I am here because this user is quite capable of user communication, yet they refuse to discuss when their own edits are brought into question. Rather instead, they slow edit war over a period of weeks, if not months. I have repeatedly tried to get this user to stop, yet they continue to ignore, and add the honorifics in violation of WP:HONORIFIC again, again, and again. The actor's own website doesn't even use the honorifics, nor do any reliable sources outside the country they were given in, as is the requirement for them to be posted.

Editor notified.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 18:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, I would like admin eyes on this matter.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{tlp|resolved|now that the confusion is cleared up, and I've pointed out the errors in judgment, it's resolved to me. Little can be done about a bad admin, I guess... - [[User:Jack Sebastian|Jack Sebastian]] ([[User talk:Jack Sebastian|talk]]) 20:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)}}
While seeking to fix what appears to be patent original research in a dab page for Kato, I discovered a redirect from Hikaru Kato to Hikaru Sulu. There isn't any notable references noting the Hikaru Kato term; it's likely fancruft/OR.
I've never worked with speedy delete templates before, and might have used the wrong one when I removed the redirect and placed the template in the HK (empty) article.
User Gogo Dodo has apparently taken it upon himself to begin edit-warring about the redirect, reverting right up to 3RR (1, 2, 3). I've sought discussion, both in the user's talk space(4), and the HK redirect article discussion(5). His belief is that my removal of a bogus redirect is vandalism (and therefore not subject to 3RR) - this after having reverted three times without discussion, either as to the proper template to use for deletion of the false article or taking steps to prevent the edit war he seems interested in escalating. Clearly, I disagree. Is it just me, or is it wrong for me to expect an admin to avoid these sorts of clearly club-footed mistakes where discussion would be so much more effective? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's controversial, then speedy-deletion is inappropriate. You should instead nominate the redirect for discussion. Don't edit-war over it. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 18:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I said, TT; the admin should have mentioned that before the third revert. Why the hell is an edmin edit-warring in the first place? I mean, thanks for the advice, but my problem is with an edmin who apparently forgot the job description. Edit-warring is what we get from anonymous vandals, not admins with years of experience. His behavior was - at best - ill-advised. At worst, it was dumbfoundingly stupid. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 points - (1) I believe what you intended was to mark it as CSD R3 - an implausible typo or misnomer. (2) It takes two to edit war, and you reverted at least once before trying to communicate with Gogo Dodo. Wet troutslaps all around, then. Syrthiss (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I told you to go to RfD, but you didn't appear to listen to me, but now that another editor told you the same thing, you went to RfD. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original redirect was tagged as CSD#R2, which I declined because that CSD does not apply in this case. You then blanked the redirect, which I reverted because blanking the redirect is not the correct way to handle it. You then blanked it again with the edit summary of "rvv", which is incorrect and I reverted you again. I told you what you should do regarding the redirect on your talk page, which you then shifted the conversation to my talk page where I told you again my reasons for reverting your blanking. If you are going to link to my talk page, then please link the entire conversation. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) As noted, I admitted that I likely used the wrong template; instead of reverting three times in a row, maybe you could have pointed out now what you should have done after the first revert. Calling my removal of a spurious redirect vandalism and then edit-warring about it what landed you here - the third revert coming after I warned you that doing so would precipitate this action. Maybe you could work on defusing situations like this - it would appear to be part of an administrator's duties to cut down on the drama inherent in your edit-warring. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- It appears to be a valid search term for Sulu, and a valid redirect, per memory alpha which states that, in Japan, the character's last name is Kato not Sulu, so it should stand as it is. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it doesn't appear to be, SGGH, according to a pretty basic Google search. And Memory Alpha - at best a dodgy source of fancruft - doesn't cite its sources either. Every other use of this term would appear to come from a blog or a fansite or fan forum. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, not really trying to Sherlock this too much here, but the character's first name of "Hikaru" wasn't even created until 1981; there is no way for the Japanese-translated program to have used the name until after that point; indeed, there is precisely zero citation that it was ever used at all. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source for you: The official Star Trek Japanese site (via Google Translate) names him as Kato. —DoRD (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This looks like an excellent conversation to have... at Wikipedia:RFD#Hikaru Kato. As far as the other issues:
  • Jack, you are not supposed to restore the tag when the speedy is declined by an admin (I think it says that on the tag)
  • I can't see how 3RR can apply to an admin repeatedly declining a speedy request by the same person; that's an admin's job, to accept or decline a speedy delete request
  • it looks like Gogo Dodo was counselling you on the right way to do things; please listen.
  • You complain that he called your blanking "vandalism", (which, you're right, it wasn't), but I note that you reverted him with an edit summary of "rvv" before he said that, calling his edits vandalism too. Please don't play that game.

This looks resolved to me, and I'm marking it as such; content issues at RFD, Jack's learned something, and jack and Gogo Dodo both should be a little more careful using the "v" word, as it excites people unnecessarily. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, you've assumed some tings that aren't exactly true, Floquenbeam: first, I didn't restore the speedy delete tag; I simply removed the redirect and asked for discussion. Secondly, repeatedly reverting in the absence of discussion is (according to the very first sentence of the relevant policy page) edit-warring. Third, Gogo's advice was offered after the fact, ie. after he had already started edit-warring. I was listening, and asked for a better template or path to take. His reply is that no template wold be helpful and that I should chat up people in the ST wikiproject. Not really helpful, per se. Lastly, I should point out that when someone reverts without discussion, it suggests that they have a vested interest in keeping a non-notable redirect intact. I consider that a lot closer to a vandalism. That said, classifying his non-responsive edits as vandalism was perhaps a bit unfair. As I said, I expect better from my admins; if they cannot do the job as proscribed, they need to surrender the mop. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your speedy deletion request was declined, then you repeatedly blanked the page and were reverted by Gogo Dodo. If you make an edit which is then reverted by another editor, the onus is on you, not the other editor, to initiate discussion rather than starting an edit war as you did. Gogo was simply playing clean-up. Now you're throwing around false allegations against another editor. Stop. Every other editor that has commented here has given you sound advice so you might try listening for a change. —DoRD (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Marking resolved. No need for administrator intervention, no administrator abuse. The only possible issue is Jack's persistent unsubstantiated allegations of bad faith on the part of GoDo... ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 21:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Aat3cr (talk · contribs)
• Goatfukr (talk · contribs)

I'm not sure where to post this, since it's probably too complex for AIV, and it's not really vandalism anyway. A user has been adding this bit of personal commentary [39] to the same article for the past two months, even after receiving escalating warnings (it's technically two different accounts doing this, but the second is pretty ducky; it appeared as soon as the first account got a level 3 warning). Block time? SheepNotGoats (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first account has been blocked indefinitely, as they are obviously not here to contribute. The second account has been blocked as a violation of our username policy, among other issues. TNXMan 19:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks for the prompt response. SheepNotGoats (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a slow edit war on Talk:Barack Obama based on an an anonymous user's comments (my reversion re-including them) being repeatedly removed by talk-page regulars who saw the comments as a form of trolling or disruption. However, I disagreed, and actually replied to the user pointing out that he did have a point where Obama's statement contradict the article, reality, and/or both. The discussion is currently live at Talk:Barack Obama#Proposal to update FAQ1, but there's still a dispute on whether the comments should be removed or kept; I believe they should be kept, as they do not violate any of our rules and they're actually productive (if a little incivil); however, other users don't think so. Thoughts? Sceptre ^(talk) 19:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an obvious and clear case of disruption by the anon ip.(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) And that is not even all the mass postings by the anon ip. The ip was blocked, and just ip hopped over and over. The talk page was protected, the disruptive portion of the posts removed, but the editor who started this thread reverted two other regular editors to re-include the uncivil attacks and disruptive posts. Dave Dial (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IP was severely bitten by DD2K and others. He had a legitimate point and I can understand his frustration.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calling question 1's answer "a lie" is not really the ideal way to discuss the subject rationally. And I'd like to know where he gets the notion that a 4th grader knows what kind of school he's in. I barely remember anything from 4th grade, and I do have a good memory. The real problem, though, is that this is just another trolling attempt to "prove" that Obama is a Muslim, and that is what probably accounts for most of the IP's general demeanor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can honestly say you don't remember what SCHOOL you attended in 4th grade? You really think any reasonable person is going to buy that? Please... Remembering specific curriculum is one thing, remembering where you attended is completely different. I remember perfectly well that in 4th grade I was attending a parochial lutheran grade school. By golly I even remember my teachers name. *rollseyes*

I do remember the school's name, and where it was in relation to my parents' house, as we walked to and from. I knew its name but was not cognizant of it being a public school, it was just "school". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IP was engaged by Sceptre and William S. Saturn, and settled down somewhat (full disclosure, I blocked one of the editor's IPs, who had adopted an aggressive attitude from the beginning of his edits, declaring Q1 of the FAQ to be, variously, BS and "lies" and editors to be "lefties."). Since there was a productive discussion going on despite the name-calling, I declined to block further IP incarnations or to protect the page. I don't think the rationale for removal of the IP's comments is particularly valuable. The comments are peevish, but repeated removal makes it all hard to follow and seems to me to have lost its point. The reverts are now between established editors and seem to me to be a waste of time. The page has since been protected. Let the comments stand. Acroterion _(talk) 22:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the real problem now is User:The Chicken costs $1 who is trolling the talk page and filing bogus reports at AIV.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IP edits themselves are clearly inappropriate for any of a number of reasons, not the least of which are WP:SOCK and WP:DENY. The editor was advancing the fringe theory about Obama being Muslim, while accusing Wikipedia and its editors of being a liberal conspiracy - sound familiar? It is within the reasonable discretion of editors on the page to remove threads of this ilk, particularly after the anon was blocked and the page semi-protected to prevent them from making good on their threat to continue IP socking. Whether they should have been removed is a different question, one that is up to the editors there to decide. Generally the preference except in obvious cases of vandalism, bad faith, copyvio, etc., has been to leave a polite response that assumes good faith and responds to anything worth addressing, on the first go round at least, and then quickly archive the matter. Edit warring, on the other hand is bad. Bad, bad, bad. I note that the usually calm and wise administrator Nihonjoe has joined the fray, edit warring to restore The Chicken is $1's thread and issuing a block threat over it,[40]. If we're going to deny trolls their due, then as experienced productive editors we should not let ourselves be ruffled. The IP troll was simply being disruptive, but in the process raised one aspect to a fringe theory that the FAQ did not currently address. Dollar-chicken raises a seemingly earnest reliable source question that we can certainly deal with in a matter-of-fact way. Even if he were trolling, there's no reason to take the bait. - Wikidemon (talk)

The only thing I did was restore comments removed and refactored by William S. Saturn. The comments weren't trolling, and should not have been removed. He removed them, at least in part, because some misapplied {{hat}} tags were hiding a discussion in the section below it. If he had simply changed the second {{hat}} to {{hab}} instead of removing an entire section, then there wouldn't have been a problem. You can see an entire discussion about it here. Also, since you are discussing my actions here, you are required to let me know, which unfortunately hasn't happened yet. I review this page regularly, though, so at least I noticed it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed you were on top of this based on your donning the administrators' mantle immediately below a notice that the matter had been referred to AN/I.[41] Please forgive me if I assumed too much. I considered a template to you, the IP editor, et al, but demurred in light of WP:BEANS and WP:DTTR. I recognize that you were attempting to restore order to a page that seemed to be chaotic. However, please do take a little more time to assess what's going on before taking sides and issuing demands. You restored some comments that had been deleted as trolling (an opinion that I, like you, do not share, although I do think it's quite possible that the editor who made them is a sock). I guess that's fine - reverting rather than WP:BRD to restore a disputed comment. But you said in your edit summary, "do not remove other's comments", a position that if interpreted broadly has been rejected for good reason on the Obama talk page. Inasmuch as there was no clear consensus, much less behavioral policy, backing up that edit, your doing it again and then threatening a block your new edit warring opponent over the matter, seems to be beyond the role of an administrator. I haven't followed all the side discussions on your talk page about the wikiformat mix-up, but whatever was going on a more cordial discussion among the established editors outside of the range of any IP SPAs would set things straight much faster than block threats and AN/I reports. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given that fact that William S. Saturn came in with guns blazing rather than asking me why I had restored the comments, or explaining that they had been hiding the discussion below the section, I'm not sure how a confrontation could have been avoided. He immediately accused me of impropriety and demanded that I apologize to him. The ONLY thing I did was restore the comments (twice), fix the template issue, and let him know that continuing to remove the other editor's comments would be considered disruptive and would result in being blocked. The comments were not obvious trolling and should not have been removed. Period. There is no obvious connection between The Chicken is $1 and the obviously-trolling IP, so there was no reason to remove The Chicken is $1's edits. Whether The Chicken is $1 is a sock or not is a discussion for another time and place as there is no evidence of that here. There is very clear consensus to not remove edits which are not blatantly trolling or an attack of some sort, and there is very clear consensus regarding blocking those who persist in removing other's comments when they are not obviously trolling or making an attack. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with that 99%. WSS should not have removed the comments or come in with guns blazing. Plus I did miss some of the sideline talks. WSS did make the connection between the IP and the $1 chicken, as simultaneous problems on the page. I think the Obama page people could use a little more discipline and order in dealing with the occasional glitch on the talk page, so my only issue is that the revert / block threat seemed hasty. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it may have been a little bit hasty, though it wasn't issued until the second time. I specifically didn't do it on the first time. I do agree about the Obama page people in generally. People tend to get way too worked up on that page (you should have seen the fun surrounding the Obama disambiguation page a couple years ago!). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have some experience getting worked up, so when I urge people not to do so, it's a "please don't do what I did" kind of thing. If WSS is reading this, can we agree to call it a day? We can work this out back on the talk page. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree to call it a day on this issue.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

anyone care to take a swing at dealing with the below? It's a block-evading IP hopper so I don't think there's any point engaging. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There you go touting you're "fringe theory" nonsense again. The answer to Q1 states:"Barack Obama did not attend an Islamic or Muslim school while living in Indonesia age 6-10"; nevertheless HIS BOOK SAYS HE DID. Exactly where is the fringe theory?? And WHERE was I accusing Obama of CURRENTLY being a Muslim? When you incessantly delete posts without even verifying that the information IS INDEED ACCURATE, how would you expect me not to call you a lefty loony? They're the only ones refusing to admit Obama's past. So yes, I posted it over and over again until someone else less biased than you saw it and said - "Hey, the guy's got a point..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.235.176 (talk • contribs)

Not worth a response. Exhibit C for why this discussion should remain on the Obama talk page - IP socking. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boo hoo. You have no response. Quit throwing little child like temper tantrums and deleting information that you "don't like", and you won't have these issues. You can't adequately rebuttal the information provided, so you resort to deletion and whining to admins. Sally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.21.199.144 (talk) 02:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does the South Atlantic League have to do with this discussion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to apologize here at AN/I for mischaracterizing User:Verbal as a fool. I intended to do it on yesterday's thread, but it has been auto archived. Verbal is clearly of average intelligence.

Please stop trying to collapse this section, especially with a misleading note... Verbal chat 20:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)(red added)

libel, n. In popular use: Any false and defamatory statement in conversation or otherwise. Oxford English dictionary.

Misleading. Mmmm. That seems... libelous? rude? ad hom? PA? How do you mean "misleading" exactly? Anthony (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC) (red added)

"could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself."

"It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion."

Since my words were not a threat, and no one but a fool would construe them as such, what was I meant to make of this?

"A perceived legal threat is not an immediately blockable offense. Instead, admins have to seek for clarification of the situation."

"Really, responding to an "accusation" of being misleading with a claim of "libel" is over the top, whether or not you actually intend to take legal action. Dial it down a bit next time, ok?"

While there is no legal threat made, per WP:NLT, there is still the implication of an attempt at intimidation.

At AN/I I briefly outlined events leading up to the templating and followed with a statement (beginning with "I object to being called misleading...") telling the admins that Verbal's behavior demonstrates that he is a fool and, as they had now rebuked me and accused me of intimidation, their behavior warrants an apology to me.

An admin then blocked me. Another admin then called me an egotistical fool.

It needs to be pointed out to Verbal that low level insults, like implying another editor is deceptive, are personal attacks far more toxic than "Fuck off, troll". He needs to know that smearing talk pages with that kind of devious insult drives away many more good editors than frank rudeness. Actually, I think he knows. The community needs to acknowledge it, and tell him that we don't approve.

The admin who rebuked me on my talk page for using the word "libel" needs to acknowledge that he made a mistake.

The admin who accused me of "implying intimidation" on my talk page needs to acknowledge that he made a mistake.

The admin who called me an egotistical fool needs to acknowledge that he made a mistake.

The admins who watched the farce and did not ask me to clarify my meaning need to be aware of what the guidelines actually say.

The Template Verbal slapped on my talk page must only be used for people who can reasonably be seen to be making or hinting at a legal threat. Never for people who just use the word "libel". Perhaps a new template could be made that explains how, in the past, editors have waved the word about in order to intimidate others; that is, perhaps a genuine attempt could be made at "education". Anthony (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest this is closed as it was dealt with the other day. I certainly don't feel a need to go over it again. It's far to big a report for ANI. Also, it's my bedtime. Also, and lastly, to stop him getting in more trouble. Verbal chat 20:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for what I said yesterday; that was why I refactored because I knew the language I used could have been better. –MuZemike 20:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, I recommend you read Wikipedia:Apology and what that entails. That was what I was getting at yesterday. –MuZemike 20:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Anthony fails to understand is that legal threats and incivility and all that sort of thing are against the rules because of the intimidation factor. And unfortunately Anthony continues to try to intimidate, although it's fairly clear that it's not working. Verbal might have engaged in a bit of intimidation himself. Both editors just need to figure out a way to either get along or leave each other alone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 72 hours for "Verbal is clearly of average intelligence."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this sort of logic ("no one but a fool would have taken my previous remark as an insult/a threat/incivil/disruptive") is not only self-defeating, but painfully obviously not a good idea to post here, of all places. Hmm. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, 72 hours is completely disproportionate for that. Anthony is clearly upset still about yesterday's block and this is just crashing down with a sledgehammer. I propose an unblock. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Spartaz, I don't think that was blockworthy myself. Incidentally, Anthony messaged me to come here, but why? Was this the thread where I asked "is libel a verb?". Don't see what I could do here. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not blockworthy on its own, but reading the above diatribe, I'd actually leave the block be. That's just a rant disguised as an apology. You'll note he also describes Verbal as "a deceptive manipulator" and repeats the "fool" statement via a thin disguise of "I'm just articulating my thought processes". Leave him blocked until he can produce a retraction that doesn't sound like he's got his thumb on his nose and is waggling his fingers in the air. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I'm supposed to be intimidated into apologizing for saying he was trying to intimidate other users. Yeah. Not happening. The fact of the matter is that he is ranting about users trying to keep him from getting blocked before he was blocked. My only interaction with him was trying to get him to calm down. It kind of seems like the user is intentionally not getting it. --Smashville^talk 20:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that Anthony called Verbal a fool again in his unblock request, which he received for calling Verbal a fool after being warned by two different admins. Then, he comes here and goes "I'm sorry, he's not a fool, he's clearly of average intelligence." Then, after I blocked him for that, he goes "gee, I thought I was being generous". If he had restricted his commentary to calling me corrupt, incompetent, whatever, big deal -- I got plenty of that in my Admin Review without blocking anyone. It's his unrelenting insults to Verbal that got him the block, and I don't see any reason to undo it at this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGFing, I unblocked. Telling someone that they are "of average intelligence" isn't a personal attack. Just because it's not a compliment doesn't make it an attack. --Smashville^talk 22:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support unblock This is a peurile block that smacks of vindictiveness, especially as it's made by Sarek - very poor indeed.  Giacomo  21:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse block. For what it's worth, I think this block is entirely justified. Anthony should have seen it coming... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely hope that this block will be overturned as quickly as it would be if the offending remark had been made by an editor with the credentials of say, User:GiacomoReturned, for example. Leaky Caldron 21:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incompetent... lazy... ignorant... fools... SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I unblocked. Clearly the ANI thread here was extremely ill-advised but there was nothing blockable to it. Yes, it was a demand for an apology when there wasn't really one warranted...and yes, he has had some fairly intimidating behavior...but is this anything more than a still fairly new new user that needs someone to explain to him, "Hey. Don't do that"? As for venting after he was blocked...I can understand that. All users involved are advised to simply drop it and move on. --Smashville^talk 21:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarek that was over the top, saying someone is of average intellegence is niether a compliment nor an insult, it means they're normal which is hardly blockable. Sometimes users may say someone is of average intellegence to point out that they should have forseen something, but didn't. In this case it was a good faith way of saying that Verbal isnt a fool. Personally what I see is a disgruntled editor who has some reason to be trying to seek an apology, though I personally think requesting it on on AN/I in the manner he did was poor judgement as it would have been better when done on talkpage or via email. Sarek, ease of the block button in future, if your too quick to push it next time you might just block yourself or worse Jimbo!   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support block, oppose the unblock Sarek was absolutely correct. In the context of what had previously happened, Anthony's comment was clearly a backhanded slap at Verbal. I'm not sure why people aren't seeing that, but it's perfectly clear to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is how I see it. How is "clearly of average intelligence" not some kind of implied insult? Rehevkor ✉ 00:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is, no doubt. Perhaps folks are drunk on AGF or something. No editor should be speculating on the intelligence of another editor. We can judge competency, because we see the results, but to speculate about the intelligence (or other personal qualities) of the person making the edits crosses a line, whether it's expressed as "You're a dunce" or "You're clearly of average intelligence." (Besides, "fool" vs. "average intelligence" is a false dichotomy: highly intelligent people can still be foolish.) Anthony seems to have gotten away with his behavior this time, since people seem to have accepted his (to my perception) highly implausible explanation; I only hope that he doesn't take it as license to misbehave again. We'll see. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support unblock. It's absurd that Anthony is being blocked repeatedly just for pointing out Verbal's behavioural problems which nobody is doing anything about. He has not been doing so very nicely, but Verbal's attacks against editors he doesn't respect are often a lot less nice and he generally gets away with it. Nothing in Verbal's comportment on Wikipedia suggests that he should be offended by the insinuation that he is not of significantly higher than average intelligence. Hans Adler 00:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll note he also describes Verbal as "a deceptive manipulator" and repeats the "fool" statement via a thin disguise of "I'm just articulating my thought processes".

BeyondMyKen, Verbal is certainly of average intelligence. He may be of above average intelligence, but I haven't seen that demonstrated. Don't attribute meanings to my words that they don't carry, please. Anthony (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support unblock Calling someone average is hardly a blockable insult. That Verbal would choose to interpret what anthonyhcole said as a legal threat would seem to support less generous characterizations. Unomi (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I try to be magnanimous. Anthony (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support unblock per Hans Adler. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting contribution history from this editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He has interesting contributions eh? Seeing as your giving out free contribution assesments, would you like to tell me what you think of mine and every other person here or would you rathor just run along now and do something useful?   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the unblock, Smashville. I have to disagree, though. I think more than one public apology is warranted. This was not a trivial or vexatious thread. Anthony (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I agree that a public apology is warranted. By you, not by Verbal. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, Verbal stuffs up, says an editor is "misleading" (Instead of double checking his facts) and Verbal is the one who's owed an apology? All I can say is keep going Verbal   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 05:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made no mistake in my editing, and merely asked for Anthony to be given a warning that his behaviour might get him in trouble if it persisted. Whereas, in return, I have been accused of "libel" (incorrectly), being a "fool" (repeatedly), of "average intelligence", being a "hypocrite", of "smearing", and "misleading", amongst other things, in this very report. And none of these stand up. Anthony's edit was misleading because he moved a large part of a conversation from where it happened to a different forum, without seeking editors permission, and I objected. It was misleading baecause the conversation didn't happen there or in the order Anthony's move presented it as happening. It was also misleading as no move had taken place when I first looked, and the second time he removed the text I had already removed the comments from COIN for the reason above, plus others (WP:TALK etc). Having the edits called misleading is not something to get so worked up about, and I would have explained if asked. In response I was accused of libel, and pointed Anthony to WP:NLT which has a section on this word (although most of has moved, as NYB pointed out in the last thread. At no point have I hounded Anthony, or pressed for action beyond a warning. I find some of the comments by people above a bit surprising in light of what actually happened, and people seem to have made assumptions and jumped to conclusions. I hope Anthony can move on and stop with the low level attacks. Lastly, note again, I'm not calling for any further action. Verbal chat 06:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is long past its sell-by date. I've marked it as resolved. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You picked it at the first ANI with this, SlimVirgin: "The whole thing started with this comment of Anthony's, to which Verbal responded with a warning template, and it was downhill from there."

• The NLT template, sensibly, links to WP:NLT.
• Here is where it went wrong. Wikipedia:NLT#Perceived_legal_threats was trimmed to a few sentences and the full section was moved to WP:Harassment on 22 Nov 2009,.
• The NLT template linked me to this Perceived legal threats section of NLT,

  It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion. A perceived legal threat is not an immediately blockable offense. Instead, admins have to seek for clarification of the situation.

  and I concluded, reasonably, that it didn't apply to me. In context, it was obvious I wasn't threatening legal action. Obvious. This is when I began doubting Verbal's sanity. This is when I called him a fool, and reiterated that he had libeled me, and he took me to ANI.
• Had the NLT template linked to the full version of "Perceived legal threats", which explains that it is best to avoid using the word on Wikipedia even in a non-threatening way, I would have respected that and understood the actions of the admins, all of whom were assuming I had read the full version when they rebuked me for using the term again after being templated. They thought I was a recalcitrant ass, and treated me as such, I thought they were arrogant fools and dealt with them accordingly.
• For now, while the NLT template links to WP:NLT, I have restored the old Perceived legal threats section.

As for Verbal's disingenuous self-exculpation, I can't let that go. This is just for the record and I don't expect anyone to read it. This editor, Verbal, relies on you not following dif's. If you follow the dif's, there is only one conclusion you can draw,

• V: Anthony's edit was misleading because he moved a large part of a conversation from where it happened. False. I collapsed it, I didn't move it. [42]
• V: to a different forum, without seeking editors permission. False. Copied, not moved [43] and I introduced the insert with "This has been happening at Talk:Acupuncture. It is not appropriate there. It may be appropriate here. If not, just delete it" - that's called asking permission.
• V: I objected. The section was collapsed by another editor almost immediately after V's undo of mine and has stayed that way. He was just harassing me.
• V: It was misleading baecause the conversation didn't happen there or in the order Anthony's move presented it as happening. False. Not misleading because of the abovementioned introduction, because I put it in a blockquote; and, as for timing, all comments retained their date stamp.
• V: It was also misleading as no move had taken place when I first looked, and the second time he removed the text I had already removed the comments from COIN for the reason above, plus others. False. My collapse on the Acupuncture Talk page and insertion on the COI page happened within 10 seconds. I had them loaded on 2 browser tabs and launched them virtually simultaneously. Verbal's revert with the edit summary "it wasn't copied there" happened 10 minutes later. [44]
• V: I would have explained if asked. I asked.
• V: I was accused of libel, and pointed Anthony to WP:NLT which has a section on this word Very false indeed. It does now, because I restored it. The version you linked me to is on the left of this dif.

Also

• When he opened the ANI thread he called my use of the word "libel" a threat. Unambiguously. Twice in the first paragraph. It was not a threat. Never looked like one.
• In his second comment at ANI he said I was "making unfounded accusations of a legal nature." This, too, is an untruth. Anthony (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anthony, please drop this. You're wrong and it's boring. You're not doing yourself any favours by going on like this. Please heed the warnings you've been given (or not, your choice) and move on. Verbal chat 14:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was wrong in my review when I said remove I meant collapse. This was another problem, with two copies of the same conversation now floating around. Thanks for that correction. Verbal chat 15:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's it? Follow the dif's for a portrait of Verbal. Anthony (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's it. And if it helps, I'm sorry. Verbal chat 15:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does. Thanks. Anthony (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A while ago, I made several edits on various pages changing the term "Palestine", linked to Palestine, a geographic region comprising Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza Strip. The articles had lists, for example, of the countries in Western Asia. So the list comprised of Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Palestine, etc... This doesn't make sense, because Palestine includes Israel, making the list superfluous and misleading. I changed the instances of Palestine to Palestinian territories. Today, Nomoskedelasticity has evidently gone through my contribution history, and systematically reverted every single change I made, with edit summaries such as "one person's "accuracy" is another's "inaccuracy" -- any particular reason you'll insist that yours should prevail?". This, even though I have repeatedly explained to him the reasoning for my change. In response to my most recent explanation, he sarcastically responded here, completely ignoring the issue and instead choosing to insinuate that I am just an ignorant Israeli who refuses to accept the "truth". Here are the diffs of all the reverts he has made, rendering the articles potentially confusing to readers. [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50]. [51]I don't want to edit war with him. I'm tired of this. I just want this encyclopedia to be accurate and informative to readers, rather than mislead people and use superfluous terminology. Help would be appreciated. Breein1007 (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breein1007 has a troubled recent history with blocks for POV warring -- this will help others understand the real problem here. He clearly prefers a world without Palestine -- he's entitled to his feelings, but I don't think this justifies cloaking this kind of change in the language of "accuracy" (as per his edit summaries). What's particularly telling about this issue is that he has failed to convince other editors at template talk Asia that there should be a systematic change along these lines. Anyway I can't imagine the reason for bringing this to AN/I. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breein - Are you accusing Nomo of WP:HOUNDING? If not, this notification seems a little pointless. NickCT (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the content issue, I have a slight inclination that Nomoskedasticity is probably more in the right. However, this does meet the textbook definition of a WP:HOUNDING campaign. I see edits made by Breein1007 in May and earlier being reverted here. Going through someone's contributions history from several months before and making reverts like this is unambiguously hounding, unless there's a content violation of some sort.

A content disagreement is not a content violation.

Nomo - at the very least, please stop this at once while it's discussed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to refrain from continuing for now. I'm doubtful about the idea that WP:HOUNDING applies -- that one specifies "an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." The reason for my edits is not that, rather a genuine disagreement that Breein1007's edits along those lines are appropriate (particularly with the justification of "accuracy"); I only reverted edits of the type specified, there is not a more general campaign here against his edits. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by the way, I did attempt to raise this issue on his talk page, here -- my inquiry was overlooked, perhaps? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a solution. Of course he stopped; he already reverted all my edits. What am I supposed to do, have a discussion with myself? He completely ignored the justification I provided more than once, and rudely, in bad faith, assumed that I'm just some typical Israeli who doesn't want Palestine to exist. I have news for you, the typical Israeli does want Palestine to exist, and supports the creation of a Palestinian state. I am among those typical Israelis. The same cannot be said for the majority of Palestinians, according to polls. But that's a different story. This case is not solved. The wording is misleading and superfluous, and so far nobody has addressed those concerns that I made perfectly clear. Breein1007 (talk) 22:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors are involved in some rather unproductive editing at Abortion. There has been far more reverting than there should be, and I worry that several long-term contributors (e.g. MastCell, Andrew c) may be be driven away by this disruptive atmosphere. User:Nutriveg, in particular, seems to feel entitled to decide when it is okay to revert other editors' additions of reliably sourced information, (e.g. this removal becase "it is about medical abortion"). Since it has been claimed that I am involved, and since I have both commented on the Talk page and recently reverted an edit to the article, there is more than enough grist for any wikilawyer's mill as far as WP:UNINVOLVED is concerned. Hence, I'm asking for someone completely and obviously uninvolved to take a look at this from a purely admin standpoint. Thanks in advance if you feel you can spare the time. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an involved editor, I will second the plea for administrative input. I've reached the point where I think further editing (or even providing additional sources on the talk page) is pointless due to user-conduct issues and obstructiveness. The dispute is complex (or at least wordy) enough to be forbidding, but the underlying issues are pretty straightforward. MastCell ^Talk 21:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As another involved editor I support the input of an uninvolved admin. I will not be editing this article further until the situation improves. I posted at 3RR before I notice this discussion at ANI [52] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I've gone so far as to fully protect the article for a short while. The 3RR issue has been reported here. Suggest further discussion about that aspect takes place there. – B.hotep •talk• 22:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked Nutriveg for 24h following the posts at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Nutriveg_reported_by_User:Jmh649. Others may wish to evaluate whether the article protection is still needed. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this discussion [53], User:I Pakapshem deliberately used what he thinks is my real name (I am neither confirming nor denying it for privacy reasons). This is a clear, brazen attempt at outing. This was not a slip, it was not an accident, and it certainly is not necessary. I would like the comment redacted, and the editor sanctioned. Considering his particularly heavy block log, combined with immediate resumption of disruptive editing upon the expiration of a 6 month block (I Pakapshem's contribution to wikipedia consists of tendentious removals of any material pertaining to the existence of the Greek minority in Albania sourced or not, e.g. [54], for which he was blocked in the past and which he has now resumed with full vigor [55]), an indef block would not be inappropriate. He has been warned twice in the past that the next block would be indef [56] [57]. This is a disruption-only Balkan account, with exactly zero positive contributions to wikipedia, and even when he doesn't edit war he manages to disrupt talkpage discussions with incessant inane rants and flaming, the perfect example being here [58]. His deliberate attempt at outing is the final straw. Athenean (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Athenean, how would I Pakapshem know your name? I am intervening because I was involved in that discussion. Unless you disclosed it voluntarily how would he have known it? Please do not try to describe the "bad" character of user:I Pakapshem who just came back from his ban (which he respected in full), as many of us have a dirty biography here in Wikipedia per Arbmac decisions. You yourself, between User:Athenean and the prior userid (my understanding is that both belong to you), are full of blocks, so please don't make a point as far as User:I Pakapshem experience and enjoyment with Wikipedia has been. Can you state that you have NEVER made a mention to that name yourself? --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 21:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First I am not going to confirm whether it is my real name or not, but I'll be damned if I know how he thinks that is my real name. For the record, I have never ever revealed my name in wikipedia! You coming here and suggesting it is somehow my fault is an outrageous attempt to blame the victim. I KNEW you would come here and try to disrupt my posting with something inane, but this too much even for you. I also ask that you remove my old username immediately, as I changed it precisely for privacy reasons. Athenean (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(after editconflict) Ok, I removed it, didn't know about your choice, my apologies, but it still appears in your very first edit. [59]. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 22:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Athenean's previous nickname was <removed> and that's where I derived <name> from. Nonetheless I didn't know it was againts the rules to use what I assume is somebody's real name. In no way did I brazenly try to out Athenean. I haven't been editing for six months but during those months Athenean got many blocks and restrictions so saying that I'm disruptive when he was threatening and making personal attacks like "Your disgust me" or "Your behaviour disgusts me" just a couple of weeks ago [60] shows that the one causing disruption is him and not me. Once again, I did not know that this was against the rules. --I Pakapshem (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Pakapshem, can you make the link between what you said and what the prior userid was, so that an ignorant person like me, who continuously receives insults from user:Athenean, or the average Joe, can understand how they can be related?--_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 22:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He clearly doesn't want his personal data revealed so I won't reveal it. Once again I didn't know that he was against that because this is public information, but now that I know it I won't repeat it. --I Pakapshem (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking you to reveal a diff, but can you confirm that it has come out from his own writings? --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 22:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I have removed the "outed" name from both this page (a lot of revisions needed to have their visibility restricted) plus on the talk page. I have not forwarded a request to CU, as it may be necessary for admins to be able to see the name depending on where this discussion goes. Athenean, when this issue is resolved, if you want the name permanently removed from the histories of both this page and your talk page, contact a CheckUser - at the moment, only admins can see it. I am making no comment on this issue.-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the redaction Phantomsteve, however there is still the matter of I Pakapshem's sanction. I do not for a second believe him when he says he "didn't know". He has been active for well over a year now, and he knows full well he is not supposed to do that. It was completely uncalled for, and a clear attempt to rattle me. Also disturbing is how Salmues is fishing for how Pakapshem deduced my name from my old ID. It's as if he is trying to figure out who I am. Athenean (talk) 00:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care who you are Athenean, I was trying to understand how I Pakapshem would be able to find your name if you didn't disclose it yourself. In fact if you had disclosed it yourself, I Pakapshem would not be sanctionable, and you are just harassing him, disrupting his enjoyment of Wikipedia, and preventing him from making his contributions through this report. To me those names had no relation whatsoever. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 03:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? Even if I had accidentally revealed it, that doesn't give him ANY right to use it. In fact, it's all the more reason for him not to reveal it. Where does it say that it's OK to out people if they have accidentally revealed their real name? I'm really starting to wonder here. Athenean (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Sulmues: It would be wise to respect this case without creating a mess. It seems that this childish play of disruption is repeating again and again here. If you have nothing to say please say nothing (not speculations and guesses)!Alexikoua (talk) 05:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it seems Pakapshem has already launched wp:npa's vios, characteristically he claims: I haven't been editing for six months but during those months Athenean got many blocks and restrictions As I see Athenean didn't receive a single block the last year.Alexikoua (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[61] that's a block and an unblock when he agreed to be careful, so why are you saying that he wasn't blocked? I don't know how I Pakapshem found out about Athenean's name(if that is indeed his real name) but I have couple of questions. I Pakapshem claims that he found it because of Athenean's first username, so my question towards Athenean is this:Does your previous username lead to personal details about you found on the net?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My previous username is none of your business. STOP grousing around about it. It doesn't matter HOW I Pakapshem thinks he may have found out my real name, HE DOESN'T HAVE ANY RIGHT TO USE IT IN PUBLIC WHATSOEVER. He did it casually, and knows full well it is unacceptable. And if you ask about any of my names again, I will report you as well. Clear? Athenean (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to understand the situation and I didn't ask you for any personal information. It's extremely hard to find someone's personal information online unless they themselves have added part of them or clues leading to them and that was the purpose of my question. I Pakapshem claims that he didn't know

he shouldn't do it and his comment wasn't associated with your personal information so why not agf it?. Btw about a month ago someone posted personal info of another user and I contacted an ARBCOM member to delete it but he told me that because the user himself had posted info that lead to his personal data it was considered public content, thus the user who posted his personal info wasn't responsible for anything.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The situation is none of your business, and your lawyering is tedious. Your questions seem directed at trying to help people discover my real identity. I have no reason to believe anything you or him say, and I have certainly never revealed anything to anyone, so for the last time, stop. If you comment on my old username again, I will ask that you be sanctioned. This is getting real annoying. Athenean (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than obvious that the specific user was editting 'unlogged' (ip) during his six months block.

This edit: [[62]] (on 30 Sept.) was I_Pakapshem's (as he admits in the msg), while he edited in my talkpage evading a block he received that time. Because of this, his blocking period was extented [[63]] (30 September 2009 Moreschi (talk | contribs) changed block settings for I Pakapshem (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 month (account creation blocked) ‎ (block evasion)). No wonder the same ip address made a number of edits during this 6 months block period [[64]](Greek-Albanian topics included [[65]]). I'm sure that he made additional edits in the same ip range. But this only is enough to to prove that he did NOT respect his block.Alexikoua (talk) 08:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If he made two edits(that updated the article and were useful and not disruptive) a couple of months ago you bringing this now in ANI is meaningless and you being so sure that he made additional edits without a single dif to prove it is a personal attack so you shouldn't make such statements. It also seems that you don't understand the purpose of the block. Admins block users to prevent disruption to the project not to punish them, so your report of an edit that was made 2-3 months ago(and doesn't seem to be disruptive) is meaningless.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a block evasion while he PRETENDS that he respected his block. Thank you for agreeing that he evaded his block. Moreover, reporting block evasion isn't personal attack. Most important blocked user do not make ANY edit in any page (apart from their talkpage), else it's against the rules of this community.Alexikoua (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexikoua now realistically you are the one who is trying to out someone and that someone is me. This edit that I made is of value and it's only one edit done two months ago. My block has expired for three days now and you're trying to get me in trouble for something that happened two months ago. As Zjarri said, admins block to prevent violations and not for previous mistakes that weren't even disruptive. To me this seems to be a clear case of personal attack and assumption of bad faith. --I Pakapshem (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out of nothing (I haven't talked to him in 7 months) AlasdairGreen27 started bullying, insulting and trolling me first here(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DIREKTOR#Stop_personal_attacking_me_.28and_the_other_users.29) then here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AndreaFox2&redirect=no#Honey_the_cat). He refuses stopping. I suspect he is attempting through offensive statements to garner bad reactions from me maybe to avenge the fact that 7 months ago he was blocked for calling me a "twat" (and for making a anti-semitic statement towards another user, shadowranger, who was disagreeing with him in the same discussion). AndreaFox2 (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:AndreaFox2's definition of "bullying, insulting and trolling" is his own, not Wikipedia's, and apparently only applies to those he dislikes. User:AlasdairGreen27 has recently been threatened on Wikipedia with physical harm and legal action by the banned counterparts of the same group of editors acting very much in concert in their regular and constant attempt to intimidate/ban/edit-war their opposition. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course that's AndreaFox2's own definition of bullying insulting and trolling, we just have to state if it matches with wikipedia's definition. In my honest opinion it does. And AlasdairGreen27 (talk · contribs) it's not new to this kind of approach as you know. - Theirrulez (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DIREKTOR, that's all totally irrelevant. AlasdairGreen27's sarcastic mocking messages were not acceptable ways to communicate, so I've asked him not to repeat them. Fences&Windows 01:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier today, Wikid77 created the article Amanda Knox (note that this is what was created) after requesting unprotection of the redirect. The article was a clear POV coatrack, but is in the process of being edited. The article was nominated for deletion, and they have now sent messages to certain users canvassing for support: [66], [67], [68]. These users had all previously expressed an opinion arguing for the creation of the article at Murder of Meredith Kercher, and the message is far from neutral, and clearly is not in line with WP:CANVASS. The user does not see any problem with their messages however: [69].

This should be seen as part of the wider behavioural problems from this user at Murder of Meredith Kercher. They have been blocked a few times now, and yet continue with the same sorts of behaviour (just look at the history of the article and their comments in the history of User talk:Zlykinskyja). As such, Wikid77 should be topic banned from anything to do with Murder of Meredith Kercher or Amanda Knox. Quantpole (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question, who is the "we" he keeps referring to? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 22:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea, but presume it is anyone who agrees with him. Quantpole (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those 3 user-talk-page messages I sent were Friendly notices that the article was available for editing. I stopped sending messages when I noticed the general announcement had been posted within the same hour, at article "Murder of Meredith Kercher" as follows: "Prepare to be amazed: Amanda Knox, complete with lovely painting is now up. Quantpole (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)" (diff: [70]). Disregarding the WP:Sarcasm in that message, I think the user, who posted it, is the same user who initiated this ANI topic on canvassing. I did not realize that before; note: I am being accused of posting one-sided messages, but failing to post a general notice, by the person most likely to know that the general notice had already been posted, before I could do it. This charge of canvassing seems to be trying to catch me on a technicality. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a lengthy topic ban. Every block he has is a result of editing the Meredith Kercher murder article. A topic ban seems like a good way to keep a productive editor out of trouble. AniMate 22:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban. This silliness has dragged on long enough... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban - I agree with AniMate that we don't want to lose a productive editor, and that a topic ban should help prevent that -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban - Productive editor who at these articles is a complete time sink for many other people, and as shown by their edits today, do not appear to understand - even after it has been explained to them many times - why they are editing in a non-collegial manner (which has now spilled over into disruption). Black Kite (t) (c) 23:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• COMMENT: The 3 posts I made were Friendly notices: I notified users, on their user-talk-pages, who had expressed interest in editing the article, that the article was open, but that there was an ongoing AfD and that the article might be deleted, regardless of merit, due to opposition. I did not recommend they, either, edit the article to prevent its deletion, or contest deletion at the AfD. I did not even link the specific article-AfD, so there was no text that even prompted them to access the AfD page, much less edit it in any particular fashion. The article announcements, to 3 users, who merely expressed interest in editing the article, is not a violation of WP:CANVASS to sway a discussion. I merely informed them that the article might be deleted, even though it was open to editing at this time. I did not pressure them or insist that they express an opinion at the AfD, and did not even provide a link to the AfD discussion. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still say this runs afoul of WP:Votestacking. Regardless, your editing in this area has been problematic. I think an extended vacation from it is necessary, even if it is not voluntary. AniMate 00:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban per Black Kite. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 00:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban to prevent further disruption/canvassing over Murder of Meredith Kercher. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban, since blocks do not appear to be reinforcing the strong message that Wikid77's contributions on this subject continue to be counter-productive. SuperMarioMan 03:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment about current behavior of Wikid77 Since making a comment here, Wikid77 has left another note for a user here. It's more neutral, but full of pointiness. He has also created an essay at Wikipedia:Notability_outranks_POV_disputes. I'll let others judge if it actually makes sense or not, but it appears to be an extension of the arguments he's made at the AfD (and some stuff about Joran van der Sloot I presume). Finally, he's recopied the longer coatrack Amanda Know article to his sand box again [71]. These are not actions most people would take when facing a topic ban. AniMate 05:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The extra "note for a user" that I posted, on the same day, was to a frequent editor who seemed to be unaware of the article, and by the way, had expressed an opposing viewpoint, not a case of me only notifying users of a single viewpoint. As for me continuing to edit the material, I am not currently banned from the subject, and I was the one who created the article text now debated at WP:AfD. Banning me from discussion of an article I created, one day earlier, is a serious problem. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as per Black Kite. Dayewalker (talk) 05:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support editor admits he only notified a handful of friendly editors, the use of canvassing is appalling. This is the best option to keep an apparently otherwise beneficial editor. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't say the editors I notified were "friendly editors" but you raised a good point: I notified 3 people who wanted to edit the article, even if their edits were contrary to mine. Thank you for defending me on that point. Those 3 user-talk-page messages, I sent, are termed Friendly notices in WP:CANVASS, announcing that the article was available for editing. I stopped sending messages when I noticed the general announcement had been posted within the same hour, at article "Murder of Meredith Kercher". -Wikid77 (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Agree with Bwilkins. The Amanda Knox issue is a wikipedia systemwide issue that needs discussion, not topic ban. Some obscure murderers get articles (some even survive AFD). Some point out "other crap exists" but if articles are subjected to AFD, the AFD process should provide a fair and consistent path. See WP:SimilarTreatmentIsOK. Also BLP1E is raised but it is applied differently. Since murderers are common topics in Wikipedia, perhaps the crime wikiproject could develop better guidelines. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this whole event is to determine the level of notability of Amanda Knox, in a system-wide discussion, at AfD, rather than limiting the discussion to only readers of "Murder of Meredith Kercher". For that reason, I omitted the more private birthdate/parents part of the bio, and focused on her life as a college student (taking online courses), Italian comparison to Carla Bruni and 3 court trials: Kercher, defamation, and new trial about Kercher. Instead of trying to limit views about the article, I have recommended the article be considered by a wide range of readers, such as those from Italy, Germany (etc.), who might only notice the article when discussed in the, system-wide, AfD. Creating an article, as a preparation for AfD discussions, is not a disruptive activity, but rather an action that encourages wider participation. I hope that clarifies why a "productive editor" would create an article, while telling the authorizing admin that it will likely go soon to AfD. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Anat Kamm#Requested Move. Since it is older than 7 days (from June 1st), I think it should be closed. The date just slipped through, it seems (i.e. no reason for extended discussion). Notification of this post in the same Talk-section. -DePiep (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-listed it. I feel that with 2 supports (one by the nom, one with no further details so presumably "per nom"), 1 objection and 1 neutral, another week may help to reach a clear concensus. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noted that the "Objection" is to the extend "No discussion at all, this is WP:PARENT". See the Talk. -DePiep (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Untill today, I didn't know that what happened to me here on WP pages was a clear harrasmenet. according toWikipedia:HARASS#Posting_of_personal_information, it stated that any editor who tries to reveal the identiy of any WP user is to be considered harrasment. I was subjected to this by user User:Mootros several times, and suffered from this, however as a new user, I didn't know at that time that it is something to report. I think it is time now since I now I know.

1: He tried to reveal information about my IP, possible work/study place here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive616#User:Kushsinghmd (originated from a range of IPs in Canada owned by McGill University and Bell Canada) Mootros (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

and again said:

2: Talk:Research_fellow#Courtesy_break Are you not based at a McGill University? I thought that's in Canada. Mootros (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

is this acceptable behaviour ?

I am asking for a severe punishment to this user for harassing me and for deliberately violating WP rules.

also All these personal information (whether or not it is true) including the quoted information in this incident report should be permanently deleted from all WP source data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushsinghmd (talk • contribs) 19:28, June 9, 2010

An IP address is not the same as posting location information, and if you yourself reveal said information (i.e. clearly editing with both your username and IP), then it is not considered "outing" as you have voluntarily posted that information publicly. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He had no knowledge that this was your IP address, only that someone editing using the IP was editing the same page you were editing, so he wasn't outing. Inadvertently editing while logged out may reveal your IP address, which is noted at WP:LOGGEDOUT. His speculation about your location wasn't wise, but if it hasn't been repeated it doesn't amount to harassment. Fences&Windows 01:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• so if this is not harrasement, then what is value of trying to get into such personal information like this, which includes IP, location and possibly work /study place?! why should one publish it, and even more deliberately asked me ?!!! Kushsinghmd (talk) 04:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Kushsinghmd, I thought you agreed previously to stay away from Mootros? Why am I seeing you at ANI again about this? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed to stay away, and I think I did. This is an old issue (before the agreement) and it hasn't been resolved cause simply I didn't know how could I categorize the violation, untill today, I know the best terminology of that previous act. Kushsinghmd (talk) 04:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old issue means it should stay old. Don't be bringing up the past. I think there is a rule about that somewhere. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was not discussed in the past, therefore I wouldn't consider it old. Plus the fact, that I am offended that such material is on WP for all this time, while the faulty is set free with such unacceptable deeds! Kushsinghmd (talk) 04:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, considering you have your email address posted on your profile, I find it odd that you think his questioning if you were a specific IP to be offensive. A simple google search on said email reveals far more, including your real name and your previous username here, than an IP. If you have privacy concerns, I'd recommend having your own user page oversighted instead of complaining about such a general question that does not really tell anything about you as you could have simply said "no, not me". -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anma raises some good points. I think this should be oversighted and swept under the rug and you two go back to not talking to each other like you had previously agreed upon. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Anma: Email is not a personal thing, and you can't identify anyone from his email unless it is an institution email.

@ all:Please someone answer my question: what is value of trying to get into such personal information like this, which includes IP, location and possibly work /study place?! why should one publish it, and even more deliberately asked me about it using that information ?!!! is there any good reasoning other than harrasement ?! Kushsinghmd (talk) 05:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please all, think about this first before you comment. If by some way or another I knew the IP of you, and I knew that you are located in University of Oxford. And while severely disputing and in the top of discussion, I tried to tease you to show you that I know where are you and said: Hey, how is the weather in london. Till here could be OK, but even more I continued harrasment, saying: hey, isn't the univesirty of oxford is in London? think this is all in UK!... is there any value from such odd discussion, other than me showing that I know your personal information and that I can get you !!... please if you can provide me with a better reasoning, please do.

Please remember what should one do if got any personal formation about another WP user ? according to WP itself, they should NEVER talk about it. WP even states that if a user retracted his public information, that information should not be revealed by any other WP user anymore.

Thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 05:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what Mootros did (on which I have no knowledge or opinion), Anma's warning is a really big deal. Please do a simple google search on your own email address--you name, phone number, location, and interests are all immediately available. You've self-outed, so to speak. Doesn't matter to me, but it seems pretty dangerous in this day and age. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First that is not true. I did the google search as you asked, and I got 4 irrelevant results. Therefore it is almost impossible to get such specific personal information through a free web email. And please do the search yourself, to make sure. Second, please someone answer to my question: what is value of trying to get into such level of details about personal information like this, which includes IP, location and possibly work /study place?! why should one publish it, and even more deliberately asked me about it, using information he collected and thinking it was right?!!! remember that this was at the most heated moments. is there any good reasoning other than harrasement ?! Kushsinghmd (talk) 05:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It pains me to bring this up, but does anyone think that Kushsinghmd might be a single-purpose account? Seems the user's only edits have been to the page Research fellow and when that was blocked, his edits shifted to Talk:Research fellow. The only other edits have been to userpages and ANI. User seems disruptive, doesn't seem to want to follow agreements made on the user's talkpage by myself to end the dispute with User:Mootros. Just seems to be narrow focus. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claims not true: I had edited in addition the following pages:

Research assistant

Research associate

Covenant of Umar I

Therefore, i would urger you to make a better investigation. it is clear that user Neutralhomer after he failed to convince me to withdraw my above report of being subjected to harrasment after a clear failure of answering my question, so he thought about directly attacking me, yet he used false evidences and claims. Thanks, and next time try to e more accurate. Kushsinghmd (talk) 06:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All along the same lines. Also, this isn't an attack. You have edited primarily the Research fellow and Talk:Research fellow pages since you made this account. That is a single-purpose account. You also have decided to go against our agreement and dig something out of the past up and bring it to ANI. So, yeah, I think it needs to be addressed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

isn't this what you said above "Seems the user's only edits have been to the page Research fellow and when that was blocked, his edits shifted to Talk:Research fellow." ?!

now after being exposed of false claims, you are trying to broaden the scope or what ?!

is this Covenant of Umar I , within the same scope ?!

Kushsinghmd (talk) 06:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting that you say I broke the agreement. Though I have already responded to this above , but since you are repeating yourself, so would you please put the agreement here clearly and what I said in the agreement, thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 06:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and this is what I mean by "disruptive". Kushsinghmd, a couple edits here and there doesn't make up for the fact that 99% of your edits are at Research fellow and Talk:Research fellow. You can try and side-step the fact all you want and throw mud back at me, but you have edited the same page and talk page more than any other page by far since you showed up May 8. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I hope that every one is seeing how user is defending his false claims, after stating ONLY Page, now saying most, are you seeing the loop?! he didnt admit that he didnt know or he was wrong, no he is trying to correct himself by continuing beng offensive. And if he just gave himself a moment, he would have known that my edits to covenant of umar havent been edited since then, so why would I keep editing or disputing ?! however my edits to RF, has been several times falsely labelled as vandalism, and opposing party started an edit war, therfore that lead that most of my contribution were diverted to this area. BTW, I am not the one throwing the mud, it is clear, that You have nothing to say above in response to harrasment, so you came here. Kushsinghmd (talk) 06:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and I won't say anything on any "harrasment" since if you did what you agreed upon, you would have never seen anything from Mootros if you were steering clear of him. Above two editors have told you that you have self-outed yourself and you just blindly tell them they are wrong to continue on violating your agreement. So, forgive me if I am not a little pissed at you for wasting my time a couple weeks ago and if I am not a little pissed about being lied to. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why didnt you put the agreement as I asked you to do so ?! Please do us all a favour, and show us what agreement I broke, thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure....see here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so this clearly shows that you falsely claimed that I broke the agreement, Thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 06:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow...everyone is wrong but you. Interesting. OK, admins, figure out what to do here. I wash my hands of this user and his persistant "I didn't do it" and "I can't here you" crap. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]