Per this discussion, ItsLassieTime (talk · contribs) was banned for 18 months for socking, edit warring and general disruption and personal attacks - or so I thought. The latest few socks include Kathyrncelestewright (talk · contribs) who was defying the ban by creating numerous articles, nominating them for GA, and approving other people's GAs, etc. Per WP:BAN, I deleted several of the articles before someone pointed me to a discussion that I wasn't aware of. In that discussion from a few days ago, people said they were going to check the articles, but I'm not aware of any checking actually happening until this review of a single article. After starting another discussion with more mixed opinions, a DRV has now been started and this is getting silly.

So, once and for all, is ItsLassieTime banned or not? If s/he is allowed to edit any articles, that's fine, but then we need to officially unban. These banned-except-if-the-user-wants-to-write-articles situations come up far too often and it needs to stop. Do we need an RFC for the WP:BAN policy in general? Wknight94 ^talk 18:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The policy does not mandate the deletion of articles created by banned socks. Contested speedy deletion proposals belong at AfD, not at ANI. ^Bongo_matic 18:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

In this case, unfortunately, the currently correct venue is DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 15#The Storks. ^Bongo_matic 18:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my original question - is ItsLassieTime really banned? If not from creating new articles, then from what? Wknight94 ^talk 19:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

If this ANI discussion isn't about the manner / venue for determination of deletion of the articles, then please comment on that topic at the DRV rather than referring the DRV discussion here. ^Bongo_matic 19:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Easy one first: any article created by a banned user while banned can be deleted as long as it has no significant contributions by others. We don't retrospectively delete articles written before a ban but anything created by a banned user while banned using socks is subject to summary deletion, for reasons which are quite obvious.

If a blocked editor sockpuppets while banned then the articles created by the socks might reasonably treated the same way (I certainly would). Anything else makes no sense, because it would be an open invitation to socking. Large scale block evasion commonly leads to a ban anyway, so the margin between blocked and banned is not a bright line. WP:RBI articulates the general principles.

We do not distinguish on the basis of quality. We don't let blocked or banned editors contribute using socks, we don't let people proxy for them. There are excellent reasons for this. Those are general points, I've not looked to see the histories of the articles and individuals in this specific case, because you asked a general question. Guy (Help!) 20:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well there are several people disagreeing with you and now a DRV devoted to restoring a banned user's edits. If those are indeed restored, then the user should be considered unbanned IMHO. Someone should not be simultaneously banned and allowed to create new articles. Among other things, it's not fair to that not-so-banned user. All we're doing is forcing them to change account names from time to time. Wknight94 ^talk 20:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Were they creatd by the user while banned? That's the test. Guy (Help!) 20:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

In this case, the ban was in April, the articles at question were from November (I think - definitely long after April). But more generally, this is the 3rd or 4th time I've been embroiled in disputes like this. Banned users who can assemble decent articles always gather backers. If such people can't actually be banned, then we shouldn't bother. Wknight94 ^talk 20:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see that now. For what it's worth, I think you are right. This is block evasion and subject to WP:RBI, and speedy deletion is just a special case of that. However, if the articles have significant contributions form others, or if others want to take them and make significant contributions while not actually proxying for the banned user, that should be fine. If the user wants to appeal the block (and a ban is onyl a block nobody wants to undo, timed or not), they can appeal to ArbCom. We absolutely do not make an exception to the rule to allow blocked or banned editors to contribute just because we like them or what they write. If people think blocked users should be allowed to contribute then they need to challenge the block, not facilitate block evasion. I do not deny their good faith, but I think they are mistaken and have perhaps not thought throught he implications of turning a blind eye to blocking and sockpuppetry. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

As the one who tagged the articles, I should state that I checked the history of all of them, and tagged only those that did not have significant contributions from others. A few that did, I tagged as disputed instead. They were also all created specifically by a single sock that was created after ItsLassieTime was banned. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree a bit with Guy here. I guess we all agree that the goal here is to create a quality encyclopedia. Actions which promote this are 'good', actions which take us further from the goal are 'bad'. The social aspects of Wikipedia, including banning, are meant to help the encyclopedia. In the cases of abusive editors who create quality content, I don't think deleting it is self-evidently helping the encyclopedia and merits some judgment. There are some people whose edits clearly are absolutely never welcome (such as those who have harassed other editors in real life), but in most run of the mill cases I'd lean towards blocking the account while not deleting the content would be a better course of action. henrik•talk 20:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

But what is the point of blocking but not deleting? That doesn't help anyone. I'd prefer someone be unbanned than forced to change account names from time to time. Wknight94 ^talk 20:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, Henrik, I don't often disagree with you but here I think I must, as you will gather. Blocked is blocked, banned is banned, and having us fight over the content contributed while evading sanctions is often precisely what people want - there is a long history of people gaming the system i exactly this way. But you can take ownership of the articles, make a significant contribution and then they can stay and the encyclopaedia wins without the problems. Guy (Help!) 20:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I accept that there are cases where we should make it absolutely clear to someone that they're not welcome and that their contributions should be removed or deleted on sight, despite this might mean removing good content. I just think that this should be a course of action generally reserved for the most serious cases. (I haven't managed to look into the particulars of this case enough yet to have a judgment on if that is the case here).henrik•talk 21:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Guy just articulated the response I was looking for; really good contributions by a blocked/banned account can be taken over by a legit account - WP gets the content but the sock is not credited, thus providing a reason for the individual to use the proper processes to be allowed to be contribute. I realise that there is the rationale that the use of an alternate account to evidence an account blocked for specific reasons can contribute appropriately, but these socks are generally not recognised because of the dissimilarity between them. An editor whose socks closely approximate that of the blocked account are obviously continuing the behaviour that got them sanctioned, even if the content is otherwise viable. So, yeah - blocked is blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I also like Guy's idea of adopting the content (though there is a nagging question in the back of my head about how to swing copyright attribution). henrik•talk 22:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be fine if the adopter were trustworthy, and not just claiming to adopt the content simply to arbitrarily avoid deletion. I've been burned a bit by that before - someone claiming to double-check the content, only to have someone else triple-check the content and discover the double-checking was crap. Wknight94 ^talk 02:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing this discussion, it is clear that this is an inappropriate forum. This discussion belongs at WT:Banning policy and/or WT:Deletion policy and/or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). This is not a forum for making policy, nor is it the forum for discussion these specific deletions. ^Bongo_matic 23:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

We don't delete something just because a banned user creates it. Banned user:Peter Damian tried to play that game with us a while back and nobody took the bait and deleted the good contributions his socks made. Has anyone gone and seen if Law made any new articles before The undertow's original one-year ban expired? No, because that would be immensely stupid. Things get deleted because of what they are, not because of what person or unperson created them. Now, if the banned user was banned for questionable contributions, as opposed to "backstage" antics, we have every reason to be suspicious of the socks' contributions and delete if anything seems sketchy. So I ask: is there any reason to believe that ItsLassieTime contributes bad content? If not, these should be undeleted. --NE2 23:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Editors with views on the manner of deletion of these specific articles are encouraged to opine at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 15#The Storks. I would hope that even those who support deletion would have the honesty to opine that the articles should be listed and then opine delete at the subsequent AfD. ^Bongo_matic 00:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I plan to once I get a reply to my question (or am ignored). --NE2 00:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's an answer for you: {{bannedmeansbanned}}

I think that's pretty clear, and supported by current policy, albeit a policy that is often ignored. Beeblebrox (talk)

First, template≠policy, which can be found at Wikipedia:Banning policy#Enforcement by reverting edits. It may be "pretty clear", but your interpretation of it is one-sided. "May" does not mean "must"—an observation made on the policy page itself— and the policy is not written in a way that makes it obviously independent of other policies, such as the speedy deletion policy that prohibits renomination in favor of AfD listing. In my opinion, creation of these pages were "obviously helpful edits" which means that per the balance of policy, an AfD discussion, rather than a speedy deletion, is warranted. ^Bongo_matic 01:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @NE2: Then what is the point of a ban? To answer your question, I've heard there were sourcing questions. The account and its socks used nothing but offline sources, and verification was difficult at best. The first link above gives the entire ban discussion. Wknight94 ^talk 01:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It is repellent to the notion of this encyclopedia to see FUTON bias being brought into a content discussion in this manner. ^Bongo_matic 01:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The point of the ban was, as far as I can tell, to keep the user from abusively socking. I don't see any abuse by the user here, unless there's reasonable doubt as to the truthfulness of the articles. --NE2 03:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Also from the banning policy: "It is customary for the "ban timer" to be reset or extended if a banned user attempts to edit in spite of the ban. No formal consideration is typically necessary. For example, if someone is banned for ten days, but on the sixth day attempts to evade the ban, then the ban timer may be reset from "four days remaining" to "ten days remaining". So if the user doesn't subsequently evade the ban again, his or her eventual total duration would be 16 days." So that 18 months should be reset to the day the last article was created. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The timer was reset, but the person doesn't care anyway. From the ban discussion and SPIs, people weren't real sure which was even the original account. Wknight94 ^talk 01:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• cmt i remember this user. They were abusive, they lied, the created hoaxes, they socked, they whined to get unblocked, they socked some more, they seemed schizophrenic (making up stories about neighbors and daughters and god know's what else) and the articles they wrote were fiction-filled pieces of garbage. They are banned. RBI and move on.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Do you believe that these articles were hoaxes? --NE2 03:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Per the [[original ban, it does not appear that there was any accusation of hoaxing or introducing incorrect information into articles. ^Bongo_matic 04:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

@NE2, I'm not going to check each and every one of these articles, and frankly, I shouldn't have to. None of us should. It is not fair to expect the community in general to babysit a user who has shown a proclivity towards bad content or bad behavior. Or are you volunteering to be a permanent mentor for this person? If so, that would be news to him/her since I don't think s/he has engaged a single person in a real conversation, and certainly would not be interested in mentorship. The first time you caught him/her using one sock to approve another sock's GA, or sourcing an article with a book that may or may not exist, s/he would simply vanish into another sock and we start over again. Wknight94 ^talk 04:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

"Its Lassie Time" was a thoroughly bad-faith user who created a large number of socks in order to boost his own articles to GA status, until one slipup this past summer exposed his shenanigans. He's banned and should stay banned until or if he decides to abide by the rules. And, yes, anything determined to have been written by his socks since then "may" be deleted, for sure, regardless of any alleged "merit". Banned editors are not allowed to edit. No compromise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Have there been cases of this user misusing sources? If so, can you link to the relevant discussion? --NE2 04:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with many of the comments made above. Think about it this way. The user was banned because the community reached a consensus that it could no longer deal with the user's edits and behaviour on Wikipedia. It was too disruptive to have to keep following them up and double-checking their work, and so on. If that was the point of the ban, then it makes absolutely no sense to put the onus back on the community to look at the work the user created while banned to determine if the content has merit or not. There should be a prima facie case that an article created by a banned user with no significant contributions by any other editor does not belong on Wikipedia. It is an exception to the normal deletion policy. The community should not be required to look up the sources, make sure everything is correct, etc., when the article is created by a banned user. Singularity42 (talk) 04:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's actually not an exception to deletion policy at all. See WP:CSD#G5 and WP:BAN. It's just a policy that is frustrating to those who value having any kind of content regardless of its reliability or the luggage that accompanies it. Wknight94 ^talk 05:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Banned users are not allowed to edit. That's the starting and ending point of any discussion on this matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Your argument makes sense if said editor was banned for bad articles. But if said editor was banned for, say, adding unconstructive posts to every AN/I thread, there's no prima facie reason to doubt content they add. --NE2 05:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Said editor was banned, however, for horrible socking and building an almost pathological set of lies around each sock and using those socks to support themselves in discussions over content. The editor lost the communities trust, and reflected an appallng lack of honesty that has only continued since the ban, as evidenced by the appearance of more socks since then. Why presume to trust their content is okay when all else were lies? We don't even know for sure if ILT was male or female as they claimed to be both. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Singularity and Wknight94, you both have implied or stated that the banned editor's content is somehow more suspect than the rest of the content that is added to the encyclopedia without stewardship or review. What is the basis for this? I was not a participant in the original banning discussion, or subsequent sockpuppet investigations, and such a claim, if demonstrated to be valid, would (of course, at AfD, not at Speedy) be a consideration favoring deletion. Why do you suggest this? Collectonian, if that logic is sound, then why don't we delete all content from banned users (not just that created after the ban)? ^Bongo_matic 05:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, much of ILT's contributions have either been removed or reviewed by others and worked on to ensure they are valid. That said, the simple answer is they weren't banned then. They are banned now. They continue to lie to the community and engage in their attention seeking behavior to gain DYKs and GAs. The serious focus on this both in the previous ANI and now would seem to indicate an editor willing to go to great lengths to get these "awards", making it clear that any contributions they have made should be suspect and reviewed for validity. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Bongomatic, why "of course, at AfD, not at Speedy"? Is this simply a case of you being philosophically opposed to WP:CSD#G5? Wknight94 ^talk 05:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

"Of course" because I obviously believe (hence filing a DRV) that the speedy deletion of these articles is out of policy regardless of whether there should be a G5 in the first place. ^Bongo_matic 05:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, how would the sex of the banned editor be relevant to anything? ^Bongo_matic 05:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Then when would you consider a G5 deletion to be valid and within policy? The user was definitely banned and G5 is very clear. As to the user's gender, it was brought up as a pattern of obvious deception, that's all. Wknight94 ^talk 06:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If no other editor removed the {{db-banned}} template from the article—per convention and normal operation of the speedy deletion process. ^Bongo_matic 07:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Those who are calling for deletion: what's your view on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of libertarian organizations? --NE2 13:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I had already deleted that one in fact - back when that sock was first uncovered. But Skomorokh (talk · contribs) agreed to take full responsibility for the content, and has done so. I have heard no such agreement here, except for the one yet-to-be-deleted article approved at WT:GA. Instead, what I see here is people blindly opposing WP:CSD#G5 itself and removing db-g5 tags with no explanation or agreement to check references. If that were to happen in this case, I might change my tune a bit, but I firmly believe that the default action in such cases is delete. Wknight94 ^talk 14:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This is sounding more and more like some editors are opposed to WP:CSD#G5. If that's the case, the discussion belongs at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion‎ and not here. Until there is a consensus to alter or remove G5, it is policy. Singularity42 (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the answer to the rhetorical question in the title is yes. At the very least, ItsLassieTime's (sock's) contributions are under greater scrutiny once the sock is exposed. It is how one interpets G5 that is the question. The real question is how much respect we should show Bongomatic, the editor in good standing who removed the G5's. As the banned editor was not an (article) hoaxster, there is not much doubt that the individual articles are not complete hoaxes. I think that the act of removing the G5s should be taken as sufficient vouching for the content, as taking enough responsibility for the articles that they should not be speedy deleted. That is the norm of how we understand reverting reversions of content additions by banned editors. Asking that someone immediately and completely verify everything in a large collection of articles is asking too much. Implicitly saying that the articles are as good as the average new non-speediable content is enough. This could be made more explicit in policy. People who are still suspicious could prod them, and if necessary afd them, which would lead to less drama.John Z (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I totally disagree that simply removing csd tags is sufficient vouching for the content. It could just as easily mean that someone is philosophically opposed to G5. In the other case that NE2 brought up, Skomorokh (not an admin at the time) asked me if s/he could take a look at that article and a few others so that s/he could take a closer look. I agreed and restored. S/he said articles A and B could be re-deleted and that C and D were okay and s/he wanted to take responsibility for them. So that is what happened. In the current case, other than the single article in this case, I haven't heard anyone vouch for any of this sock's contributions - and it's been four days or so. And I stopped deleting them when someone notified me that there had been discussion, so several are still in main space for viewing. The short version of my rambling here is that someone needs to really make a case for keeping such articles, and really agree to watch and maintain them since the banned user is (theoretically) unable to. Just removing a csd tag and forgetting about them is not enough. Wknight94 ^talk 18:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, if someone is philosophically opposed to G5 and goes around removing all speedy tags of a certain type, without regard to content, his actions will surely be seen and stopped. I don't think it is reasonable or fair to Bongomatic to assume he is such a person. There has been consensus for a very long time that reverting a banned editor's contributions is something that may be done, but is not something that must be done, and making G5 into a must-do is clearly beyond policy and consensus. Once an article is created, we do not insist that anyone watch and maintain it. I think that if we agree that removing correct speedy tags should not be done lightly - and I don't think anyone goes around reverting G5's on sight - what is the real problem? Would something in the G5 criterion warning removers and saying that removers vouch to some degree for the articles satisfy your concerns?

A list of the deleted and not-deleted articles is at User_talk:MuZemike#Check-list. I suggest people take a look at the blue links. They aren't at all the kind of crap that makes up almost all of CsD, and while checking everything could take time, checking enough to make a stub that would pass A7 with a few clicks to google books is easy for the ones I looked at. The articles make their own case. Deletion is a last resort. Stubbing and transferring the current content to the talk page is one alternative, prodding if there is genuine doubt of notability is another.John Z (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

removing a G5 speedy tag or any other speedy tag does not imply that you vouch for the article involved--it means you want to keep it there long enough for people to actually think about it. There is no deadline on getting a G5 deleted. What is unjustified is replacing it and deleting the article anyway. It implies that you are quite sure you can think for the community --for an admin to do that that after someone actually has disagreed is very close to wheel warring. In a more general way, if the policy is being used to justify that its time to change the wording of policy to avoid such an interpretation. It's clear from this discussion it such an interpretation does not necessarily have full consent. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

ARBCOM has been notified, and the ball is in their court. There is nothing further to be gained by continuing this discussion here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I thought I would ignore him, but he sent me *one* email (throught his "Poetlister-account") too many. Please check User:Grim23. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC) Context, please? Protonk (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC) Eh, context on the whole poetlister-saga? (or just this last minor event?) Huldra (talk) enough to make heads or tails of what you want, what the problem is, and who the DP are. Protonk (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC) This is a mistake. Please talk to me. What can I do to clear my name? Grim23★ 18:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC) Wouldn't a better way to go about this be to forward the email to ArbCom? Random admins really can't do anything about this, true or not. If it all hinges on email, I don't think WP:SSI is right either. ArbCom is chock full of Checkusers who will know how to follow up. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC) The problem w/ that is that Arbcom isn't supposed to (at least insofar as I know) undertake a role like that. I still don't fully know what's going on here, but I can surmise that Huldra thinks User:Grim23 sent him an email as User:Poetlister. If that is the case, then wouldn't SPI be the place to go? Protonk (talk) 18:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC) So User:Poetlister sent User:Huldra an email. Why did User:Huldra accuse[1] me? Grim23★ 18:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict) Well, NYB kinda puts this to bed, but it strikes me as well outside their mandate to serve as the court of last resort. Protonk (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict)Protonk: I´ve just sent you an email. Huldra (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC) I read it. Sounds exactly like the kind of thing I want nothing to do with. Glad its kicked back to the AC, despite my reservations about scope. Protonk (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC) heh, I agree 110% with you! Huldra (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC) Please forward any evidence of Poetlister editing under any account name to the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC) Checkuser evidence will not show much, let's not forget how much wool they pulled before (after first being caught) yet the edit overlaps between accounts, especially on certain articles close to the person behind the account, are surely enough? Given what this individual has been up to, "beyond reasonable doubt" has to be replaced by "on the balance of probabilities", surely? GTD 18:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC) You are assuming I'm guilty. Please remember mud sticks. Grim23★ 19:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC) I propose that it would be much simpler, and much better for the encyclopedia, if we judge the Grim23 account on the basis of what the Grim23 account has done. Everyking (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC) I would still like to know why I'm being accused. Please assume I'm innocent until proven guilty (I would prefer to be called an "editor" rather than an "account"). I would like checkuser used and any other investigation that could even partially clear my name. (it seems as I may never fully clear my name)Grim23★ 19:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC) I've checked the contributions of Poetlister/Quillercouch and I can only find three "edit overlaps" Whetstone, London, Totteridge & New Southgate. These are all towns in the London Borough of Barnet. These and all the towns in the borough have been on my watchlist for a while. Grim23★ 20:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC) Did you check for overlaps with any of the Poetlister sockpuppets, such as Runcorn (talk · contribs)? Of course any overlap is likely just a shared interest, but some here may see it as further evidence that you are Poetlister, so it may be worthwhile checking each of the sockpuppets listed here. Regardless, ANI clearly isn't the place for such accusations. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC) I've found a few more but they are all to do with LB Barnet. There are too many edits for me to go through. Huldra, can you state exactly what you think is suspicious so I can defend myself? Where is the correct place to deal with this? Grim23★ 22:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC) From what I can gather it is simple. Stop posting in this thread. This has been referred to arbcom and barring some sort of other revelation, no one will have much cause to post here. In 24 hours the thread will automatically be archived. If I understand things correctly, Huldra thinks you==Poetlister because of some email you allegedly sent him. The email feature includes a fairly trivial way for checkusers to determine whether or not your account sent an email, so if you didn't send one, then I can't imagine anything happening to you. If you did send an email to him but not the email he thinks connects you to poetlister, then things become more complicated. I would just stop posting and let this fall off AN/I. Protonk (talk) 22:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

He published an op-ed in the Washington Times arguing that Obama doesn't have the same love for America in his blood because his mother was attracted to third world men (thats pretty much a direct quote, actually) and its attracting a lot of people rightly pissed off, but unfortunately resulting in quite a bit of unencyclopedic and unverified edits. --M^ask? 21:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotected. — Jake Wartenberg 21:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

WITHDRAWN
Please consider this complaint withdrawn; I want to back off a notch and take this to a discussion at User talk:Lambanog. Hopefully, we can resolve it there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Lambanog has, I feel, engaged in disruptive editing in the nascent Sovereignty of the Philippines article. I am a WP admin but, as I am involved in a Wikipedia:NPOV dispute with this editor, it would not be appropriate for me to institute a block. Re the signs of disruptive editing, in this edit, the user fact-bombed and tag-bombed the article, he has been tendentious in talk page discussions regarding the article, and does not engage in consensus building. This edit responded to the fact-bombing, a discussion of the tag-bombing can be seen here. The user's initial edit was about six weeks ago, and his talk page contains several warnings and notifications of problem edits. Because of his precocious edit history, including apparently clueful comments at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, I suspect that this user is a sockpuppet, and I will probably be requesting a sockpuppet investigation. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I urge you Wtmitchell to withdraw your complaint. As an admin you should know other admins would rather not be wasting their time on frivolous complaints. This action of yours will either reflect badly on you or me or both of us if only because it is unnecessary. That said if this does push through I will vigorously defend my actions and have every confidence that I will be vindicated. My apologies in advance to whoever is going to handle this case if it pushes through. — Lambanog (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the complaint has merit or I would not have filed it. I look at WP:DE#Signs of disruptive editing and WP:TE#Characteristics of problem editors, and see that your edit pattern in the article at issue fits bullet points there. Having looked at your edit history and noted meritorious edits to other articles, I don't understand your positions in our article talk page discussions, your reasons for refusing to explain your positions, nor your disruptive edits impeding progress toward improving the article. In the absence of explanation or discussion, I am mystified by your multiple taggings disputing the neutrality of material copiously supported by verifiable reliable sources which I have added to the article and by your expressed unwillingness to discuss the tags you have added.

You have asserted that I have "selectively cited portions of various sources to present one viewpoint disregarding other viewpoints", something I have not consciously done—I have looked for and been unable to find reliably-sourced material supporting an alternative view of the article topic, would add such material with due weight if I could find it, and have asked you without success to please add cite-supported material on relevant points which you might be aware of but I have missed. Instead of cooperation and consensus-building, I've been faced with fact-bombing and tag-bombing.

I don't relish going forward with this complaint but, faced with your disruptive editing in the article at issue which impedes improvement of the article, it is the alternative which I see open. If you will stop the disruption and either remove your tags or work with me in identifying and dealing with whatever specific concerns moved you to place the tags, I'll be happy to withdraw the complaint. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that WP:V is an entirely separate concept from WP:NPOV. Just because everything in an article is verifiable does not mean it will necessarily follow it will be neutral point of view. Both policies must be met. You say you have looked but cannot find any reasons. Hogwash, the reasons are there in front of everyone to see. One could use Westphalian principles just as effectively to argue on behalf of the First Malolos Republic. Certain facts in the article on the Philippine-American War and other related articles could be used to do the same. One could also extrapolate reasons pretty easily. For example does the United States accept international law as more binding than American law? Similarly what do you think the Philippine Supreme Court would say on the matter in regards to the Philippines? That you are blind to such arguments does not mean they are not there. Your entire approach to the subject can be criticized as having an intrinsic bias. The way you present it, the way you order it, the views you place emphasis on. For example why should international law have any relevance at all? You simply presume it does. Why should only contemporaneous views be the only legitimate ones? Again you presume and only cite text that conforms with your preferred point of view.

Also what's this about me impeding improvement of the article? You asked for comment and you have received it from me. You asked at Tambayan Philippines and hardly anyone else has responded. I can rightfully say that aside from yourself no one else has contributed to the article even if it may not be in the way you have wanted. I am not obliged to write the article for you. If you don't like my input ask someone else willing for theirs. I am not stopping you.

As for supposedly disruptive editing, aside from two short lines I introduced from the first time I saw the article to highlight the logical fallacies of text that you use, I have not even altered your original text much less deleted anything you have written in the article. My "disruptive editing" then would seem to consist almost entirely of the tags I introduced. I think I have been pretty descriptive in the talk section in stating my concerns. I note that you have made modifications to better conform to those comments, so even you conceded I have comments of merit. I note further that two others have commented that I have seen and the result has been silence from one and comments sharing my concerns from the other. Consensus therefore would seem to be on my side. If you think that is sockpuppetry at work then I will inform you now: prepare to be disappointed. As for being "precocious", maybe I'm just a quick study or more observant than you're used to. I've been reading a lot of the help and policy pages because of my bumpy initial reception. One of the things I notice for example is that you should probably read the top of this ANI page. Withdraw this complaint. Lambanog (talk) 13:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I've asked that complaint be considered withdrawn in favor of continuing this discussion on your talk page. Hopefully we can resolve this there. I'll add a section there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Massive backlog again! Are there any other NPPs out there right now? I swear, it feels like ever since the beginning of November Special:Newpages has really gone downhill... too many articles... etc. Blah.

Anyway, could a TON of people come help with this? It feels like every time I tag an article, three more pop up!—Preceding unsigned comment added by A little insignificant (talk • contribs) 21:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:NEWT has something to do with that? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Even if articles were still being created as part of NEWT, they were a tiny percentage of NPP. But they aren't even creating articles anymore... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, the backlog is three days better than normal. We have three days of buffer time (time before the articles unpatrolled disappear from the logs), better than the usual couple of hours. You can probably thank DragonflySixtyseven for that; he does a great deal of work at NewPages and is quite underappreciated. NW (Talk) 22:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

As are most of the people on these pages. :) I'll go and leave him a barnstar. A little insignificant ^{Giving thanks to all that is me} 23:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That's meaningless unless we know how the rate of new articles has been during the same time period.--Crossmr (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Newpages is chronically backlogged. I've rarely seen it get below 25 days, and virtually never seen it get below 20. I'd go on and kill off a few days like I did a few months ago, but the initial drive to patrol the back of the newpages log has long since worn off... The thing that should not be 23:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

And who do you think's going to restart it? Allons-nous. That's the purpose of the Wikipedia community, right? That we all contribute collectively. It's as if we're all carrying a huge book that is the encyclopedia: we can't slack off and let everyone else carry the weight for us. We have to do as much as we can. That's how Wikipedia got where it is today, and how it's going to get to where it will be tomorrow. A little insignificant ^{Giving thanks to all that is me} 00:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I am reporting SkagitRiverQueen (talk · contribs) for her continued harassment, edit warring and wiki-hounding. I was astonished at Skagitriverqueen's interest in my small town's politicians, two states away from her own. Why? "following another user around" from "Wiki-hounding" comes to mind. " Other than "following me around" there is no earthly reason for her to have happened upon these articles. This is a violation of wiki policy and done for the simple reason of hounding me and disrupting my enjoyment of editing for no overriding reason.. She has made 16 edits in the last 24 hours (edit warring). I am distressed that she has continued harassing me since she is prevented from doing so on Karel's article. Amicable discussion with this user is impossible and i will not attempt to do so again. Please intervene, I am as tired of this as the many users & admins who have tried to intervene.

Thank you. JoyDiamond (talk) 21:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Skag has also exacerbated her harassment by editing on my Mayor's article: Margaret Clark JoyDiamond (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I have made SkagitRiverQueen aware of this discussion. GiantSnowman 11:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, SkagitRiverQueen has edited a total of 2 articles that you've edited, from what I can tell. That hardly constitutes hounding. Secondly, I don't see many reverts (if any) from them on John Tran, so it doesn't seem like there has been much edit-warring going on (unless you have diffs showing otherwise). There may be wikiquettte issues with that editor, maybe not, though the bad faith between you two seems to go both ways. I don't really see substance to your accusations to be honest. -- Atama頭 23:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Atama, I have only edited three articles so far and she has edited my edits on all three. You want to see *substance* of "edit-warring," check out the "Charles Karel Bouley" article for the last year. I was not even aware of the term " hounding" until another editor pointed out to skagitriverquenn that she was hounding me. She has made further unsubstantiated edits based on assumptions in the John Tran article today. Furthermore, " following another user around" is a violation of wiki- hounding. Why else would she be editing an obscure small town article about Rosemead, in Southern California, when she lives in Washington. How could she have found said obscure article *except* by following me? *I* would have never found the Rosemead articles if I had not been requested to do so and I live here! Lastly, she has violated every rule of wikiquette in her egregious insults to my person to the extent that I requested the "Karel" article to be blocked. I attempted to make peace in "good faith" She rejected that overture. I am truly trying to edit in "Good Faith." I sincerely thank for your effort at impartiality. I wish you the best. JoyDiamond (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Just following another editor to articles isn't hounding. I've done it myself, even WP:HOUND has a disclaimer that doing so can be beneficial, and that's even recommended in certain circumstances (spam and vandalism for example). But, following someone around specifically to hinder their editing isn't allowed. That's what is considered "hounding".

On one article, Margaret Clark, which you specifically have mentioned here the only edit that SkagitRiverQueen made was this one. That was a very positive edit, it fixed a couple of minor errors, added a wikilink, and requested sources (which is very important in a biography of a living person. They even explained the references tag on the talk page. If that was done on an article I was working on, I'd thank the editor, not complain to them.

Where Charles Karel Bouley is concerned, SkagitRiverQueen's first edit to that article was in July 2006, 2 years before you even created an account. I hardly think that you could accuse them of following you to that article. The edit wars in that article are troubling, but they involve more than just the two of you.

So your only credible claim of hounding is at John Tran. The dispute there is definitely not a good one, but it seems to be mostly a content dispute. What I'm wondering is, what would you like to happen? It wouldn't seem right for SkagitRiverQueen to be asked to leave that article, there seems to be a legitimate dispute there. The two of you are both in danger of violating, if you haven't already violated the three-revert rule (clearly a full edit war has escalated since my previous comment). Both of you are risking a block, so you need to settle things by talking rather than reverting each other. My advice is to stop accusing them of having bad intentions, ask them specifically what changes they want to make to the article and you can compromise on what to do. If you've already tried that, maybe I can give it a try (one Washington resident to another). -- Atama頭 20:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

In my personal opinion this may be retaliation against by Joy against Skag for Skag's complaints against Joy in the past, last I had seen there was supposed to be some mediation going on between the two after, per Skag's request, I reopened a Wikiquette complaint that had been prematurely closed. If the editor who had been involved with mediating could be asked to come here and state their opinion regarding the mediation it may be helpful learning from the that third party why things have disintergrated. I believe User:Equazcion and User:Dmcq were also involved in listening and working on the complaint long after I left it, perhaps they have some input to share as well.Camelbinky (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, IMO, this is just more of the same from JoyDiamond. From her first complaint against me on the Charles Karel Bouley article talk page to now, she has complained about anything I edit in Wikipedia. She looks for things to nail me on and this is just another in her long list of unfounded allegations against me. The latest wild accusation is that I caused an edit she made to the John Tran article talk page to somehow disappear because of a conflicting edit. Problem is, I hadn't edited anything on the talk page for nearly an hour before she claims I caused her edit to disappear. Whatever.

I've decided to take the high-road with her and basically ignore her crazy behavior. I will continue to edit the Tran article, but with taking great care that I don't do anything that could take on even the slightest appearance of an edit war or bad faith. Honestly, I think she has it in for me and no matter what I edit, where I edit, she will find something wrong with all of it. IMO, she wants to see me gone from Wikipedia and is working to make that happen with her wild allegations and accusations. JoyDiamond clearly does not understand that the articles she has edited are not *hers* (just look at how many times she refers to them as "my article") and that if she doesn't want what she edits to be changed or corrected then she shouldn't write it. She has previously asked that I be blocked permanently from editing the Bouley article. She's even told at least one other editor to not edit the Bouley article at all. From her own statements and actions in Wikipedia, she is not a team player.

I'm not interested in her dramatics and just want to edit in peace. Clearly, even when I have bent over backwards to try and reach out to her on the Tran talk page, she is not interested in anything other than arguing in oppositional defiance.

--SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The user SkagitRiverQueen does seem to hound people on here, per my posting on WQA. Although I have no first hand knowledge between her and JoyDiamond, she will place agitating posts if you differ from her POV, and when you then confront her on it, or defend yourself, she will immediately label your response as vandalism. Then, she goes and constantly whines to Admin. I will be the first to admit I have placed some not-so well thought thru edits, but I have never gone out of my way to harass people like she has Regisfugit (talk) 02:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Skag's comments stated "IMO" are hyperbole and generally fictional. Not so incidentally, her egregious statements are libelous. JoyDiamond (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Atami, as you said, "following someone around specifically to hinder their editing isn't allowed. That's what is considered "hounding". FYI, I never said she followed me to the Charles Karel Bouley article. I Immediately stopped editing the Margaret Clark article when she followed me there, to avoid the morass that would inevitably follow, as blatantly explicated in the John Tran article. She followed me to the Tran and Clark articles to specifically hinder my editing and any enjoyment thereof. As you stated, that is "not allowed" (regardless of the quality of her edits). Quality? Yesterday she edited the Tran article with a completely inaccurate and ill-informed account of his election which I had to undo. I have several Rosemead-related articles to edit and cannot do so while being "hounded." Again, I am respectfully submitting this report RE: Skagitriverqueen for "wiki-hounding," formerly, stalking." Action is required and expected. Thank you. JoyDiamond (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Action cannot be "expected", it can only come upon investigation. Dozens of admins read this board every day. Many recall the original discussion here by SkagitRiverQueen. I have tried to assist between the two of you as well. The commentary provided by admins above has tried to advise you of policy and the results of the investigations by a handful of admins. From my reading, there is nothing actionnable. You have not been stalked or hounded. Your use of the word "libelous" hints of a violation of WP:NLT so beware. Stop fighting each other: use WP:CONSENSUS, and also, realize your WP:COI on some topics. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The original discussion here by Skag is as fallacious as her many other accusations towards me. At the time, I was not aware of nor was I notified of said discussion. If investigation is required than please do so. Bwilkins, I respect your work here on Wiki but you can not possibly independently decide that I have not been stalked or hounded. Another highly respected editor disagrees: "Is there any particular reason you're WP:HOUNDING Joy, rather than putting forth an effort to stop the endless bickering? -FeralDruid (talk) 04:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)" I was not even aware of the term "hounding" until so informed. repeat: " following another user around" is a violation of wiki- hounding. Why else would she be editing an obscure small town article about Rosemead, in Southern California. Most people have never even *heard* of Rosemead! How could she have found said obscure article *except* by following me? *I* would have never found the Rosemead articles if I had not been requested to do so and I live here! Please give me one earthly reason why she would be editing this obscure little article if not for reasons of "Hounding." Again, she followed me to the Tran and Clark articles to specifically hinder my editing and any enjoyment thereof, a violation of wiki policy. There is no stated number of articles in respect to hounding. One is too many. I respectfully ask that if anyone can give me *any* other reason & consensus for Skag to follow me to the two articles in dispute, please do so. I feel like I am "tilting with windmills." As a relative "newbie" IMHO, she is trying to drive me away, another violation of Wiki policy. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely JoyDiamond (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

<sigh> What Joy Diamond is leaving out re: her addition above (Another highly respected editor disagrees: "Is there any particular reason you're WP:HOUNDING Joy, rather than putting forth an effort to stop the endless bickering? -FeralDruid (talk) 04:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)" I was not even aware of the term "hounding" until so informed) that feralDruid was referencing another issue at another date and time that is not even remotely related to this situation. FeralDruid was referring to me keeping on my talk page Joy's negative comments and complaints Joy had made about me on other talk pages and with another editor (who has been banned once - if not more than once), Regisfugit. I was keeping those comments on my talk page, AFAIR never reposted them anywhere *other* than my talk page, and kept them just in case something like this entire situation would crop up again. Keeping the comments had nothing to do with her or disrupting her ability to edit and/or her enjoyment in doing so, it had everything to do with me and the possibility of needing the comments in the future in order to defend myself against any future allegations she would make against me. Aparently, my gut feeling about needing them in the future was spot on. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

As a heads-up...User:JoyDiamond is now violating Wikipedia:3RR at article John Tran. I have tried to explain to her in the edit summary as well as on the talk page that what I placed in the article's infobox is relevant and why. The pre-set Mayor Infobox has a line for "succeeded by" and "preceded by", and all I did was fill in the blanks. She reverted what I reverted back (after I explained to her why I was reverting it back) with the comment, "Having researched extensively this info is still irrelevant for small town Mayors". How is relevant information irrelevant when the relevant information is *asked* for? I will not revert the info back until someone makes a decision one way or the other regarding this - I don't want to violate 3RR myself. That being said, I would like it noted that I am not bringing this here to "tattle" on Joy, but to make the admins already involved in this issue aware that she has violated that which she was already warned about (in this thread). Thanks. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There she goes, whining again. Stop harassing people over this pettiness. Grow up! You sound like the tattletail kid in third grade that goes out of their way to get others in unneeded trouble Regisfugit (talk) 05:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Regisfugit, the above violation of WP:NPA is about as helpful as most of your "assists" in this long-running battle. It has been clear throughout that both parties need to leave each other alone. You seem to enjoy popping up places to stir the merde, sometimes after resolution has been made. If you want to pick sides, how about picking the "why can't we all just get along" side. I think it was last week that I posted some recommended actions by ALL parties on JoyDiamond's talkpage. Live by those. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Has a guideline been developed for this already? And do we seriously need to create one on how to be tactful to admins or fellow established contributors?

An anon (who gives all appearances of being a sock) reports an admin for reverting his banned editing and semi-pping Telegu. Some users respond to it and accordingly unprotect, but instead of leaving it there, went to file an RfC/U over it because it was an admin dragged through the mud in RfC and ArbCom previously. When they were given every chance to drop it, they didn't, and they went ahead with it recklessly. Meanwhile, the admin is on wikibreak in frustration and other than those who've responded already, the community is idly sitting on its hands. Can you clarify my questions above? Can something please be done? What incentive is there for Dbachmann (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to return? Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Did the anon give the appearance of being a sock when it all started? Did anyone mention that possibility earlier? Would the two rfc/u filing editors have dropped it if they'd known (did they know?) about the sock stuff? 82.33.48.96 (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Biting admins is covered in WP:NOTNAS Toddst1 (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

But what about admins biting other admins? Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

To clarify: Dab noted on his talk page shortly after posting the wikibreak notice that it was due to RL issues. Also, he's accepted (by email) my apology for (part-)causing the drama, which it seems now was largely due to a misunderstanding. I appreciate Ncmvocalist was concerned about Dab leaving, but he might still want to reflect on whether those concerns manifested in the most helpful way, here and on the RFC talk page. The RFC was a good-faith attempt to deal with an apparent problem. Rd232 ^talk 08:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think a community consensus spoke for itself against the way you handled this Rd232, and the fact you repeatedly engage in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT for how responsible you were in escalating this is the only apparent remaining problem. Ideally this posting would've led to someone more uninvolved closing it but that's not needed now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Been jumping through the hoops and am not sure where this fits, but can someone step in as regards the repeated attempt by an editor posting and re-posting the same poorly written POV "rant", under the names "Rences wiki," "Luca Marco" and "Comprehensible view" on the Christianity and slavery and The Bible and slavery pages? Evidently the editor is ignorant of the extensive debate as regards the wording of this complex and contentious issue, and the efforts at balance, as seen in their talk pages. Reversions by myself and others have resulted in him/her re-posting under a new name, and now just an IP, even since i posted an appeal and warning on each of the talk pages of the names (i presume are all) used by this same editor. Thanks and may God bless.Daniel1212 (talk) 04:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If you suspect sock puppeting, you'd want to put this at the sock puppet investigation page. It sounds like that's the main issue here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Glaxovont (also edited from IP 74.182.225.248) posted a personal threat to my talk page [5] after I posted a vandalism notice to his IP talk page [6]. This was prompted by two vandalizing edits made to an article [7] and [8] under his IP. After making the threat the user vandalized by user page [9]. Requesting immediate ban. Dragoneer (talk) 01:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have indef-blocked this user for harassment and threats. Crum375 (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Dragoneer (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That was a pretty vague threat. I mean, it was nowhere near as bad as this, for example.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Violation of WP:BURDEN at a WP:BLP article.

• Nick Xenophon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sequence of events

1. I remove unsourced info from a BLP
2. I moved it to the talk page
3. Timeshift9 (talk · contribs) reverts, adding the unsourced info back to the BLP
4. I warn him, citing BLP and BURDEN, not to add unsourced info to BLPs
5. I revert him, removing the unsourced info from the BLP
6. Nuclearwarfare (talk · contribs) blocks Timeshift9 for one week
7. NuclearWarfare removes the unsourced info from the BLP
8. Orderinchaos (talk · contribs) unblocks Timeshift 9
9. Orderinchaos reverts NuclearWarfare (who had removed the unsourced info again), and adds the unsourced info back to the article BLP

---

• Timeshift9 (talk · contribs) should be reblocked for violation of WP:BLP and WP:BURDEN.
• Orderinchaos (talk · contribs) should probably be desysopped for the undoing of another admin's action with no prior discussion, specifically relating to BLP issues, violation of WP:BLP, and adding the unsourced info back into a WP:BLP article, in full knowledge that it is unsourced. Cirt (talk) 04:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Certainly agree with Cirt on most of the points, but I'm not sure if it warrants a desysop, but I can't see why Orderinchaos did this without discussion... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare's block of Timeshift9

As I have acted in this matter I would like the community to review those of the blocking admin and myself as unblocker.

At 00:56 UTC, Cirt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added a new image to the article Nick Xenophon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). In doing so, he removed a second image further down in the article. Timeshift9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reinstated the image at 01:23 UTC, while leaving the new image intact. Cirt then made two uncontroversial edits, but at 01:31 removed two blocks of text with the diff "mv unsourced content to talkpg". As none of it was controversial, a better way to deal with it would have been to tag it and notify a project. Timeshift9 clearly held the same view, and at 03:09 UTC reverted with the edit summary "that's what ^{[citation needed]} is for". Cirt reverted, and at 03:32 posted to Timeshift's talk page: [10] " You have violated WP:BURDEN at a WP:BLP article, by your recent actions at the article Nick Xenophon. Do not do this again." Timeshift9 re-reverted at 03:44. During this time there was also a short interchange on the article's talk page.

At 03:46, admin NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) re-reverted without giving a reason, and in the same minute, blocked him for one week with rationale "Violations of the Biographies of living persons policy". At 03:51, Cirt posted to the talk page, "Standards are higher for BLPs. You know that."

The block was completely, utterly unjustified and I am of the view that NuclearWarfare should receive a clear message from the community that it is unacceptable. I have supported previous blocks on Timeshift9 over unrelated matters, but on this case, I am firmly supportive of him, as is User:Rebecca, a former arbitrator. Orderinchaos 04:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Orderinchaos unblocked a user blocked for WP:BLP violation with no discussion, and then proceeded to add back in wholly unsourced material into a WP:BLP article. This is action completely inappropriate for an admin on this site. Cirt (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It would have been far more appropriate to take this here before unilaterally reverting a fellow sysop's actions and re-instating potential BLP violations. Agree with Cirt that your handling of this situation has been in very poor form. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Totally concur, we can't allow BLPs to be treated like this. What was Orderinchaos thinking he was doing, by adding the information back? If not de-sysopped Orderinchaos needs to take a break. NuclearWarfare acted per policy, and I see nothing wrong with his actions. I would have done the same. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you actually read the diff? Orderinchaos 04:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have and it makes your revert even more totally inappropriate, that is not what the fact tag is for. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Julian. I also feel it is very wrong for an admin to undo another admin's decision without prior discussion of the revert first. ArcAngel (talk) 04:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we can nip this in the bud. If the diff in question contains uncontroversial well-known material, surely it can be referenced quickly. I am not informed enough of Australian politics, but are there references to support this [11]? -- Samir 04:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Like I said in the intro, I'm happy for the community to decide what is acceptable here. That is why I brought it to AN/I (I was beaten to the punch, but a review of both my notices at NW's and TS9's talk pages will show I did not regard my own word as final and intended to fully justify my action here.) However, I think that the manifestly excessive nature of the block, the lack of warnings prior to the block, and the lack of any sense of a "preventative not punitive" approach should also be considered. Orderinchaos 04:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

@Samir The information was removed again by another admin, Closedmouth (talk · contribs), referencing it properly can be discussed at the article's talk page. The issue in question is now violations of site policy by two users, one of whom is an admin on this site. Cirt (talk) 04:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

@Orderinchaos: I'm fairly certain that you're aware that we discuss things prior to wheel warring, not after. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that, but I think the issue of whether or not the material is easily referenceable is entirely relevant to this discussion. If the diff is relevant, uncontroversial and easily referenceable, then I am of the opinion that Orderinchaos was right in re-introducing the material. The unblock should of course have been discussed with the blocking admin -- Samir 04:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

He's on the front news of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation right now talking about Scientology. How prescient/good timing of the ABC given Cirt's editing interests. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 04:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Having read the diff, I see only some negative unsourced content: "He is best known for his many media-friendly publicity stunts ..." But given that the content was both unsourced and removed from a BLP, adding it back without sources and/or talk page consensus was clearly inappropriate. Orderinchaos was wrong to unblock without discussion and incorrectly added back unsourced content to a BLP, without even participating in the talkpage. I think calls for desysoping are unwarranted though, unless this is or becomes a pattern. Trout at best and lets move on. Abecedare (talk) 04:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• There was a warning before the block: [12]. I don't see why we should humor people who ignore that sort of warning. At the very least, it would be reasonable to find out what the objection is before re-inserting material after a note such as that. A block is warranted if an editor responds to a note such as that by simply reverting the material again. "I didn't hear that" is not a reasonable response to notes about BLP violations. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is the quote:

"In 1984, he established and became principal of his own law firm, Xenophon & Co. which deals solely with personal injury claims. In this field he became successful, and between 1994 and 1997 he served as president of the South Australian branch of the Australian Plaintiff Lawyers' Association. After legislation was passed in 1992 by the Bannon Labor government that saw the introduction of poker machines into South Australia in 1994, the increased incidence of problem gambling came to Xenophon's attention in his legal practice.... During his time as a sitting member, Xenophon has been an activist for a range of issues aside the elimination of pokies, speaking out on consumer rights, essential services, the environment, taxation, and perks for politicians. Xenophon was also vocal in the Eugene McGee hit-run affair, becoming an advocate for the victim's wife, with public opinion eventually forcing the Kapunda Road Royal Commission that led to harsher laws for hit-run offences. He is best known for his many media-friendly publicity stunts that have gained him both deep respect and ardent criticism.

I can't understand why someone would invoke BLP over such utterly unobjectionable (and, incidentally, all true) material. The whole point of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is that you shouldn't expect to get blocked for a week for making good-faith common-sense improvements to an article, even you break the letter of some rule in doing so. IAR applies to BLP too. Timeshift's reverts might have broken the letter of IAR, but clearly the spirit of it was not broken here. The block was wrong. Hesperian 04:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If someone has just advised you, "don't do that again", reverting and claiming IAR seems to be a bad idea to me. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

IAR? BLP is a much, much more important rule to follow than IAR. IMO "improving the encyclopedia" is not as important as preventing libelous unsourced information, from being added to a BLP. The block was appropriate by all standards, especially affter being warned. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly right. "improving the encyclopedia" is indeed not as important as "preventing libelous unsourced information". But this information wasn't libelous. It was neutrally written, true, on-the-public-record material. It met the spirit of the BLP policy. It just didn't meet the letter. "Improving the encyclopia" wins then. IAR applies. Hesperian 05:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The entire content is sourced now anyway, so the point is moot. It took me just 10 minutes on Google - why didn't Cirt have a go? Orderinchaos 04:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No how about the other way around. Why didn't Timeshift add the sources if it was really that easy? Seems like you're blaming the wrong person for the right thing. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The content had sat there for years - in some cases from the very, very first revision of the article in 2006 - without contest. Timeshift9 did not write the article, and once a revert war commences it's very difficult to get anything moving at all. Cirt was right to challenge the sourcing of it, but wrong to label it a BLP issue and prosecute it in a hostile manner. When I challenge content in a BLP like this, I at least attempt to ensure it has no basis or is in serious doubt before removing it. Orderinchaos 04:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

And people wonder why excellent contributors leave wikipedia. Honestly. What an entire shambles this entire thing has been. I can't believe how quickly I was blocked. WP:BURDEN states that material should have a chance to remain with tags prior to it's removal. The remover's attitude from beginning to end has been completely and utterly hostile. Poor form all round. Timeshift (talk) 04:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Why did you ignore the warning from Cirt? That is the main issue that I see here. If sources were available, it would have been easy to scrupulously source everything instead of reverting. Especially after someone has pointed out the BLP policy applies. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The "warning", to me, looked to be in bad faith - it basically meant "do not disagree with me or else" on what was fundamentally a content dispute. Orderinchaos 04:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Was not a "content dispute". Was an enforcement of site policy regarding WP:BLPs. Cirt (talk) 04:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't mean one can simply ignore warnings. The standards for BLP articles are biased in favor of removing unsourced material, and if Timeshift9 could not take the itme to figure this out, a block was warranted. What does someone expect to happen if they ignore a note "don't do that again"? — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Not sure if I agree that the material was controversial, as I'm not the least bit up on Australian politics--but regardless, I think the block shouldn't have been for longer than 24 hours at most. This is the user's first BLP block, and though I can see where a block would be preventative (Timeshift9 was adding the info back and there was cause to think he might re-add it again), a week's block is clearly not preventing anything more than a day's would. Honestly though, this is just a fishslapper: Trout NW for the over-long block, OIC for unblocking without talking to the blocking admin, and possibly add a second troutslap for restoring material without joining the discussion about whether said material was appropriate. After that, I'm with Abecedare: trout applied, now let's move on. GJC 04:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll wear that. Orderinchaos 04:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'll take that. I'm not too happy about my block being reversed without consultation, but I do agree that this original block was a bit excessive. However, I stand behind the actual block even now; the edit was a re-addition of a BLP violation after a warning. But I'm happy to let the matter die here. Next time something like this happens though, please feel free to approach me on my talk page and discuss; I am always willing to listen to reasonable arguments. I promise I won't bite. NW (Talk) 05:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• At some point we will learn the error inherent in patrolling talk pages as though they were articles. I'm pretty floored that we have edit warred, blocked and wheel warred over a quote on a talk page which is borderline or only partially problematic. Protonk (talk) 05:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Nvm. not all of the fuss was over the talk page. Protonk (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Orderinchaos. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with the substance of this complaint. It appears to me that Orderinchaos acted disruptively in reinserting controversial unsourced material into a BLP (any material that is contested in good faith between editors must be deemed controversial), and that he abused his administrator tools by (a) unblocking a user blocked for the same disruption, thereby using administrator tools to win a content dispute and (b) unblocking said user without getting consent by the blocking admin or the community, thereby violating the blocking policy. I encourage the Arbitration Committee or the community to consider appropriate sanctions, and consider this to be another example of why we need to have an effective community-based process to hold administrators accountable for their actions. A reblock of Timeshift is not needed unless he repeats the BLP violation.  Sandstein  06:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: RFC now resolved, per [13]. Please consider this thread resolved as well. Cirt (talk) 06:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad this has been resolved to everyone's satisfaction, but I think an important principle has been swept under the carpet. I think that all this trouble was caused because Timeshift9 was attempting to defend uncontroversial material which had stood in this BLP for a long time. I don't think that any WP policies actually distinguish between new material, which you would expect to be fluid, and long-standing material, which I would hope would not be removed without some kind of discussion. Maybe they should. cojoco (talk) 10:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The edit-notice seen when editing the article, as with all WP:BLPs, expressly states otherwise, in emphasized bolded text ([14], [15]). But I agree that this thread was marked as resolved, and we should leave it at that. Cirt (talk) 10:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Aedwardmoch has repeatedly created apparent autobios. There is a claim to involvement in the remote viewing Stargate Project, but this hasn't been supported by reliable sources. They added info to that article, were reverted by another editor, added it again,[16], and I reverted. I warned them about this on their talk page and they responded thus: "I ask "Wiki" to cease and decest under the scope of posting courtesy... if refused again, to post... will be forced to present such information and documents to legal council, pending possible action."[17] This looks like a legal threat to me. Fences&Windows 03:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I re-warned him and also posted to WP:AIV. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely by Fastily. TNXMan 03:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been emailed twice by User:Aedwardmoch. Would appreciate some help/advice here.-FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

<redacted>

<redacted>

We're really not supposed to post emails onsite, as the author didn't license them under the GFDL CC-BY-SA (Wikipedia's default license). As to the NLT issue, I can't make any sense about what he's saying. He seems to be withdrawing his threats at the same time he's offering to settle the dispute, which is equivocating as far as I'm concerned. I'd say everything here looks good and whether he gets unblocked depends on whether he continues nonsensically equivocating.--chaser (talk) 07:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

He hasn't withdrawn the legal threats, he's just wording them differently and using legalese to try and bully people into letting him write an autobiography and write himself into other articles in a direct COI. I pointed him toward Mike Godwins userpage where the latter has posted his phone number and email. If the editor has legal concerns he can take them up with the lawyers. Otherwise, I don't see any reason to go on wasting time. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

"I profess to be no lawyer, but I do have connections to the media. I had an ancestor-cousin named James Alexander, who represented a person named John Peter Zenger over a famous publishing issue." Is this guy for real? I have an ancestor who provided one of the Younger brothers a place to hide while on the lam. Can I mention that fact the next time I get into a dispute over a crime-related article? -- llywrch (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I've issued a final warning to the user and will remove his talk-page access if he continues. TNXMan 20:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

He did, so I did. TNXMan 20:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

82.36.17.10 has been repeatedly editing talk pages / deletion discussions etc then changing their signature to User:Hassaan19. That seems odd (it's surely easier to just log in) but I see no evidence 82.36.17.10 is not Hassaan19: the articles being edited are the same, 82.36.17.10 is being up-front about this, and Hassaan19 would surely have complained by now if it were not (s)he (especially as one of the edits was to Hassaan19's user page). I see no evidence Hassaan19 is blocked, so this would not be block evasion.

However, on one occasion, 82.36.17.10 instead claimed to be Woohookitty, an admin who has confirmed (s)he is uninvolved, and did this to !vote twice on an AfD (and, to add to the complication, they created the article itself and raised the AfD to settle whether the article should be a redir or not).

Clearly the occasion they claimed to be Woohookitty is a problem. The aparrently legitimate occasions when they claim to be Hassaan19 may be worth checking further because it is odd, especially in light of the Woohookitty incident. Could someone pursue this? And sort out the AfD as it has multiple !votes by the same user?

Many thanks! I42 (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified all three editors about this discussion. GiantSnowman 18:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I find it interesting that in the Woohookitty situation, they voted "keep" on Hassaan19's AFD. Meebe an IP address changed? It happens. But this is just speculation, it really depends on Woohookitty's answer. A little insignificant ^{Giving thanks to all that is me} 18:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That bit is easily explained. The AfD was raised to "settle" the matter about whether the article in question should be switched to a redir. From the nomination text you'll see that the nominator favoured keep. The IP in question is for a UK ISP and Woohookitty is in the US; they have confirmed it was not they (a) on the AfD itself (the latest version of the AfD shows text by Woohookitty that they actually placed), and (b) on my talk page. I42 (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if my name was picked from a hat. :) I don't know anything about the article my name was placed on. But no, it definitely wasn't actually me. I'm more perplexed than upset about it. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 22:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned about the recent edits of a fairly new (under 500 edits) user on the Wikipedia, User:Senor Cuete. This user has not been following WP:AGF and WP:NPA in recent edits. In this edit, he calls someone a "moron" in the edit summary (instead of correctly summarizing it as "RVT vandalism" or what not); in this edit he says "Füls is a fool". In addition, he was rather abrasive to me in this edit, stating "you are wrong" in impolite terms. Could an admin educate this user that politeness and courtesy is required as per Wikipedia policy. Thank you for looking at this. Samboy (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The one German-lifted edit summary was sour, yes. He's not particularly a new user by date and should know better I'd think... from edit count it appears that this is an area of expertise, which is at least motive for taking possible vandalism more seriously. Not an justification, but a reason at least. The 2 IP don't appear related (per Geolocate)... and without any reports then, we don't have much to go on. "Samboy: you are wrong" isn't that terribly impolite in terms ... can we hope he was referring to your earlier article edit and just gave and explained why he thought you were wrong? Best I can guess with much accuracy, at least. No prior history in ANI (according to the search at the top here, so I'm think this was just a bit of frustration. An admin will need to give some input, but without those IPs reporting those weaaker matters I'm not sure if there's all that much to do. I don't see any serious history of disruptive or harmful edits to other users which (ironically) means he should take your warning in good faith, and I that was fine of you to leaving that (politeness is never bad). Bonus points for it being custom and not a script and/or template and good to give a link over here for him to read.

Now see, I am new. You two? Not so much. This is where I step aside and have an admin make a statement. Hopefully this should die off quickly, but even if this were happily ever after already I still couldn't close this discussion on my own as a non-admin :p I think this situation will be fine, though. Best of luck!~ ♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

75.47.221.124 (talk · contribs) is posting their own website [18](admitted on my talk page it's his) at Ur, Abraham and Gutian dynasty of Sumer - at my talk page he threatens to continue from public libraries, etc." I wish you Liberal Christaphobic megalomaniacs at Wakopedia would be honest & just admit that you delete anything that doesn't fit your preconceived misconceptions. I bet if my timelines proved that the Bible was 100% wrong, you wouldn't have called it spam. well have fun on Mt. Olympus with the rest of your egocentric liberal narcissistic Wakopedia dictators. As for me I will continue to post up Informational links to REAL BIBLICALLY CORRECT EDUCATIONAL HELPS even from Public Libraries if need be so ban away." The actual links don't all work - the link I've provided is the home page. Dougweller (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for linkspamming and general unpleasantness. TNXMan 20:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is my primary objection to labelling the insertion of links to unsuitable sites as "spam", unless it is done many, many times: the other side is allowed to ignore the real reason for reversing the edit. But I doubt this fellow would have cared what you called it, so TNXman's block was appropriate. -- llywrch (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I am saddened that there does indeed appear to be a Wakopedia, and moreso in respect of the content... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks all. Dougweller (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Took this to WP:WQA and got this response from Looie496. "Go to ANI, an immediate block is warranted here." So here I am. Below is what i wrote over there.

I've been engaged in something of a minor content dispute with this user. Details here [19], a little more of it in this soon to be rejected arbitration request here [20]. User has been escalating attacks on his talk page (full discussion here [21]). After he earlier today refered to me as "fetid" "vain," a "peon" and a "little friend who started getting his hands dirty [22] I asked him to strike the comments and desist or else I'd bring the matter here [23]. He responded "Sorry can't do that 'coz I'm still too numbed by your shameful, disgusting and shocking language and behaviour."[24]. I'd like him to desist. If you look at the longer thread on his talk page and the arb page both linked above, you'll see him describing my edits as "vandalism" me as "talking faeces" and suffering from either "plain ignorance or green eyed envy." I'd just like him to be told to stop with the continuous ad hominems, and have the next step explained to him by others if he doesn't (the civility policy has been pointed out to him on a number of occasions already).Bali ultimate (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Indef blocked as a Tancarville (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sock. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Could some admin kindly blank this discussion from the talk page, as now 4 editors find it disparages the topic of the person. Nine days ago admin James086 stated he would blank the section if no further comment is made [25], and nothing more has been added since. I asked James086 a week ago to follow through, but it seems he has intermittent bouts of activity, so I request if some other admin could nip any potential escalation in the bud and blank the section. Thanks. --Martintg (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Noting that the individual referred to has died, what is so pressing about this discussion that it requires blanking? It seems to me like a legitimate discussion on an article talkpage. Crafty (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

So... because they're dead, we're free to spread vile slander and libel about them? Interesting logic you got there...--66.177.73.86 (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

@Craftyminion, she only recently died, any living relatives, friends and associates of this person reading Wikipedia may find the discussion disturbing. Common decency and respect I guess. --Martintg (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Which four editors, Martintg? Aren't they the participants of the WP:EEML mailing list?--Dojarca (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Termer's already asked an administrator about this in an attempt to censor a valid, content-related question. This is the reply he got: [26]. This case strangely looks like a bloc action from EEML + Termer (often discussed as an ally of this aforementioned mailing list). For context, a petty useful diff to take a look at. So much for asking a legitimate and earnest talk page question – one that I would still like an answer to. Best regards, Anti-Nationalist (talk) 01:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Just to note that in the Australian context, due to the structure of libel law, people have a tendency to wait until a person has died to speak about them frankly. Additionally, wikipedia is not censored, and the BLP reasons for caution elapse with death. Of course, any added content should be RSed. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Many US states have libel laws against statements that “blacken the memory of one who is dead", but this is not some legalistic or abstract discussion on the appropriateness of libeling the dead and I am not requesting blanking of the section on that basis. But I am requesting that this be blanked on the following reasons:

1. The article talk page is not a forum
2. The question was asked and answered
3. No further discussion has taken place in the last 7 days
4. A number of editors finds the way the question was framed unnecessarily denigrates the subject and should be removed out of respect and common decency.
5. This part of the question "I wonder why her son had no need to hide this sort of thing" could be construed as a BLP violation.
6. Anti-Nationalist by uncivilly opposing a reasonable request demonstrates he appears not interested in building a colliegiate editing environment
7. Anti-Nationalist has a long history of inserting tendentious BLP claims of Nazi sympathies into a number of articles contrary to what sources actually state, for example, this case being the latest in a long line.
8. The fact that I made a reasonable and civil request here on ANI and Dojarca and Anti-Nationalist chime in with ad hominem arguments against myself and others indicates they have taken a bad faithed approach to this.
9. In the interests of de-escalating this from developing into yet another pointless battleground.

--Martintg (talk) 03:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

1. 1. "The article talk page is not a forum" —The question asked at the talk page was relevant to the article and directly connected to the editor's task of editing it.
   2. "The question was asked and answered" —The question was never answered.
   3. "No further discussion has taken place in the last 7 days" —There was a comment just yesterday, but more importantly, the talk page question posed remains unresolved.
   4. "A number of editors finds the way the question was framed unnecessarily denigrates the subject and should be removed out of respect and common decency." —That number of editors was made up of EEML editors plus Termer, who was discussed by your friends as an ally of the abusive mailing list in the archives. The feedback consensus at pages such as this one appears to have taken a different view, as did administrator James086.
   5. "This part of the question "I wonder why her son had no need to hide this sort of thing" could be construed as a BLP violation." —I highly suspect, however, that that isn't the case, Martintg: the least you could have done, had that been the concern, was take it to the BLP board at some time in these intervening weeks, which you made no effort to do. Nor did you ever even ask me to remove the material about her son making this information public (which he did) specifically.
   6. "Anti-Nationalist by uncivilly opposing a reasonable request demonstrates he appears not interested in building a colliegiate editing environment" —I am very much interested in building a collegiate editing environment, but I am against being repeatedly attacked, directly or obliquely, and reverted by the same set of folks with such exacting consistency. "Nationalist" is a political stance and not a derogatory term (see your buddy Vecrumba's user page) – incidentally, you've referred to editors as nationalists, including myself, Martintg – such as in your attempt to remove information about antisemitism with your buddy Digwuren here (although perhaps you did it with the intent of smearing opposing editors), so I don't see what issue of incivility there is by your standards. Can't I not act hypocritically and agree with your old opinion that pointing matters out plainly is alright, even if you disagree when that pattern of reasoning is applied to your editing? Calling WP:DUCK on tendentious editing is not proscribed; nor was it done as anything but the ultimate resort, as amply testified by the well-documented evidence of months of your harrassment and the proposed ArbCom sanctions against you.
   7. "Anti-Nationalist has a long history of inserting tendentious BLP claims of Nazi sympathies into a number of articles contrary to what sources actually state, for example, this case being the latest in a long line." —The edit has a very good reference – by all means compare with cited source. You well know that I adjusted the wording right after some disagreement about interpreting the relevant line from that JTA article.
   8. "The fact that I made a reasonable and civil request here on ANI and Dojarca and Anti-Nationalist chime in with ad hominem arguments against myself and others indicates they have taken a bad faithed approach to this." —The fact that you came here for this request after already badgering me and an admin and having it denied by both attests to your WP:FORUMSHOPPING, if seen from where I'm standing.
   9. "In the interests of de-escalating this from developing into yet another pointless battleground." —Then why the deliberate spillover of the battleground, and why the continuing circus of the WP:FORUMSHOPPING, and why the mischaracterization of problems and all just mentioned above? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Lets keep it simple, editing wikipedia is suppose to be based on WP:RS, not on questions asked at talk pages. In case there would be any reasons to believe that the subject may have been a nazi-collaborator, there surely should be sources out there that look into it. Hunting down possible nazi-collaborators on wikipedia talk pages however remains to be out of the scope of wikipedia. And there is nothing more to it.--Termer (talk) 02:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Nobody is "hunting down possible nazi-collaborators on wikipedia talk pages" for the sheer exercise, actually. There is a source for her apparent work for Nazi German radio – and it's material from her son Juho Looveer, as was pointed out by me from the get-go. Surely you have now noticed, Termer, that Pantherskin has just joined the discussion with relevant information on Baltic broadcasting from Germany and that we are making nice progress with the discussion there? That's what our talk pages are for. And it's why we don't just blank them when we don't like a discussion or where it's going, if the concerns presented are relevant to the subject of said article. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The source isn't even considered reliable, that was pretty obvious from the get go and speculating in circles on the talk on her alleged collaboration in the absence of any other source, simply violates WP:NOTFORUM. Pantherskin's source on German radio makes no mention of Looveer, and his claim that Looveer's daughter being born in the same town as Hilter is simply irrelevant. --Martin (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see any sources saying someone called Looveer was a nazi-collaborator, that by itself would be quite a serious accusation I think. Therefore I'm not getting it how a discussion implying a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources under the discussion would help to improve the article and wikipedia in general. And I'd be all for catching nazi collaborators, just that not on wikipedia.--Termer (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be a content dispute, and other than stirring up more drama and/or harassing Anti-Nationalist I do not see that this thread has a purpose. Posting it here, at one of the most watchted pages on Wikipedia, demonstrates that concern about the reputation of Lia Looveer are not the primary interest. Pantherskin (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Because of this edit [27] I was put on a 1R/24h restriction, coupled with "you must accompany every edit in content namespaces, no matter if it's a revert or not, with an informative edit summary" and "you may make any revert only after providing an explanation for it on the talk page, and then waiting a minimum of 3 hours between the talk explanation and the actual revert to allow time for discussion." [28]. Since I consider my edit to be 100% valid, (I have removed the German name of Polish city which was added without explanation the day before and which has to reason to be there on English wikipedia) I can only conclude that since I recently had an animated discussion with this admin, because of his block of user:Jacurek which I felt was unjust, he is trying to revenge. I therefore request the restriction is cancelled. Loosmark (talk) 10:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you recognize that, correct or not, your edits have been part of a contentious edit war? The "restrictions" amount to what any considerate person involved in an edit war should do. rspεεr (talk) 11:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit war? There was no edit war going on that article. Somebody added the German name of the city the day before without an explaination and I removed it. I made one single edit. Loosmark (talk) 11:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There may not have been an edit war on that article, but the admin saw a string of edits that were problematic, across multiple articles, this last one merely being the latest. He explained all of this on your talk page under the "warning" heading. I'm not making any judgment calls as to the restriction, but just wanted to make it clear that this wasn't caused by a single edit, and that this was explained quite clearly. Equazcion (talk) 11:33, 17 Nov 2009 (UTC)

There was no string of problematic edits, yesterday I made a good faith error and I have even self-reverted myself. All other edits he cited were valid, I stand behind them and I have explained them on his talk page to which he didn't seem to object. Loosmark (talk) 12:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Loosmark seems to have come up with a rather innovative new method of avoiding sanctions. Insulting and abuse every single admin who might impose sanctions, accuse them of bias every 5 minutes, and then scream "involved admin!" when patience runs out. Moreschi (talk) 12:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Moreschi I request you provide diffs that "I have insulted and abused every single admin who might impose sanctions". I have never done that and I demand you either provide evidence or apology. Loosmark (talk) 12:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by sanctioning admin: Loosmark, not surprisingly, is refusing to take notice of the rationale behind the sanction, which I very clearly explained to him on his talk page: "I'm not talking here about the objective justification of either edit (I have absolutely no opinion about that), but about your communication style". Arguing now that his edits were "valid" and he "stands behind them" is missing the point: they may well have been, but they were unexplained. This is all about Loosmark displaying a pattern of quick, undiscussed, drive-by reverting as a routine editing strategy in contentious articles, and the last straw was another such edit without an edit summary, only hours after I had warned him about just this problem. Given this situation, the restriction I imposed is quite mild -- it leaves him all the freedom to edit, and merely gently forces him to improve his communicative behaviour, hopefully. -- I would be more patient in explaining these things, if I didn't have the impression that there is still a group strategy going on here, with multiple users (all involved with the well-known EEML group) appearing immediately on my talk page to pile on and make a fuss about any and all administrative action affecting one of them, with one of them, User:Radeksz, even accusing me of "hypocrisy" [29]. We know they used to conduct these concerted campaigns in an organised, planned fashion only a few months ago; I wonder how spontaneous and independent they are now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me get if I understand this correctly, my edits might very well be valid but since I have not "explained" them you are putting me on severe restrictions and even call the restrictions "mild". And are you even aware Future Perfect that the last time I have tried to have a dialog with user:Matthead he simply told me to go elsewhere? [30]. As such I don't really feel motivated to explain my edits to him. Matthead made a wrong edit, he added a German name to a Polish city and I have reverted him, that's all that happened. I also don't know what are you talking about the EEML group, I was not a member of the EEML group and I don't care what is user:Radeksz writting to you, reporting him on the EEML ArbCom case or something. Your asumption above that I am part of some sort of group concerted campaigns in an organised, planned fashion borders on paranoia and most certainly is a complete contradiction with asuming good faith policy. Loosmark (talk) 12:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

A lack of edit summaries is always a poor communication style. A number of odd edits (including a self-revert) without edit summaries hits the radar like a bird in a jet engine. We're talking about a simple 24 hrs; a day where someone is being asked to communicate well - hoping, I expect, that the use of edit summaries and discussion would become more commonplace. There's nothing here to do with the validity of the edits overall, just how they've been done. Let me emphasize: it's a day. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

BWilkins please read the sanction he imposed on me again, it is much more severe than that, for example I have to first explain a revert on the talk page and then wait for 3 hours. Since I rarely have the time to sit in the internet caffe for 3 hours I am basicaly prevented to make reverts. (Not to mention that I am very sceptical that the discussion for which I have to wait will happen, the last time I've tried to communicate with Matthead he just told me to "go elsewhere".) Loosmark (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to assume there's a good reason why you didn't read my response to FPAS below before asking this? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course, bellow you are only talking about the timeframe where in fact you have ignored that Future Perfect punishment consists of 3 points. Loosmark (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, wait a sec, not sure if I misunderstand you or perhaps you misunderstood me: I didn't actually impose the restriction just for a single day; it's just a normal "1R per 24hrs" rule. Actually, now that you mention it, it appears I forgot to actually put an expiry date on it, so it's formally indef. If admins here would rather restrict it to a fixed period like most other sanctions of this type, we can of course do that; otherwise I'd propose leaving it in place open-ended for now to see how it works out and lifting it in a few months if he stays out of trouble. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Too early in the morning, I likely misread - but (although not an admin) I recommend some timeframe ... fits with SMART principles... so that it's not punative, it's preventative. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That revert really should have been discussed on the talk page. The Gdańsk/Danzig naming battle was one of the longest and dumbest edit wars of all time. Tczew/Dirschau is another of those cities in that part of Poland that was once German-speaking and this sounds like a smaller version of the same battle. Google Books shows a number of English-language mentions of Dirschau. The German name might be somewhat obscure today, so mentioning it only in the article Tczew could be good enough, but mentioning it in parentheses in an article about a German-speaking football player from that town is at least slightly defensible, so there should have been discussion or it comes across as battleground editing. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 13:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Seeing as Loosmark seems to be missing the point (all those edits today without Edit Summaries of any type), I'll clarify/correct my point: although I have no input into the article - it is obviously a content dispute - based on the slow edit warring, and poor communication altogether, I support restrictions 1 and 2 wholeheartedly. I might be personally willing to reverse point 3 slightly allowing them to do their 1 revert per 24 hrs, THEN explain it on the talkpage as a means of gathering consensus. They must then stick to whatever consensus is - no exceptions, even after their 24hrs is up. Loosmark ... how long do you think it will take you to become a better communicator? In other words, how long do you think this restriction needs to be in place for? A month? 2 months? Obviously, it can't be less than at least a few weeks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

First of all there is no wikipedia rule which would force you to make edit summary by default, if you don't believe me I can show you at least 100 examples of edits without edit summary in my area of interest in the last month and none of them was warned let alone hit with a severe 1RR restriction + forced to make comments on a talk page and then waiting for 3 hours before making an edit which btw seems to be a punishment invented for myself. (What is here also a bit comical is that I have made only one revert on each of those two articles, one of which I even self-reverted, so what exactly is the point to put me on a 1RR other than to tarnish my reputation? You see the twisted logic I have not made more than 1 revert but I have to be put on 1RR). Second you seems to ignore one of my points I made somewhere above so I will point it out again: the last I have tried to communicate with user:Matthead, he told me to "go elsewhere". As such blaming the failure to communicate with Matthead on me is a bit absurd. Loosmark (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I've never said that the other editor does not deserve similar treatment - it has already been suggested by others throughout this thread, and based on the situation, appears to have validity. Your complaint here was about your treatment, and the claims that that admin was "involved". Your complaint would have been better off acknowledging the situation, and suggesting that you should not be the only one being limited. A quick note: the best place to discuss the article content is on the article talkpage - it you took it to an editor's talkpage, then "go elsewhere" is a pretty valid response. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

BWilkins may I politely ask you what the hell are you talking about? I did not take that to any editor's talk page, it was on the article's talk page. And apart from that even if I had tried to communicate with the said editor on his talk page a reply as "go elsewhere" would have been just lame. Loosmark (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

As you're deciding to selectively read portions of what I say, I'm out. I'm trying to help you and this is the response - otherwise, your request appears to be going nowhere. Good luck. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Your comment was the following one the best place to discuss the article content is on the article talkpage - it you took it to an editor's talkpage, then "go elsewhere" is a pretty valid response. I have only pointed out that I did not take that on an editors talkpage but rather on the article page. I hope I have the right to correct the blatant error you have made, even more so since it's pretty crucial here: I am being accused of not being able to communicating with user:Matthead while the last I have tried to do so I was told "go somewhere else". Loosmark (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Some of these naming battles are pretty lame, but it takes two to tango, and if FPaS wants to be even handed, at the very least he should give his co-national Matthead a commensurate sanction, considering Matthead's block log against Loosmark's block log. --Martin (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

As I noted on Loosmark's talk, the restriction is hardly a major issue - it enforces good editing practices. Duration needs to be specified, certainly. I'll also agree with comments above - it takes two to tango, and a similar restriction should be put on the other side of this dramu (re: Matthead - please note he just recently came out from a 6-month 1RR limitation...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the most inappropriate part is #3 about waiting three hours. It appears to be just designed to make editing as onerous as possible - and then when at some point in the future Loosmark waits 2 hours and 45 minutes, instead of 3, some "uninvolved admin's" going to jump in on the chance to extent the restriction to an outright block for "not heeding former warnings". Perhaps, it'll first proceeded by a formal report at AE filed by a "concerned editor".radek (talk) 22:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Every part of the sanction is inappropriate, for example sooner or later I will forget to make an edit summary in a completely uncontrovesial edit and I'll get punished by FP. Or for example I revert a vandalism and then Future Perfect will pop up say it's not vandalism and punish me again. Loosmark (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the edit-summary matter is easily handled: Go to your preferences, click on the "Editing" tag, and check the box next to "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary." If you forget, you will be prompted to add a summary when you attempt to save the edit. Deor (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark, the editor who had said good bye three weeks ago, and five days ago went on a long wikibreak, and was Digwuren-restricted just yesterday, is still following me around, to e.g. the article and talk about West Germany, to oppose me, to revert me and to provoke me there. And even after sockpuppeteering accusations have been debunked, he beats that dead horse again. Apparently, Loosmark can't let loose of this habits. As a seemingly disappointed Piotrus points out above, I have weathered the 1RR-restriction imposed by Sandstein asymmetrically on me (but not on Radeksz, then the other side of the dramu) six months ago, despite the EEML-coordinated efforts of Radeksz, Jacurek, Tymek, Piotrus, Molobo, Poeticbent, Loosmark etc. to "provide enough rope for Matthead to hang" me with, as Radeksz had put it in an EEML message of his ([20090601-2147]). BTW: my name was mentioned no less than nine times in this Loosmark vs. FPaS thread, also by User:Martintg, with whom I have nothing to do except being occasionally a target of his "the enemy of my friends is my enemy" acts in support of his EEML comrades. Back then, I could not figure out why a stranger is so eager to get me blocked. Since the EEML leaked, that became clear, while other things were obvious already years ago. And now, even during the ongoing EEML Arbcom case, the EEML veterans are demonstrating their usual behavior of showing up in large numbers to defend their friends and attack their foes. Seen many times, and still incredible. -- Matthead  Discuß   19:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I was not a member of EEML nor any other mailing list and this case has nothing to do with that case. I find it interesting that both the admin FP and Matthead try to derail the discussion into a EEML mess hoping that the real issue will be obfuscated. And frankly I have noted a disturbing phenomenon that on this ANI page a number of editors started to exploit the EEML case by accusing editors who have nothing to do with EEML and disagree with them as members of EEML or that they are coordinated off wiki to defame them. Maybe it's time this issue gets addressed because it's becoming ridicolous. Matthead's accusation that I am following him is also simply not true. I have opposed his proposal on the West Germany article talk page simply because I disagree him on that. And I'm not the only one since almost everybody else there opposes his idea of merging. Everybody is free to check that. Loosmark (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

FP: multiple users (all involved with the well-known EEML group) As a bona fide certified member of the EEML group, I would like to remind FP (who read the private emails extensively) and Matthead (who also obviously read private emails) that Loosmark was not part of the group and in fact opinions on his edits were split and divided among group members. Since FP and Matthead have read every single of our private emails with great care, they both know this. So why are they bringing it up, even though it's totally unrelated.

One of the things I most regret about the mailing list fiasco (let me stress the "one of the things" before somebody ABFs me here) is that it has now given cynical manipulators like Anti-Nationalist, Dojarca, Matthead and apparently now Future Perfect an excuse (however flimsy - but people don't check on these things) to smear and attack completely innocent unassociated people like Loosmark or Termer (see thread about Anti-Nationalist/PasswordUsername above [31]) and god knows who else, simply because it's in the interest of pushing their POV (or in FP's case, who knows why).

Hey at least I'm guilty of some stuff. Those guys aren't. Have the decency to leave them the hell alone.radek (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

FP might consider their talk page is on editors' watchlist. Stating "if I didn't have the impression that there is still a group strategy going on here, with multiple users (all involved with the well-known EEML group) appearing immediately on my talk page to pile on" is no different than Viriditas' allegations at the EEML case based on their perceptions of timings. I am sorry, but voicing such impressions in the absence of any evidence is inappropriate, along with the accusatory "well-known EEML group." Well-known as what, exactly, is FP saying here?  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  23:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Suz Doyle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Got under the radar somehow. Not a lot of pages. But if someone would like to zap this user, feel free. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Zap? Are you sure that's the right account? It hasn't been used for 18 months and has a redlinked talk page. Instead of instabanzapping, have you considered advising this user of our policies and guidelines, and encouraging them to contribute some content on music? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

All the diffs appear to be promotional in some nature..but yes the account hasn't edited in 18 months.. I can't see the point in bring it here for blocking, unless its secretly some kind of sleeper spam account that is just waiting for the right moment to strike.--Crossmr (talk) 12:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

All of its spamming was reverted quickly except for one entry which an alert user caught today, and of course its own user page is spam, but maybe that doesn't matter. The spammer edited in the late fall of 07 and then in spring of 08 and has been silent since then, at least under that ID. If you don't want to delete the account, that's up to y'all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Immediate intervention, mon ami ;-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

He's obliquely referring to language in the blocking policy and at AIV which states that blocks should only be issued for situations that require immediate intervention (the blocking policy currently uses the phrase "Preventing imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia", but its the same idea). The point is, an inactive account does not need to be blocked. If it becomes active again, and if it continues problems, it may be blocked. But there is no reasonable evidence to assume, after 18 months, that it will do so, so a block would be pointless. --Jayron32 21:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm always amused when someone takes longer to argue for not doing something, than the time actually doing it would take. One remaining question: Any objections to my blanking the user page? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

A little extra time schooling people on blocking policies and procedures in theory will pay off when less people inappropriately report accounts which do not need to be blocked either here or at AIV. A little education on the front end may take some extra time, but ideally it will have the effect of reducing the number of inappropriate block requests, saving lots of little bits of time in the back end which more than make up for the effort put forth here. --Jayron32 02:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The editor got a free spam ride for a year and a half in one article, and while that has now been corrected, the user page continues to be a self-advertisement. Any objection to my blanking it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I did you one better. Its been bahleeted. --Jayron32 03:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing. :) Rest assured that if they turn up again on the one page that was only caught today, I will be sure and eddycate them. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thea Gill, thank you in advance! -- Banjeboi 16:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I had it half done, but found some of the closing scripts didn't work from this PC. Was in the middle of manually doing the AfD and got edit-conflicted with someone else. So, tag-team AfD closure. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Banjeboi 16:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that wasn't valid for WP:SPEEDYKEEP, which is why I didn't do it myself. Reclose as snow keep?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If that one wasn't valid for WP:SK, I think we should re-examine whether the guideline serves any non-disruptive purpose at all. Physchim62 (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy keep is procedural. Snow keep is social. Separating the two is essential to ensuring that temporary social problems don't have an adverse effect on the general running of the project. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

SNOW justifies an early close, which is fine here. Speedy keep has a rigid set of criteria analogous to speedy deletion. Flatscan (talk) 03:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Webkinzanswers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Webkinz102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Two (apparently young) users, whose edits consist almost entirely of chat on each others talk pages, with no useful contributions. Both have been warned that "Wikipedia is not a social network", but these notices have gone unheeded. WuhWuzDat 20:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There's more of them. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

They're likely the same person, carrying on a converstation with him/herself, in hopes of establishing 2-accounts. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• On the off-chance that these are different people who are well intentioned, but a bit misguided, did anyone think to notify these accounts so they too can comment at this thread? --Jayron32 21:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not "two young users". That's one 42-year-old man editing Wikipedia from his mother's basement under multiple accounts to amuse himself.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Hang on--Would someone with a better-functioning memory than mine, please confirm my suspicion that we've dealt with something like this from a "Webkinz__"-named user in the past? This looks terribly familiar...GJC 15:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

69.228.171.150 already posted a link to every single user named "Webkins_". There's tons of them. What we are dealing with here is someone... who has absolutely no life.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well to be fair, webkins are (I believe) a toy line with some internet gimmick about them. Its not terribly shocking to me that many of these webkins_ accounts might be made by kids (tho perhaps shocking that parents are letting their kids wander about the wilds of wikipedia) who might not have a concept that wikipedia isn't myspace or facetwit or a webkins forum. Syrthiss (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

My daughter has an account, but she's only used it once. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been editing here since I was 10. But look at these "Webkinz" accounts. These are not children. It's one person - most likely a 42-year-old man who lives in his mother's basement - having a conversation with himself because nobody else wants to. It's a troll.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(e/c x2) Not logging in because I'm editing from work. This name does sound familiar for some type of incident. Check the prefix index for webkinz. I support an additional warning, advising that they (if, indeed, "they" applies) make some useful contributions and cease the constant irrelevant chatter or be blocked. By the way, Wuhwuzdat, this site is called Wikipedia, not wiki. A wiki is any website using wiki software; there are thousands of them.--173.68.35.67 (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is this idiot still not blocked yet? Could it be any more obvious?--66.177.73.86 (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Umm... you know that bit on your talk page about not wanting to be blocked anymore? You might want to take another look at WP:NPA. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, like anyone's really gonna block me for calling a vandal/troll an "idiot"... >_> --66.177.73.86 (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hrs for calling someone a vandal, troll, and idiot. We mean WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear to me that these edits [32] to Precognition are banned user Rodgarton (Previous incidents: [33]). Similar edits appear each week, from 120.* IP numbers, attacking me and other contributors for the paranormal articles. Thanks in advance for any action taken. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

obvious, and blocked for a week... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this the right place for this? I came across this article and a pretty crazy long running edit war. There are 2 editors User:Mario Roering and User:Peter Lee that have been warring [[34]] for along time now. They are currently warring over "Name slendering" but have, according to Lee, been arguing for 5-6 years. The history [[35]] shows numerous reversions by both that far exceed 3RR or edit warring. Could an admin please have a word with these 2 or maybe find them a room? Both know that they are right and both have the appropriate excuses for continuing the madness. - 4twenty42o (talk) 05:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

3RR warnings issued to both users, if you think its appropriate, I'll put a RFPP in as well. Frmatt (talk) 05:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll get back to you on the RfPP. I am going to leave it alone for now and let them calm down a bit. Thank you - 4twenty42o (talk) 05:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem, I'll watchlist it for a while and see what happens. The 3RR warning is a single issue warning, so any further actions by either of them would be cause for a block...which might be a good thing in this case as it would give them both time to calm down! Frmatt (talk) 05:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I've taken it to the edit warring noticeboard. [36]

So they've been warring for 4 years over an article with no sources? Any evidence this is a notable organization?--Crossmr (talk) 08:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Nothing. Nada. Zilch; and that dang XfD tab doesn't show up on this computer :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

"Name slendering"? Oh, great--it's not bad enough that as females, we have to worry about whether our butts are too big, or how bad our cellulite looks...and NOW I hafta worry whether my NAME is too fat???? Jeez. GJC 15:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if I am allowed to post on this page - if not, just move it to where I should have posted it. This editwar has not only been going on on en.wikipedia, but at least as well on nl.wikipedia (see for example [37]), which I handled back in 2005 (!). This is in fact not just two people who are in conflict about this issue, but two organizations. Don't be too surprized if both come up with some supporters. However, back then, Mario Roering and Peter Lee were both blocked after attempts of mediation. effeietsanders 18:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: Both editors have been handed a time-out for 24 hours by Seraphimblade. Reviewing the edit history of this article, I'm strongly tempted to recommend that the next conflict over it ought to be settled in a dojo. -- llywrch (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

note: This edit war dates back to 2005. I attempted to mediate back then but got nowhere. Eventually a RfC was started (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Peter_Lee_and_Mario_Roering) but Peter Lee refused to participate and eventually chose to leave Wikipedia--at the time he said permanently. Since that time Mario Roering has continued to edit Wikipedia, but avoided editing the disputed pages so all was quiet for a time. Peter Lee returned in July this year and set about reworking the disputed pages to his liking. I have discussed with him (both on and off wiki) the need for reliable sources for the articles. He has told me that sources that meet WP:RS don't exist and he has expressed his desire to see the three contested articles deleted. I suggested that he PROD them, but that was contested and he didn't move forward to AfD. Since July it has been only a matter of time before the edit war restarted, in fact, I'm surprised it took so long. Both Peter and Mario have been blocked in the past for edit waring, and they are well aware of the 3RR and all other Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Anyone feeling up for a challenge might like to wade through the history of Peter Lee's talk page and the talk pages of the three disputed articles to see if a resolution can be found.—Jeremy (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Joy. I removed a CSD tag from the article today as 4twenty42o and Mario said they were going try to find sources to establish notability. I proposed a seven day limit, stressed WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOR, and removed some unsourced coatracking material. Mario was amenable to the edits; we'll see how Peter responds once he comes off his block. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, NeilN. I will surely see what I can do...

Something else: Above here, effeietsanders wrote the following: "However, back then, Mario Roering and Peter Lee were both blocked after attempts of mediation". May I add to this, that I was indeed blocked ONCE for 12 hours [38] (which was however, in all honesty, extended to 1 week) for removing a post by Peter Lee on the Genseiryu talk page, because I didn't accept that defamatory text on my behalf, making all kinds of false accusations and putting me in a bad daylight. Not the right action to do, should have gone to administrators with that, but I learned from it. Now, PETER LEE on the other hand, got blocked several times for vandalizing articles and eventually had a block for ONE FULL YEAR (see here: [39]), for unwillingness to co-operate and for continuous reverting of articles and constant aggressive behavior. Don't want to be defaming here, but let it be clear that there is a distinct difference between the person of Peter Lee and myself... Thank you. --MarioR 14:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

User:192.197.54.136 has gone through numerous articles, vandalizing pages, starting edit wars, and removing template tags. The user's MO seems very similar to User:JKSarang, who also edits Korean pages, and has gotten into trouble lately for strikingly similar edits. However, I don't know how to check into that. The anon has started edit wars about images on different pages, and when people disagreed, added invalid tags to the image pages to try to get them deleted, which supports my belief that it is the same user. Ωphois 01:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparently so did this person Ophois. Who's that? Ophois has committed a 3RR I think that's what PC78 called it. This user has reverted many pages. I would suggest watching this user as well. 192.197.54.136 (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverting your vandalism does not count as 3RR. Ωphois 01:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) It's your edits that are the problem here. You've been vandalising pages and have violated 3RR on at least one page.As far as I can see, Ophois has merely been trying to undo some of your damage. PC78 (talk) 01:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It isn't vandalism if I've stated my reason's. And Ophois seems like a stalker, they had nothing to do with this. It's between PC78 and I. Grow up and talk it out like adults instead of running around. 192.197.54.136 (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Repeatedly adding that someone is a "large douche" is vandalism. Ωphois 01:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I never called anyone that I told you guys to grow up. You wanted to talk and I ws talking but you decided to tell on me like a bunch of kids. Very mature of you. 192.197.54.136 (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

And even after being reported, the user continues to remove maintenance tags from articles. Ωphois 01:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for one week. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with how it works, but is there a way to check if it is a possible sockpuppet? Ωphois 01:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's called Checkuser. On a different note, am I the only one who finds this whole discussion to be unintentionally amusing?--66.177.73.86 (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope, good for a Wednesday Night chuckle! Frmatt (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Amen to that! If they ever release a "Best of Wikipedia" book, this should definitely be in there. XD --66.177.73.86 (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Would we receive royalties, lol? Ωphois 08:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed, this IP is so obviously User:JKSarang that I have blocked the user for the same length of time. Black Kite 12:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be a case of long term multiple account abuse and disruptive editing at UN Watch (and to a lesser extent Hillel Neuer, the director of UN Watch) The latest account to be created is Fionnuala.Leclerc. The account was created following the Arbitration Enforcement case against Barcelona.women detailed here. It's clearly a sockpuppet. The new account illustrates fairly typical behavior by this person

• Reverting back to previous version by the same user or in this case a previous sockpuppet removing all intermediate edits by other users editing the article no matter how many there were. See diff
• Misleading edit summaries e.g. 'initial description made representative; struck balance between various edits; See Discussion'. In reality the edit involved changing almost everything in the article as you can see in this diff. This kind of edit has occurred repeatedly in the UN Watch article over an extended period.

The edit also illustrates unusual behavior i.e. using the talk page. Whoever is behind these accounts is exceptionally shy when it comes to discussing things on the talk page and collaborating in general. Unfortunately, in this case the talk page entry is entirely misleading and neglects to mention, describe, justify, explain the wholesale changes made to the article involved in reverting it back to the previous sockpuppet's version. Before this latest account I tried adding information about the discretionary sanctions in the hope that it would change behavior. That didn't work. I tried to get the user (as Barcelona.women) to start using talk without success as you can see here. They simply won't engage in discussion. Another user noticed the socking, contacted me here and reported one of the accounts. Based of nature of the edits and the criteria described in Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry, the accounts listed below may be sockpuppets although the confidence level varies.

• Special:Contributions/Fionnuala.Leclerc
• Special:Contributions/Barcelona.women 0RR imposed from AE
• Special:Contributions/Ibrahim_Abu_Iqsa
• Special:Contributions/Jeanratelle (not so sure about this one)
• Special:Contributions/Unions4globalizing Already blocked (Abusing multiple accounts)
• Special:Contributions/Mahmoud_wintil'adi
• Special:Contributions/Bynoptlegal
• Special:Contributions/Wordsweek11
• Special:Contributions/Mikado_Varshafsky Already blocked

Could an admin investigate and try to put a stop to this once and for all ? Addressing issues on an account by account basis clearly isn't going to work as they will simply create a new account. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll get it out of the way, but everyone will tell you to take it to WP:SPI.--Crossmr (talk) 11:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

..and if I change the title to 'Long term effects of dissociative identity disorder and disruptive editing at UN Watch' and globally replace the word 'sockpuppet' with 'dissociated identities' would that help ? Sean.hoyland - talk 11:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, "do blocks for excessive sarcasm on an admin noticeboard when the editor has already been advised as to the correct forum to take the issue" end up helping things - globally-speaking, that is?  ;-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think they probably would. Wait, your talking about me. Okay, I'm off to SPI then. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone who has chosen a username "Anti-Nationalist" seems to think it's OK to label other editors with "nationalist" tag.[40], [41] My suggestion [42] to rephrase such insults were met with accusations of harassment, POV editing, censoring etc. [43].
I came across Anti-Nationalist first at Talk:Lia Looveer where User:Anti-Nationalist suggested the subject (who has been honored with the British Empire Medal) may have been a "Nazi collaborator" [44]. Such assumptions were made based on her publicly available resume [45]. Since there has been no sources whatsoever verifying or even suggesting any possible "nazi-collaboration" by this public figure, I have tried to remove such possibly defaming remarks from this talk page pr. WP:TALK but without much luck thus far. And since the situation it seems has not been resolved, please advice! Thanks!--Termer (talk) 03:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Honey, there's already a thread about this. Check out "A stitch in nine" just above. Crafty (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Note, the thread "A stitch in nine" is a request about the article, not the person. --Martin (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a pretty condescending posting, Crafty. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. And as I can see user termer has also been under discussion. Just that why exactly such suggestions like this [46] that I cans see again above Termer (often discussed as an ally of this aforementioned mailing list) [[47]] get tolerated right on this notice board? Who exactly and where anybody other than Anti-Nationalist has discussed that "Termer is an allay of some kind of mailing list"? And this is because? And it's OK to go around Wikipedia and label anybody you have a disagreement with the "nationalist" tag? As long as your username is Anti-Nationalist, it's OK? Perhaps its me who is missing something here.--Termer (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Err, WP:TEA perhaps? Crafty (talk) 05:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! That was also an answer to my questions after all.--Termer (talk) 05:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I figured it might be. ;) Crafty (talk) 05:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The mailing list discussed you as an ally of theirs during their antics on Wikipedia, Termer, as confirmed by the archive that has been uploaded to a public forum, so there's that. What you're complaining about is me pointing out the POV of the mailing list for an admin who'd had a hard time understanding the matter of your spellbinding enthusiasm for and concern with deleting a question legitimately asked in a talk page comment. And nobody even called you a nationalist – I merely pointed out that as a contributor to the project, you've been – de facto, Termer – an ally of the mailing list, and it was the mailing list's political issue that I was pointing out. That the mailing list pursued a nationalist POV is evident from the leaked archives of the list, and from list host Digwuren's comments there (by now, the viewpoint and the activity of the mailing list is public knowledge). Evidently, James086 found my response on his talk page about the talk comments being reverted and reverted continuously helpful as an illustration, for he agreed with me that the legitimate comments there should not be removed pending consensus, as you and the members of the secret leaked mailing list have continued to do. Now, please take a sip of a bit of some refreshing WP:COKE or some WP:TEA, and proceed with this discussion at the appropriate place indicated by Crafty, where we can discuss Lia Looveer or whatever issue du jour you'd like to focus on, since popping up here and there, or jumping all over WP:ANI is a tad too boisterous, m'dear fellow. Please also get a hang on WP:PARENT.

Anti-Nationalist (talk) 15:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually you implied Termer was a nationalist in this comment. Attempting to tar Termer with the EEML brush violates WP:NPA in my view. Note that James086 also stated he would blank the section if no further comment is made [48]. Article talk pages are WP:NOTFORUM where you can discuss "whatever issue du jour you'd like to focus on"". --Martintg (talk)

This is such a misrendering of what I actually posted and what James asked me to do (comment on the issue) that I'm not even going to bother to reply. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I read this thread and thought we were told to post on section "A stitch in time" above but apparently I should have posted here so I am just going to paste the post I made there...

Hello, I have been following the discussions on this editors username (see refs) and complaining that it contravenes the WP:SOAPBOX "no advocacy in the content of wiki" guideline which I think is one of the most heavily relied on guidelines for various (and good) reasons. This has only led to debate and comment about who Anti-Nationalist "targets" and wether all nationalists as bad anyway. Maybe they are but we do not want to encourage them or their counterparts. As though to support the idea, Anti-Nationalist recently changed from an extremely neutral username (PasswordUsername, no less) to show that he/she is advocating a political struggle on Wikipedia. We advocate some things like Wikimedia ideas and DaVinci, Einstein, cars we like... but when it comes down to inviting Nazis on for a fight using the word "nationalist" of which some nationalists are the opposite of Nazis in their countries giving an ironic edge to the blade, User:Anti-Nationalist has admitted the username is a representation not only of political views but of contribution style for Wikipedia (which others have been encouraging, others going several extra miles beyond User:Anti-Nationalist) [49][50][51] These refs are the three sections the username has been discussed, Anti-Nation talk, Username Talk, and RFC/Username. Good luck with that. I am of the opinion that Anti-Nationalist had no trouble to change the username to something neutral but received various encouragement, including informing the user that certain actions were acceptable through debate, such as quips "all nationalists are bad for Wikipedias anyway" (not direct quote but check it) and so on. Please convince this young person or young mind that some places are non-confrontational regardless of how many confrontations go on there. (and make them change the username!)! 10:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RTG (talk • contribs)

One problem is that Anti-Nationalist is framing his content opponents as "nationalist" regardless of whether or not they actually are. Termer's heros are hardly nationalist figures. --Martin (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Calling other editor's "nationalists" is inappropriate personal attack even in normal circumstances, but then user making such accusations is named "Anti-Nationalist" it is blatantly confrontational and should be accordingly dealt with.--Staberinde (talk) 17:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The term nationalist is not pejorative. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

No, in certain political contexts, "nationalist" has very negative connotations indeed. GiantSnowman 17:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There does not appear to be an negative connotation here. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, obviously describing disagreeing editors as "bloc of nationalist editors" and "bunch of hardcore Eastern European nationalists" is totally not negative from editor who has chosen to edit under name Anti-Nationalist.--Staberinde (talk) 19:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"Nationalist" isn't a slur; it's a political label I used in presenting my case to James086, given the existence of the EEML archive. "Bloc" is also an objective reference, as seen in the ArbCom findings of fact to be gleaned from the proposed Arbitrator decision in WP:EEML, and much less offensive than "meatpuppet" (one of the relevant principle highlighted in the proposed decision in this case does, incidentally, concern "Meatpuppetry" from the EEML editors). Incidentally, I adopted the nick "Anti-Nationalist" (not that it's relevant to this case) after Martintg repeatedly accused me of being a "Russian nationalist" [52]. I am, in fact, an internationalist, but I did not choose to be User:Internationalist so as to not fuel any ad hominems that I'm some sort of biased communist, because Martintg's ally and EEML member Radeksz has already accused me of being a "neo-Stalinist" [53], and some right-wingers have characterized me as "promoting Soviet historiography" or whatever when I do not; whereas I actually do use Soviet-era sources for uncontroversial supplementary details in biographies and such when no alternatives are available, I make no virtue out of necessity. Oh, bloody slander that! How is this looking as something for an AN/I block on our EEML buddies now looking for wikidrama? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to get too involved here but the debate is continuing to gravitate to the idea that one of these political adversities is more acceptable. Almost like "Oh but it was only Jews and gays we were picking on not communists!". Could a person not put themselves above that>? If I wave a flag when our country is playing the cricket I am being nationalist. ~ R.T.G 20:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"The mailing list discussed you as an ally of theirs during their antics on Wikipedia, Termer, as confirmed by the archive that has been uploaded to a public forum". Where is this public forum where have I been under discussion as "an ally of some kind of a mailing list"? I have never been part of any mailing lists and I am an ally of anybody on wikipedia who edits articles according WP:RS and WP:NPOV. In fact I can still take pride in one of my early achievements on Wikipedia, stabilizing one of the political battleground articles put on probation by ArbCom Soviet occupation of Latvia in 1940. So what exactly gives you the right to go around on Wikipedia and call me "nationalist" [54], imply that I'm an allay of hard core "Eastern European nationalists" [55], POV pushing [56] etc? And now it seems you attempt to tie me to a mailing list I never had anything to do with.--Termer (talk) 01:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You are not under review here, Termer, why are you posting information about your contributions here? ~ R.T.G 16:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the only reason that Termer has brought this up is due to his encounters with Anti-Nationalist. They disagree and Anti-Nationalist is blunt and judging in his comments. Understandably Termer has taken offence, but complaining about his username is not the right way to resolve the issue. As for Tia Loveer, there is quite substantial discussion there, if blanking is decided upon a link should remain to the discussion (a revision history link would be fine). I don't really think it should be blanked but as this is a consensus based project, I will not go against consensus. James086^{Talk | Email} 17:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: I think the only reason that Termer has brought this up is due to his encounters with Anti-Nationalist.

Captain obvious, eh ;) I mean that could be probably realized from first comment in this section :P Although I agree that rising issue about Anti-Nationalist's username wasn't correct solution, Termer should have brought it straight to ANI. Problem isn't username, problem are accusations that user behind name makes, name just provides extra demonstration about battleground behavior behind of such accusations.--Staberinde (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's an idea. How about an admin step in, and direct editors to stop with the battleground bullshit and return to editing. Refusal to abide by said directive could be punished by a public tarring and feathering. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 18:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I mostly agree, this discussion about personal attacks seems pretty exhausted (dunno about Liia Loveer issue, but that belongs to other section). Some uninvolved admin should roll in and conclude this thing.--Staberinde (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The last thing I'd want to see right now would be an ArbCom case against Termer, as he's already been tangentially connected to the EEML via the evidence presented. I seriously urge him to stop claiming that I ever called or labelled him a "nationalist" – the word was only applied to the EEML, who clearly demonstrated their own nationalism rather plainly and discussed him as an ally in the leaked archive themselves. (While I'm not presently in any position to explicitly disclose the contents of the archived mailing list given the special conditions imposed on all ArbCom participants, I trust that most editors here already know where to look to find the clear-as-day evidence for that.) And as he has also been forum-shopping on me for more than a week, I also heartily recommend that he apologize to me (as I've already asked him to). Anti-Nationalist (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a fact that some people have been attempting to tar unrelated editors with the EEML brush, most recently with a SPI case against both User:AmateurEditor and User:Põhja Konn, both who have been found to be unrelated to Digwuren by CU[57]. Making unsubstantiated allegations is a form of personal attack. BTW, I'm Australian with an interest in the Baltic states, to claim I am a "nationalist" is a joke. Seems Anti-Nationalist is claiming anyone who has issue with his tendentious edits must be anti-Anti-Nationalist, therefore they must be nationalist! And we all know nationalist is a derogatory epithet in Wikipedia. --Martin (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Anti-Nationalist for bringing this up again:" Termer as he's already been tangentially connected to the EEML via the evidence presented." I would very much like to also see those 'evidence presented' that supposedly connect me to "the EEML"

Also, please explain why do you keep saying the members of the mailing list are nationalists: "nationalist" – the word was only applied to the EEML. I've taken a look into it: Proposed_findings_of_fact of the ArbCom case do not even mention the word nationalist unlike you claim about it.

Therefore please explain again, what gives you the right not only call me an "ally of a bunch of hardcore Eastern European nationalists"[58], me along with other editors nationalist at Looveer TALK[59] but also you call the whole "EELM mailinglist" members nationalists contrary to ArbCom findings, and why again do you try to tie me to this mailing list and ArbCom case I never had anything to do with? Those were the reasons I've posted this thread after it was suggested so [60] by multiple uninvolved editors. PS. In case I have offended you in any way, by all means, I apologize!--Termer (talk) 04:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've already explained why I applied the term "nationalist" to the mailing list, and if you're going to twist my words for your own purposes, I'm afraid I'll have to say that I'm going to participate in the discussion no more. Thank you for your apology. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This would appear to be subterfuge[61]. Am I missing something obvious here? Is User:Mentifisto someone's legit sock? What's going on here? HarryAlffa (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

User notified, per requirements at the top of this page. Tan | 39 16:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The edit summary on that is "done over IRC". What it means is that Mentifisto told me on IRC that there was an ANI thread involving me. When I popped in and saw I hadn't been notified yet, I left a note saying that I had notified myself, and told Mentifisto on IRC that he could fix it if he wanted. He did.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Quite honestly, is this even worth an ANI post?? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 17:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that - I WILL remember to notify! HarryAlffa (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The time stamp was changed also - should it have been? HarryAlffa (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters in this case, and the phrase "mountain out of molehill" comes to mind. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 17:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not really HarryAlffa's fault for reporting it, if I has seen an edit like that without any information I know I would have balked. I probably would have gone to Mentifisto's talk page first, though. ANI isn't required for every problem, most can be solved peacefully and without the kind of stress that ANI generates. A little insignificant ^{Giving thanks to all that is me} 17:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Colleen16 has repeatedly removed maintenance tags from the article Lee Jun Ki, despite revisions by me and another editor. We both also explained the need for sources in the page's discussion page and her own page, and pointed her to the policy page on the subject. After she was explained to several times and continued to remove them, I gave her warnings, and she responded by removing them and pasting them onto my page. I continued to try to talk to her about it, and she feigned understanding, later removing the tags again. I just realized that maintenance templates are not protected by 3RR as I had thought, so I have stopped my revisions. I'm not suggesting that she be blocked, but maybe an admin can talk to her about it. Ωphois 15:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: User:Colleen16 User:InkHeart has been notified of this discussion here. Singularity42 (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by the redirection of Colleen16's talk page to Inkheart's talk page here. Are they the same user?—Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs) Sorry about that...

Yes. A rename was approved. See this edit summary. Singularity42 (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I have updated the section heading to reflect the change. Singularity42 (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, unrelated to the original complaint, but it looks like the user is now editing under both usernames. I can address it on their talk page, but perhaps it might better coming from an admin? Singularity42 (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd kind of like to know how a renamed user is editing under two names at once before I try giving advice.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, if they're using both accounts, and it's clearly the same person, that's a sock. They'd better have a good reason for using both accounts...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 16:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Oh, they renamed and they're using both accounts?? How is that technically possible?--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 16:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Just figured it out -- Colleen16 was recreated after the rename. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I think they recreated the old account on the 14th, based on the history of the account. --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The user seems to have some serious WP:OWN issues over the above article and others, and has a habit of labeling any edit that tries to fix non-free content or sourcing issues as "vandalism". The user was blocked twice over the weekend for 3RR violations, abuses Twinkle, and could use a refresher on WP:AGF, among other Wikipedia policies. Mosmof (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I was involved with both editors last week, having blocked Colleen16 (pre-Inkheart) and Ophois for edit-warring. First, kudos to Ophois for opening this discussion and realising you were in danger of getting into a revert battle again - your mature, thoughtful response to the situation does you credit. Second, I'm confused too as to how Colleen16/Inkheart can be editing from two accounts simultaneously; if she recreated the Colleen16 account after the rename, why would it still show her earlier contribs and block? Surely these wouldn't show up for a brand new account under the same name?[Never mind, confused myself!] However, I agree with Mosmof's and others' assessments of her editing. Maybe mentoring might be worth suggesting before she ends up with increasingly long/indef blocks? Although she's been here a while, she really doesn't seem to have much of a handle on WP editing or conduct policies. EyeSerene^talk 14:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

EyeSerene is right. I don't fully understand the Wikipedia ruling if anyone is will to explain to me the mistakes I've made (in simpler terms, I am slow) I would be greatly appreciated. Colleen16 (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like she now uses discussion, so that is good. However, she is still using both accounts simultaneously. Ωphois 10:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not right now. InkHeart♥ 11:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Both accounts have been used during the last 24 hours:

1. InkHeart: 11:03, 18 November 2009
2. InkHeart: 10:57, 18 November 2009
3. InkHeart: 10:56, 18 November 2009
4. InkHeart: 10:55, 18 November 2009
5. InkHeart: 21:12, 17 November 2009
6. InkHeart: 21:10, 17 November 2009
7. Colleen16: 21:07, 17 November 2009
8. Colleen16: 21:04, 17 November 2009
9. Colleen16: 20:50, 17 November 2009
10. Colleen16: 20:46, 17 November 2009
11. Colleen16: 20:45, 17 November 2009
12. Colleen16: 20:27, 17 November 2009
13. Colleen16: 20:24, 17 November 2009
14. Colleen16: 20:05, 17 November 2009
15. Colleen16: 19:33, 17 November 2009
16. Colleen16: 19:25, 17 November 2009
17. InkHeart: 18:03, 17 November 2009
18. InkHeart: 17:58, 17 November 2009
19. InkHeart: 17:58, 17 November 2009
20. InkHeart: 17:56, 17 November 2009
21. Colleen16: 17:54, 17 November 2009
22. Colleen16: 17:33, 17 November 2009

I would suggest that the account User:Colleen16 be indefintely blocked (as per User:EyeSerene's suggestion at 18:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC) on InkHeart's page), as the user obviously is not prepared to stop using both accounts. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Concur with the indef of User:Colleen16. The editor has already created the redirects to the new account, I will WP:AGF that the recreation of the account after the name change was to prevent someone from mimicking them. However, the doppleganger label should/could have been attached, and the account never ever used - and if we are AGFing, then whoever blocks is quite okay to put that tag on the Colleen16 account. I was going to AGF and suggest that we did not need to actually put an indef tage on the user/usertalk pages, but seeing as they had the nerve to state above that they were "not using them both now" when they obviously were, go ahead. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I take that back. She is still removing some templates. I tried to explain to her that she can't just give a link to a foreign website's homepage as a source, without giving instructions on how to find info (like in My Girl (2005 TV series), giving the excuse that it's too hard to look for. And when I removed an uncited trivia section with info already in the article, she just reverted and told me to find sources for it. Ωphois 12:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I see Ophois mentioned my part but didn't mention her part, about deleting information because it doesn't have a reference/uncited tag. I see no need to remove info due no uncited tags. All you need to do is go out and research uncited tags. Deleting important info seems like disruptive edit to me. giving the excuse that it's too hard to look for. It is difficult to find but it still came from TNS Media Ratings. there used to be a direct link but those links a temporary meaning they are deleted after a while. so the homepage link is the closest. While I was talking to Ophois I was even searching for a direct link and couldn't find anything. So it isn't an excuse it is a fact. InkHeart♥ 13:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above; I think the Colleen16 account was being used in a way that comes outside WP:SOCK#LEGIT. I suspect this was down to inexperience rather than anything else, but to help InkHeart stay on the right side of our WP:SOCKing policies I've indeffed the Colleen16 account, left the talk-page redirect in place, and posted a {{doppleganger}} on the user page. If she wishes, InkHeart can of course request an unblock review at any time. EyeSerene^talk 13:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Good. However, that was really a side issue, the main point being her editing practices, including removal of maintenance tags, and this still remains to be dealt with. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Like your doctor always suggests: one symptom at a time. The socking (whether intentional or not) has been dealt with, now let's focus on other issues ... although hopefully it's education needed, and not administrative action.(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That's my hope too. I've pointed her towards WP:ADOPT, which she seemed to be receptive to. InkHeart's clearly very keen contribute, so it'd be great if with the help (and patience!) of other editors we can reinforce her good editing and steer her away from getting into difficulties, in the same way that we all had to learn when we were new. EyeSerene^talk 15:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Incidently, there is an RfC about the article causing the contention on its talk page: "RfC: Current version or former version". -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 21:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add with the RfC, it seems to be an issue of ownership... oncamera^(t) 02:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

She continues to do it here. There need to be inline citations (as has been explained to her multiple times by multiple editors), and she continues to remove refsection improve tags. Ωphois 19:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you also mention you are stalking my edits i had asked you stop. You are no authority to be watching edits and I have been in trouble because of you, so stop harassing me Ophois. As for the that there is already an a reference I have explained this to you on the talk page. InkHeart♥ 19:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Changing edits on two pages that violate policy is not stalking. You have shown to continuously disregard policy, and claimed it was because you didn't know any better. However, after all of this, you continue to do so, showing that is not the case. Similar edits by other users have prompted me to include the page on my watchlist, and I will fix any policy violations that I see by any user. Ωphois 20:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I am going through your history right now. And every single thing I edit you have undone. I edited something else of the My girl article and you went back in and added the tag when I explained it to you already. You keep editing same articles I am editing and according to your history you don't edit Korean articles. you are obviously stalking my edits. And I've asked you stop but you aren't listening to me. You have gotten me into trouble, you aren't helping me to improve on Wiki in any way by undoing everything I have submitted. Look at what you are doing right now submitting me to incidents board you are making things worse for me. So just stop and move onto something or someone else. InkHeart♥ 20:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

By "everything I have submitted", you mean the removal of maintenance tags. Ωphois

I mean everything good or bad. Why is it that you re always showing up. You are stalking me Ophois don't you see that? Even if you are doing it for good. So you've corrected a mistake on an article fine. But you continue to watch my edits. In your history whatever article I edit you edit as well. That is strange, especially considering you don't edit Korean articles. The article you edit are Supernatural and Smallville - American articles. I don't want your influence around, because every time you edit after me i get into trouble. I used to have a clean record. Now it's tarnished because of you. InkHeart♥ 20:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

And can you provide examples of me removing good edits? Ωphois 20:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not the point you aren't perfect yourself look at your block history. I am going to get a mentor o help me, so why do you keep stalking my edits Ophois? You still haven't answered my question. Who are you to do such a job? If you weren't the cause of my bad record it would be fine but I don't want you specifically watching me. So stop. I won't repeat myself. InkHeart♥ 20:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

My recent block is hardly related to you. I have looked through my edits to check, and found nothing. So I request that you give proof to back up your claims. Ωphois 20:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, unless you can back up your claims, I am not continuing this discussion, and will leave it to the admins. Ωphois 20:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Go through both of our history the articles I have edited you happen to pop up and add tags. U and I. I edited the Lee Da Hae article you edit it, I edited the Hero series article you edit, I edited My Girl article you edit it, I edited the Lee Jun Ki article you edited it as well. And these are all my recent article edits. And your past history show's that you don't edit K-articles so why are you suddenly and continuously editing in the exact articles I am editing. You've posted your tags fine, but now you should move on to other things. You are also apparently doing the same thing to another editor 1.InkHeart♥ 20:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at your edit history, you edit many other Korean articles. Looking at my history, it will show that I add ref tags to any article I come across that needs them. I came across Hero due to JKsarang's image-changing spree (who continued to blatantly violate policy despite many editors' attempts to stop him until he was blocked). After the edit war on that page, I checked your recent edits to make sure you weren't violating policy like that elsewhere. When I saw that those pages needed improving, I added maintenance tags, which I do for any page I see like that. You have yet to give any proof to your claims of me undoing good edits by you, so I will let admins do what they feel is best. And by the way, you can't tell someone that they've posted their tags and should leave, when you then remove the tags after they do. Ωphois 20:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You both need to stop arguing :) InkHeart, it's often the case that when an editor notices some edits that might not comply with Wikipedia policy, they'll check other edits from the same editor to see if the pattern repeats. This isn't stalking, even though I sympathise with you that it might feel like it. Ophois was perfectly right to tag those articles (especially where there were copyright concerns, which we take very seriously), and as you know the correct way to go about removing the tags is to address the issues that they raise. Where both of you tripped up before was in edit-warring over them, but that's behind us now. Having a block in your log isn't the end of the world, especially when you're a new editor (I've got one too, thanks to another admin who clicked the wrong button!) Learning from them is all we ask.

Ophois, even though I agree you aren't stalking, it might be helpful if you could deliberately step away from InkHeart's edits to give her some space while she learns more about our editing policies. Your concerns have been brought to the attention of a number of editors and admins, and of course the RfC seems to be generating some useful discussion.

I don't think we're going to achieve much more here, so unless anyone has anything more to add it might be worthwhile closing this thread now? EyeSerene^talk 21:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. Although, can you please explain to her how citations work? I have tried multiple times to explain that she needs citations for episode ratings (such as for My Girl (2005 TV series)) rather than a general site homepage ref. Maybe it coming from an admin will help. Thanks. Ωphois 21:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Necrowanderer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Could someone please take a look at their userpage, which states that their purpose here is "to provide comic relief.". Their contributions would tend to back up this claim. WuhWuzDat 19:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I encountered this user just before Wuhwuzdat did. My impression is that the user is sincerely interested in reducing drama, but, paradoxically, is doing so in a semi-trollish way. As the person is a new user, some constructive advice may be more useful than anything heavy-handed. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, my job is to provide comic relief. I'm gonna go kick this guys ass. *rolls up shirt sleeves* HalfShadow 19:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Just you try it *also rolls up sleeves and looks for a tuna*. Although if anyone has any experience making page sized tables I would like help with that. One reason for being here is more people post on stuff so I can get faster feed back. I like to experiment with the wiki code but I get frustrated after trying and repeatedly fail to get the proper outcome I want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Necrowanderer (talk • contribs) 19:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I just suggested to the user that s/he go improve an article. However, I think I smell a dirty sock. Whose it might be, I have no idea. LadyofShalott 19:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Obvious troll is obvious. Support block. GlassCobra 20:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Fieldday-sunday seems to have a persistent problem with reverting good faith edits and warning users of vandalism. The user's (talk page) has many complaints about this. I'm not sure if its malicious, but I suspect it's careless use of Wikipedia:Huggle. Thanks, Pdcook (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a case of, when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If Huggle makes it easy to undo an edit and warn for vandalism in one click, the tool might get overused. However, I haven't seen anything that says Fieldday-sunday is reverting in bad faith, so if anything, a little counseling on the appropriate use of the tool, and a reminder to use edit summaries where it's not a clear-cut vandalism situation, would be appropriate. —C.Fred (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I also don't think the edits are in bad faith and I think a friendly counseling note would be helpful. However, as I am not personally familiar with the tool, I should not be the one to deliver such advice. Anyone? Pdcook (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the user's talk page, it looks like many have offered advice in the past. Is there a more effective route here? Pdcook (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Woah! I haven't seen that many complaints on a user's talk page since OrphanBot!--66.177.73.86 (talk) 23:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't you need rollback to use Huggle? If he's generating that many complaints, he should have rollback rights removed. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case, then I think that's a good course of action. This user has had another complaint appear on his talk page since this thread was started. Will someone do something? Thanks, Pdcook (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've amended the title. Hopefully it will spark a response as it's now clearer what the issue is. Admin should look at talk page - it's full of complaints that appear valid about improper removal of edits using rollback and Huggle. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Pdcook (talk) 01:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have removed Fieldday's rollback rights, due to repeated complaints at his talk page of hasty usage. He was likely acting in good faith, and this does not bar his potential to regain rollback - however, I note that he appears to rarely reply to these (legitimate) complaints, and needs to be sure to truly acknowledge these issues before regaining access to rollback. His reply here is welcome. Regards, JamieS93 01:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not Greek or Macedonian ("Fyromian"?), I live on the other side of the world (Brazil) and have no ancestry or connections with either country, but I visited the article on the Republic of Macedonia just out of curiosity to learn what the current situation of their notorious naming dispute is. I found the page blank, with only the title. Consulting the article's history, I found that user Door34 had deleted the entire page, and even marked the edition summary with a candid "Blanked the page." I reverted the edit, of course, restoring the previous version, but s/he or another Greek (which s/he appears to be - his/her only other listed contributions are edits on the page List of Greek composers) may vandalize the page again.

I am not sure if this is the appropriate page for this, but the specific page for vandalism notifications says it is specifically for ongoing, repeated vandalism, and this appears to be this user's first incident - that is, in that article, because on his/her talk page there are warnings that two pages s/he created were nominated for speedy deletion for blatant advertising; in one of them, s/he removed the speedy deletion tag and got another warning.

Like I said, I am an outsider to the Greek/Macedonian/"Fyromian" dispute, find it hard to understand and just hope that the two nations solve this dispute that to me sounds Shakespearean (a mixture of "what's in a name" with "much ado about nothing") in a civilized way, which certainly does not include turning Wikipedia into a battleground. So, I thought I should bring this to your attention. --UrsoBR (talk) 08:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the vandalism. This was just a "normal" vandal edit by someone, of a type that's unfortunately rather common and happens on many articles. Might or might not have been politically motivated. Best response is just what you did: revert it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, thanks for reverting the blanking of the page, be aware that the edit summary "Blanked page" is an automatic one that is used to help users identify vandalism. In this case, as the user Door34 has vandalised previously, reporting them to WP:AIV would probably have been the best course of action, I have now done this and the user will likely be blocked in some time. Again, thanks for alerting us to this.

On another note, edit summaries such as this: [68] are not entirely appropriate, try to keep the edit summaries of such edits toned down and civil, again, thanks. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 09:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where anybody has warned Door34 for their vandalism, nor notified them of this discussion. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The block was a little harsh. No warning, one blanking edit, no previous history of vandalism. Am I missing something? Fribbler (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Fribbler. The editor made one vandal edit, recieved no warning, and was blocked. His only other significant edit has been constructive. This is percisely what {{uw-vandal1}} or {{vandal2}} is for. Singularity42 (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've notifed Toddst1 that his block of Door34 has been raised here. Singularity42 (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You know we probably needed a few more uw-3 and uw-4 warnings to make this disruptive editor feel more welcome before blocking. Toddst1 (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Those were over 2 months ago, and were for removing speedy templates; the knee-jerk reaction of many a newbie. I'm not saying Door34 is in danger of winning "Editor of the year" any time soon, but one more wee (lvl-4) warning might have been useful. Still, 55 hours is hardly hard labour. Fribbler (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I was looking at the contribution list, not the deleted contribution list. My bad. Singularity42 (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Fribbler and 99.166.95.142, Door34 has what appears to be a long history of vandalism, their warnings include a uw-level 1, 3 and 4 as well as three warnings about creating inappropriate pages. One of the inappropriate pages was created after a uw-create4, and then followed up by this page blank. The block was completely justified, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"another Greek (which s/he appears to be - his/her only other listed contributions are edits on the page List of Greek composers) may vandalize the page again".

I believe this thread was started with the best intentions but this kind of comment/guess is uncalled for. Please simply revert or report vandalism acts.

Also, over-zealousness and cold blocks are not always efficient, and as I understand frowned upon. As a side note, people (even most editors) from the two countries get along much better than many think. Antipastor (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I asked a candidate some questions of his past behaviour and performance[69], User:SarekOfVulcan removed them[70]. HarryAlffa (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Let's all give Sarek of Vulcan a round of applause. Your "question" should be in the "discuss this candidate" section, where you can write whatever you want about the candidate. Hipocrite (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I will look for the "discuss this candidate section", but these were legitimate questions. HarryAlffa (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have notified SarekOfVulcan about this discussion. --Mentifisto (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• (ec) HarryAlffa, you really shouldn't have opened this without first discussing it with SarekOfVulcan. And even if you did file it, you should notify the subject as the instructions at the top indicate. Why didn't you fulfil at least one of these steps? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, I should have done that, but I was waiting to see if he was stalking me. What do you think? HarryAlffa (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I've tried talking to Sarek before eg[71], but with no response. It seemed an unproductive effort to try yet again. HarryAlffa (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You should assume good faith. At least, you should've disclosed the fact you didn't notify Sarek and request someone else to do so if it was getting that tense or something - but I don't think this was one of those situations. Do you really think one prior discussion is sufficient to justify not trying to have another (and it's a separate matter)? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I've had admin ignore polite comments before. I think it's downright rude. Isn't that what Harry is being accused of being with his questions? Even impolite questions and comments can be acknowledged, especially by admins. And I see on Harry's talk page that while several editors made polite suggestions and have opened discussion, there isn't anything there from Sarek. Not a good showing for an admin. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Looks like a good call on Sarek's part. Per Hipocrite, saying "[Do you] not think that you simply lack the intellectual ability to handle any case that would come to ArbCom" is not actually a question for the candidate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • TenOfAllTrades also summarises my view on the merits of this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please try talking to someone before reporting them. ^Chillum 15:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, edit conflict - answered above. HarryAlffa (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That was in September. ^Chillum 22:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades, you've quoted out of context, and presented my question as a statement.

Given that you were confused by the use of transitive property in this talk page[72], you do not think that you simply lack the intellectual ability to handle any case that would come to ArbCom, as it is certain that they will be more complex than that simple question?

— HarryAlffa

. HarryAlffa (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You may as well have been asking him if he has stopped beating his wife. These kinds of questions are wholly inappropriate and SoV was right to remove it. Shereth 16:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

On top of that, based on the "innocent until proven guilty" concept, saying "considering I'm taking you to ArbCom over something" ... that's a major poisoning of the well, and unless you have a !conviction, it's 100% irrelevant and unethical (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Shereth, and I believe that all of your so-called questions are rhetorically-phrased, thinly-veiled attacks. I don't think that my quote was misleading. As well, your (HarryAlffa's) comments in the discussion to which you linked seem to indicate a pattern of persistently incivil and tendentious conduct on your own part in an article dispute, rather than reflecting badly on the candidate (as you might have wished). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the question was a disruptive personal attack and its removal was correct. Election question pages are not venues for pursuing personal disputes with a candidate, which is what this "question" was clearly about.  Sandstein  17:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur and have left Harry a final warning for personal attacks and incivility. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Shereth, stopped beating his wife, applies as much as if I had said, "Here is some video of you beating your wife, have you stopped?" HarryAlffa (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm very troubled by this thread. Why not let voters weigh the pertinence of the question(s) for themselves and let Rusilik speak for himself? What's the big deal? I don't know why we would need Sarek or anyone else to be the arbiter of which questions can be asked. It seems obvious that the questions are leading. And so what? This seems to me to be much ado about nothing. If Sarek didn't like the questions or thought they were poorly phrased, I'm sure he consulted with HarryAlffa and suggested how they could be modified or why they were inappropriate before just unilaterally removing them right? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There really isn't any way to modify questions down the line of "Wouldn't you agree that you're too stupid to be on Arbcom?" that isn't as insulting as the original.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with: Do you have the intellectual competence and rigor to be an admin? It's not a question I find particularly useful or interesting, but I don't think you should take it upon yourself to unilaterally decide which questions are okay to ask. At the very least it would have been courteous to remove the questions in good faith and explain why to the editor who posted them. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If you follow the link[73], you will see Ruslik was confused by the use of transitive property in the question. If he was confused by that, what chance has he got of handling stuff at ArbCom? It is a naturally flowing question from his bemusement to that question. Do you really want someone who failed to understand such a simple thing in such an important role? HarryAlffa (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI is not an appropriate location for a fork of the arbcom discussion itself. DMacks (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It was not what I suggested. "It is a naturally flowing question from his bemusement to that question." This was in direct support of my view that it is reasonable to question his intellectual capability. HarryAlffa (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Tell me why this offends your sensibilities:

I have seen examples of poor usage of English from you frequently on Wikipedia, as can be seen from some of your answers on this page. You do not think that this lack of skill greatly hampers all communication by you?

— HarryAlffa

If there are no reasoned objections (it pertains to one of the general questions) I will ask this question again with some appropriate diffs. HarryAlffa (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not a good question because it's leading. You work a statement of your own view into what you're asking, instead of inquiring on the candidates views and opinion. At the very least, try rewording/ rephrasing it so it's straightforward. "Are there limitations to your English language skills that would hamper your ability to be an arbcom?" Or, "how do you view your handling of our dispute over the pavlovian theorem as it relates to interstellar commerce?" But moreover, it looks like you have a disagreement with that editor and are carrying out some vendetta. I suspect the vast majority of editors reading the discussion will discount your views/ questions because of that. If you have legitimate concerns try to communicate them fairly and reasonably. What exactly is your concern about that candidate? (This is a rhetorical question intended to spur you to reflection and the rendering of more appropriate questions or refraining from them all together as you see fit). ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

As written, it's a pretty straightforward Mu (negative). You're asking him to answer a question by accepting and taking for granted that a complaint/opinion you have of him is valid. DMacks (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"Has a dog Buddha-nature or not?" Zhaozhou answered: "Mu." ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. HarryAlffa (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Several cordial and collegial editors have made suggestions on your talk page (and of course there's the usual bullying from ), so I think discussion can continue there as this thread seems to be resolved with no need for administrative action. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"One of Wikipedia's abusive, antagonistic and disruptive wikicops"? Care to put a name to faceless attack? Auntie E. 05:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Harry, regardless of your reasoning, do you acknowledge that several people have found the question to be inappropriate? If so, what do you take from that? ^Chillum 21:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Could I get an uninvolved admin or two to take a look at some activity on my talk page? User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2009/November#Your inappropriate warnings

We had a previous ANI thread about ChildofMidnight's "warnings" to admins ( [74] ) two weeks ago. He has been pushing but not quite breaking the envelope again today.

Malleus Fatuorum showed up and chimed in, going further if less verbosely. I asked him to stop posting on my talk page other than for ANI notifications, and he's continued sniping. I believe that violates WP:HARRASS but obviously as he's bothering me I'm involved.

A small general multiparty brawl broke out with other editors in the middle of this, and someone who hasn't touched any of the parties involved might want to review all that as well.

I was hoping it would all die down without needing any further review, but it seems to be escalating and more people are showing up, so a little help would be appreciated. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've asked Malleus to desist. Hope that will help. There must be a better way to resolve this. --John (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Love to help, but I'm obviously involved. :-( --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've noted ChildofMidnight's poisonous "contributions" to policy matters such as these in the past, as have others. Perhaps now some traction can be gained? Tarc (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I got a canvassing message on my talk page asking me to change my input on the ArbCom election. ChildofMidnight seems more interested in creating drama than editing.   Will Beback  talk  04:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have archived the discussions with the statement that if this is to be pursued, it should be at a venue other than the user talk page. I don't mind if GWH unarchives (obviously), but I'd rather nobody else did. I don't see a productive discussion ensuing. --John (talk) 04:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't think of a better solution at this point. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

User:74.182.225.248 was already banned under the user account User:Glaxovont. The IP has continued to engage in harassment on my user page [75] [76] and to vandalize an article [77]. Requesting the IP be blocked from editing for a while. Dragoneer (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 4 days. For future problems, please file a report at AIV. TNXMan 03:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm suspecting a compromised account - a cursory glance says this is an editor with a decent history here at Wikipedia, but tonight the account has suddenly engaged in some really bizarre edits, mainly disruptive comments at Talk:Catherine Ashton, insertion of a bizarre comment at Catherine Ashton, and disruptively nominating the page for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catherine Ashton. Ray^Talk 04:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry. "Really suddenly bizarre behavior" is exactly in line with Brussels/Europe. -DePiep (talk) 04:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be a compromised account. Recommend indef block. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by teh booze. Crafty (talk) 04:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Warned user. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Um. Right. I should've done that too. Guess I don't get drunk nearly often enough, if the possibility didn't cross my mind. Ray^Talk 04:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Sourced information is removed from Blue water Navy page by newbies. So kindly take note and protect the page.Bcs09 (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Users Mr George R. Allison and By78 are removing content from Guided missile destroyer page under Active and Planned Guided Missile Destroyers as well.Bcs09 (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing to link to re the first complaint. As for the Guided missile destroyer article, the edits on the face of it seem reasonable. Have you attempted to discuss these edits with the contributors? Have you notified them of this discussion? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Why should one remove information on Indian navy's power projection capability in the Indian ocean region from the article? What is the need for it and why is it done? I don't get it.Bcs09 (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The existance of sources is a necessary, but not sufficient condition to include some bit of information in any article. There can be good reasons to not include some bit of information despite the fact that it is written in a reliable source. Source are not a club you wield to force other editors to accept your preferred version of an article; work it out on the article talk page, explain your position as to why the information is relevent and important to the article beyond "someone else wrote it down somewhere", ask them to explain why they think it needs to be removed, invite other editors to comment and achieve consensus as to how to proceed. I have no idea who is in the right in this one particular debate; perhaps the sourced information does belong in the article, perhaps it does not, but sources are not a magic bullet that allows one enforce their preferred version over another's --Jayron32 19:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Again i did not understand why should it be removed? What's the need to remove it? Is that I can remove anything from anywhere and others have to come and explain me why should it be kept? I don't see any reason for the removal and no reason is provided for the removal. And what's the magic bullet that allows one to remove things at their will?Bcs09 (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

There has been some very bizarre vandalism occurring at Shaquille O'Neal and its talk page, in which a group of users is insisting that O'Neal's nickname is "Shaw", and not "Shaq". [78], [79]. This has spilled over into numerous articles with "Shaw" in their titles, such as Shaw [80], Shaw (name), [81], Shaw, Mississippi, [82], Archbishop Shaw High School, [83], and Shaw's Crab House [84]. There are too many accounts involved to list at WP:AIV, and semi-protection won't solve everything, as some of these accounts have been here a while. If someone wants to back me up in my vandal-fighting, or offer some tips for how to deal with it, I'd be very appreciative. Zagalejo^^^ 01:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That's really strange. I protected Talk:Shaquille O'Neal for a few hours, and blocked the users I could see doing this. If you want to send me a list of accounts/IPs on my user talk page, I'll be happy to block them for you. NW (Talk) 01:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. The vandalism seems to have died down since I posted my message here. The only activity I've noticed since has been this user changing my talk page comment. But I'll let you know if things flare up again. Zagalejo^^^ 08:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Sko1221 has been trying to stay logged out and participate in Talk:Medical cannabis and Medical cannabis, but the problems haven't stopped. What we see is the same old disruption: New SPA's keep showing up on a daily basis, and today, as 72.213.22.76 (talk · contribs) she restored the harassment and attempted outing of Alfie66 (talk · contribs)[85], our resident expert and good editor all around. The original off-topic comment was made by User:Ohiostandard,[86]. I previously explained that if he had concerns about Alfie66 or his editing, those concerns should be brought to Alfie's attention on his talk page and/or he should submit a COI incident report on the noticeboard. In my opinion, there are no concerns about Alfie66, as this user has made a concerted effort to discuss his edits before making them, and uses the talk page in a diligent manner. Sko1221/72.213.22.76 is up to the same old tricks, arguing that we should restore off-topic, archived discussions about how cannabis "cures" PMS and cancer and other nonsense that doesn't belong on an article talk page. Thankfully, Mjpresson (talk · contribs) showed up to inject some reason, but I'm afraid it's just a matter of time before the next round of new accounts start up again. Viriditas (talk) 08:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the IP has stopped editing after your warning, and Sko1221 hasn't contributed to those pages for a while. From the contribs and page histories you may be right that there's some inappropriate multiple-account activity going on, but I think filing an WP:SPI might be the easiest way of unpicking it. I don't really see what admin action can be taken at this time; page protection would seem to be premature, and there's not really enough evidence to start dishing out blocks. Speculating about another editor's possible COI is not WP:AGF and certainly doesn't belong on that talk-page, but neither in my view has their post gone so far as to be an attempt at WP:OUTING. I think continuing to remove off-topic conversation, plus an SPI, is probably your best bet at the moment. EyeSerene^talk 20:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I highly prefer this as a forum for your complaints about my editing to harrassment on my talk page, Viriditas. We're all adults here, let's act it! 72.213.22.76 (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You are currently using multiple IP's on the talk page, giving editors like User:Ohiostandard the false impression that there are multiple editors involved, some of whom don't have registered accounts.[87] This is the kind of confusion you've been contributing to for months now, and I haven't even brought up the SPA accounts that show up whenever you need support. The talk page simply isn't used as a forum to debate the merits of using cannabis to cure PMS or cancer, and yet you are still arguing about it. You know the rules but you don't follow them, and you contribute to a troll-like atmosphere on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 11:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That diff isn't harassment, .76; it's pretty obvious that you're editing both logged in and logged out, and almost certainly using multiple accounts. You need to be very careful about that, as you've already stepped over the line per WP:ILLEGIT. Given your history of disruptive advocacy on the talkpage, I'm tempted to just go ahead and block all but the oldest of those accounts I believe you are using (or orchestrating) per WP:DUCK. Although I'd prefer to see some checkuser evidence first, posts like the above are not doing you any favours. The accounts I'm finding suspicious from a quick look through the page are:

• 68.13.178.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Tpipos (talk · contribs)
• Iowawindow (talk · contribs)
• 72.213.22.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Sko1221 (talk · contribs)

EyeSerene^talk 11:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

07bargem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a new editor. On 18 November he created The Dad's Army Appreciation Society as a first article. It was promptly tagged for speedy deletion, which I declined as I considered that the subject of the article would be notable enough to sustain an article. After mulling over the options, I moved to article to the Article Incubator. 07bargem later recreated the article at the original title. I copied the text over to the incubator, and salted the original title, explaining why I had done so on his talk page. Yesterday evening 07bargem created Dad's Army Appreciation Society as a new article, having previously worked on the article in the incubator.

How best to approach this one? It seems to me that 07bargem is a little too keen to get the article up and running in mainspace rather than having any malicious intent. The creation of the article yesterday evening means in effect we have two articles on the same subject at two different places, which is not ideal. Please note that in raising this here, I am not looking to get 07bargem blocked. As I said, he is a new user, and cannot be expected to know all the ins and outs of Wikipedia from the outset. It can be quite a steep learning curve at times. Mjroots (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The best course of action seems to be to just take this article to Afd.--Atlan (talk) 10:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. However, there's no way it'll survive an AfD. Personally, I think I'd probably have accepted the speedy and temporarily salted the article, then asked the editor to ping me when they'd finished getting something together in the incubator that uses reliable third-party sources, is neutrally written, and establishes notability. At that point the article page could be unprotected and the article moved back into mainspace. I think it would still probably end up at AfD (if it ever got back into mainspace at all), as not many fanclubs are notable, but what the hell, we all have a touch of Sisyphus in us :) EyeSerene^talk 11:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Taking the article to AfD doesn't solve the problem of having two articles in two different places. I firmy believe that the article should be given a chance in the article incubator. I did inform WP:DAD of the article being in the incubator. A possible course of action would be to redirect the new article to the incubator, and then full protect it until such time that the incubated article is ready to be returned to mainspace. If it proves impossible to establish notablility then I won't stand in the way of deletion, but at least the article will have been given a fair chance. Mjroots (talk) 11:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You want to redirect out of mainspace to what is basically a sandbox article? Doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Just delete the incubator version and take the article to Afd. Afd gives 07bargem seven days to improve the article and address any concerns raised in the Afd discussion. That seems like a fair enough deal. --Atlan (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The article incubator is fairly new, and not everyone is aware of if. Giving that venue a bit of publicity cannot be a bad thing. In this case, the end result was that notablilty was established, and the article has a good chance to develop, which proves that my instinct in refusing the original speedy deletion was correct, and a newbie has not been bitten. Mjroots (talk) 13:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it may be ok now - it seemed the easiest fix was to check for sources and see if notability can be quickly established. To my surprise, events from the society hit the news a few times, including in The Times and, most surprisingly, a New Zealand newspaper, giving the society the necessary non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Why is a bit of a mystery to me - I remember the show, but not that fondly. Must be a UK thing. :) - Bilby (talk) 12:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice work (and "UK institution" is a better description) EyeSerene^talk 12:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Per suggestion above, I've deleted the incubator article. The original title has been converted to a redirect. Mjroots (talk) 13:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Selenamiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) already has a few warnings on their talk page about not linking to spammy domains and not cutting and pasting information (about drugs) into Wikipedia pages. There are no reactions to any of the warnings, and since the last notice on copyright violation Selenamiler has again filled a page with copied text. Please advise. MichaK (talk) 11:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If he does it again, whack him with an only warning (4im). Should he offend thereafter rat him out to the hard-asses at AIV. Crafty (talk) 11:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Already indefblocked. Because copyvios can have legal consequences, if they carry on after a warning we hard-asses don't pussyfoot around :) If an unblock request goes up, I'd suggest we first get some strong assurances that they understand the issues involved before considering an unblock. EyeSerene^talk 11:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Or you could just shit-can him straight away. :) Crafty (talk) 11:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I added the remaining domain to XLinkBot, the blogspots should already be reverted. Typical spam, block strongly endorsed (by the way, there was already a spam4im, this could have gone straight to WP:AIV). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

User: Updatehelper is currently replacing mass links from geocities (defunct) to oocities.com, which appears to have archived many geocities sites. i'm not sure if this is a good or bad thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Updatehelper Theserialcomma (talk) 12:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Linking to geocities was allowed? :blink: (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least this will let us see what the content was long enough to find real replacements for the refs.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly; when I granted Updatehelper AWB, I considered the alternatives, one of which was that these links could be tagged as {{deadlink}}s, and I didn't think that helpful; another would be to tag as {{cn}}, which would risk us losing perfectly valid, if poorly-sourced, information . Obviously it would have been more appropriate for better sources to have been provided from the beginning, but as SarekOfVulcan points out, it gives editors a opportunity to seek more reliable sources. I note that Updatehelper hasn't hadn't actually been notified of this thread, just that there is some concern. Rodhullandemu 17:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been unable to link to the 'archived' sources. RashersTierney (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

All of them? I know not all Geocities pages have been archived at Oocities, but I would have expected them to be checked. The alternative is to use the Wayback Machine, but for the effort involved, one might as well try to find a more robust and reliable source. However, I've notified Updatehelper and would be interested to hear his modus operandi before condemning him. Rodhullandemu 18:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The first page I checked resulted in a failed link. The page was however archived at Wayback. If the links are changed with AWB, it will make links to this archive less likely. I just have reservations about the overall effectiveness of this approach. RashersTierney (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

hi! please excuse my english as iam from europe. yet im only doing a first run on geocities links. but the final result will be better. However most links i updated work again now and i check most ones. Second Step will be archive.org etc. that way i can easily make 90%+ of all geocities links work again without any disadvantage , but it will take some more weeks. (is there a disadvantage thats worse than deadlinks ?) For now there are only a few percent updated and a lot more are not updated now. i updated about 1000 links. for example webcitation.org-BOT updated about 1500 links also. i also use a "bad-words-filter" as i dont want to feel responsable for some really worse content links working again. please come back to the discussion for any other issues.

please do not write to my personal discussion-page cause that always makes AWB fail

...until then...  --Updatehelper (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I guess. Good luck. RashersTierney (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm from Europe too - that's where English originated. Please note, Updatehelper, that personal pages on geocities.co.jp/ appear to be alive and well, so no need to go playing with refs pointing to them. --Yumegusa (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

yet i did not change any geocities.yahoo.co.jp... --Updatehelper (talk) 10:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Geocities.co.jp will be going down shortly as well. (Sometime next month.) While it might be a good idea to look at all of the geocities links (to verify their appropriateness), changing links to a live source is better than having to go through the wayback machine, which often has accessibility issues due to bandwidth limitations. Horologium (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

are you sure it will also go offline? (yet the main page dont say its going offline) http://geocities.yahoo.co.jp http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fgeocities.yahoo.co.jp%2F --Updatehelper (talk) 09:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)- thanks.

I don't know what Updatehelper has in mind ultimately, but I take his edits to be well-intentioned in preserving what sources we have until better ones can be found. Rather than have a multi-pass algorithm, some bot that categorised these, and pending, pages, would at least centralise efforts to replace these sources. I was intending to move on to articles tagged with {{deadlink}} once I've finished dealing with Category:United Kingdom articles missing geocoordinate data (currently scheduled for February 2010), but I see no reason why the demise of Geocities should not be merged into the latter. Rodhullandemu 00:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone cast light on the copyright issues here? On the face of it, it appears OOcities.com is in gross violation. WP:COPYLINK is fairly explicit, and it appears we should not be linking to OOcities.com from WP.--Yumegusa (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That would depend on the original terms & conditions of Geocities; if content there was copyright-free under GFDL or even CC-BY, there would be no problem with even an ex-post facto mirror. If you want to make this point, please cite reasons. Rodhullandemu 00:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless someone can show that Geocities content was copyright-free, it must be assumed that it wasn't. Therefore copying it is prima facie a breach of copyright. WP:COPYLINK states: "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States". It doesn't look like there's a lot of wriggle-room available. --Yumegusa (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

In essence, this is a continuation of a prior debate that occurred on this noticeboard. Please see the prior thread.

I have been repeatedly hounded and harassed by User:BQZip01. He has in the past accused me of slander, made a posting on this board demanding I be blocked (see the prior thread), has stalked my edits (case example: restores a fair use image to an article from which I had removed it less than an hour before, an article he had never edited before), has harassed me on my talk page and has now placed a userpage of mine for MfD (see MfD) when his own essay on his MfD standards would allow such a page. I am sick to death of his haranguing of me, and it must stop.

I've been trying to stay out of BQZip01's way. But, I can't. Why? Because he won't let me stay out of his way.

I am here to ask that an administrator please step in to the middle of this (what a thing to volunteer for! :)) and ask that BQZip01 stop stalking my edits, ignore my userspace, and stay off of my talk page unless there is a pressing matter. I, in turn, will do the same with him (though I've not been stalking his edits). If this equitable compromise can not be achieved, this will spin out of control.

Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've left BQZip01 a note, but could you please provide some more recent diffs? The ones you've posted are from October, and I'd just like to see if the problematic behavior you mentioned is ongoing. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• It's not everyday that this sort of behavior is happening. It has been happening over a broad span of time, approximately the last year. Whether it happens a hundred times in three days or a hundred times over a year, it's still a problem. I've tried to be patient, but my patience in regards to this user is gone. That's why I'm here. I'm not asking for him to be blocked, censured, or otherwise found to be at fault. All I'm asking for is for him to leave me alone (and me likewise). An outside administrator has considerably more authority in requesting that than I would. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

So there's nothing really new since the last blowout thread you posted from October, and you just want that rehashed again? Tan | 39 15:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't post that thread Tan, BQZip01 did, asking for me to be blocked. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Comment struck. Tan | 39 16:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Not commenting on the merits of the case, but the MfD linked above appears to be current (posted less than a day ago). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment/Response Given HS's propinsity to delete images from articles where they are useful and apropos, but lacking in FURs, I have watched his edits. There is nothing wrong with watching his edits IAW Wikipedia policy: "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles." HS apparently feels compelled to remove inappropriately used images (usually copyrighted images without Fair Use Rationales). In these removals, he notes (as in the above diff) "This image use does not comply with WP:NFCC #10c and MUST be removed until it does." Most of the time, I see absolutely nothing wrong with such removals as they are appropriate and would not be appropriate even with a FUR. However, as with too many of his comments about my actions, in this instance HS leaves out details: As requested by HS I provided a FUR and re-added the image explaining that merely removing an image from a page runs contrary to our policies/guidelines. We shouldn't just delete something from an article if a simple correction will fix the problem, in this case adding a Fair Use Rationale.

I have placed a user page of his up for deletion as I believe it to be counter to the goals of Wikipedia with regards to Civility (for the reasons discussed on his talk page. I have attempted to discuss issues with him but in accordance with WP:HAMMERSOFTSLAW (part of the page up for deletion), HS has decided that I am not worthy of talking with. Given that he has decided not to discuss matters with me, I am forced to go elsewhere (in this case WP:MfD) to address such problems.

Again, contrary to what HS states, my expressed thoughts on user pages (see link above) do not contradict the nomination. While I agree that pages recording user actions are sometimes neccessary, I believe that such pages need to meet other criteria as well: it must not exclusively an attack page, it must have a limited timeframe, the page must explicitly state the WP:DR process in which it is intended to be used, and it must not be linked elsewhere by its creator. Hammersoft's page fails all of the last three criteria. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• What I am doing in removing images lacking fair use rationales is something completely in line with policy. It is so much in line with policy in fact that it used to be done by a bot. I am sick to death of you stalking my edits. What is it you want me to do? Request your permission every time that I make an edit? That is what you have reduced me to. The very policy you quote states in the paragraph before, "Wiki-hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." You sir, are irritating the living hell out of me with your actions. Why can you simply not walk away? Why can you not leave what work you perceive needs to be done in regards to my edits with other editors? Why do you see fit to declare yourself the arbiter of my edits, and my edits must run through your filter before being accepted? I am at the point now where I feel compelled to stop editing. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

And BQZip01 continues to stalk my edits. See history of User talk:Wikiperuvian, where I was counseling a user on not using fair use images on templates. This is an editor BQZip01 had never interacted with before. Also see history of File:Coat_of_arms_of_Saint_Vincent_and_the_Grenadines, a file BQZip01 had never touched before I edited it. This needs to end. Now. Would an administrator please step in and issue a sterner warning to BQZip01 please? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've left another message, hopefully he takes it to heart. Syrthiss (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you Syrthiss. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Which is the problem in the first place. In this case, most (if not all) of these aren't fair use images; they were improperly labeled in the first place. You keep requesting compliance with fair use policy and I have provided rationales and/or compliance (i.e. fixing problem image labels). It is inappropriate to request compliance with a valid policy and then complain when a particular user you don't personally like provides the requested compliance. Wikihounding is done "...in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit...work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." I am not confronting you, I am providing the information you are requesting or fixing problem images. Accordingly, I am not inhibiting your work, but fixing what you have requested be fixed. If you are annoyed, irritated, or distressed with your requests being fulfilled, please stop making the requests. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• At 15:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC), User:Juliancolton, after reading this thread, posted a request at your talk page [88] recommending you avoid me for the time being, and leaving it to other editors to fix my errors should I make a mistake. As Syrthiss noted, you did not respond to or acknowledge this request. On your very next login, the only thing you apparently did was check my contributions, which at the time you checked had as my last action leaving a message on User:Wikiperuvian's talk page. On seeing that, you checked my contributions in regards to his editing and after researching the history of the coat of arms of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, you made a correction to the file [89]. Your subsequent edits during that login period dealt solely with edits that I had made, comprising edits to templates, files, and talk pages you had never before touched. If you want to work on making fair use images compliant with our policies, fine. You can start with places like Category:All Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale, or this list of NFC violations, or this list of NFC files likely to be overused or Category:Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status or any other of a dizzying array of places where fair use compliance work can be done. There is no necessity for you to follow me around, if your motivation is altruistic. But instead, despite a request by Juliancolton to stop doing what you're doing, you proceed ahead and focus solely on edits I made to fair use content related work subsequent to that request. It's obvious what is occurring here. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec, this was to BQzip01...not Hammersoft) I believe at this point he's trying to minimize his contact with you, so I wouldn't expect him to make fair use policy compliance requests in relation to you. If that is the case, then there should be a good chance you can avoid each other. Does that sound reasonable to both of you? I'm not saying that he can't bring fair use issues up, but perhaps if he finds fairuse issues in areas that happen to involve you he should bring it to someone else (hopefully not me, I have a hard time totally grokking the fair use policy, haha). Syrthiss (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have been attempting to avoid and ignore BQZip01 for some time now, so this is fine with me. All I'm asking is for BQZip01 to do the same; stop watching my edits, stay out of my userspace, and not post to my talk page unless there is a pressing matter. I have been doing the same with regards to him. We are occasionally going to bump into one another by happenstance. For instance, we're going to (and have) bump into each other quite a lot on sports team logos, especially college sports. That's fine; it's going to happen. It's the intentional aspect that is a problem. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Is making legal threats at Long Term Abuse regarding that whole Joe Hazelton thing. I reverted his stuff at LTA, and issued a WP:NLT warning with Twinkle. He then renewed the same on my talkpage thus [90]. Can we get a block on this little charmer? Crafty (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked but I have questions about that email see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:76.202.223.133 and legal threats. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 12:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that and you have a point. I think that has been removed from the LTA report in the past. Crafty (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That e-mail, while amusing, probably should not have been posted. His threat to go to the police expresses legitimate anger over that, although I have heard of very few cases of the police arresting wikipedia editors for anything to do with wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

"Very few"? Does that mean you've heard of any? :P GlassCobra 14:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

"Legitimate anger"? Seriously? He's a long-term stalker who doesn't want to be exposed, that's all. Gamaliel (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The truly legitimate part of his anger is the part about posting his e-mail here. The rest of it is of questionable legitimacy. It was nice of him to include his name, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 15:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Joe Hazelton is not his real name. We know his name and address, but of course we will not reveal this on wiki. Gamaliel (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should consolidate this discussion there? Gamaliel (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and then put him on ice for awhile if he doesn't chill on his own. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

There's always entertaining people, out there. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Wowsers, that anon is more entertaining them my own anon stalker. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd do something but I'm involved. We have an IP editor here 81.183.245.214 (talk · contribs) continually adding fringe stuff - it is definitely rubbish that doesn't belong, but this has turned into an edit war with the IP and another editor over 3RR right now. I think the sensible course is probably protection for the page, maybe block the IP, but I'd better recuse myself. I would have reverted if I'd seen at the right time, and I have reverted the same rubbish at another page that the IP has been editing, which would have helped. I't's also being discussed on the talk page but the IP isn't taking part in that discussion. Counting me there are 3 editors objecting to the addition. Thanks. I'll notify the IP. Dougweller (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for 3 days. Will expect IP to discuss any proposed changes on the talk page first, which is why I've not blocked the IP. I will leave a note on the article and IPs talk page. Mjroots (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's reasonable. Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've left a message on the IPs talk page, requesting that they discuss the issue, and backed it up with a uw-van4im. I've also left a message on the talk page of Ian.thomson (talk · contribs) re 3RR. I feel that a block is not warranted this time, subject to no further offences of 3RR. Mjroots (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

hi, I left a request a few days ago about a semi-protected page "Best Selling Albums Worldwide" does not link to (michael jackson cd) History: past, present, future could someone with access please fix this, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.19.114 (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It should be fixed now. Regards, GiantSnowman 15:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

There was a request for it to be moved, the admin said there was no consensus: [91] There was also a request for the article to be deleted: the majority of votes voted to keep the article without it to be renamed: [92] User:Gilabrand has went against these things, moved the article himself while claiming "its not a list" and adding irrelevant text to the article topic: [93] [94] he has added the nuclear reactor thing before [95] and it was removed by another editor: [96]. He has also re added the hama massacre link [97] which was also removed by another editor: [98] claiming that the List is an article about Syria is destroying its own villages [99] notice here that another pro Israeli editor has removed three sources saying that Israel destroyed the villages. [100] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Gilbrand about this discussion. GiantSnowman 15:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there's some POV-pushing by Gilabrand and others going on. While the move from "List of Pre-1967 ..." to "Pre-1967..." probably was in good faith (since the article did become much less of a list), the effort to remove any indication of destruction of villages by Israel (including the removal of a scholarly source as "unreliable" by User:Jalapenos do exist, here) while at the same time adding anything and everything "bad" the Syrians did, whether related to pre-1967 villages or not, makes assuming good faith rather difficult. Huon (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The Arab Center for Human Rights in the Golan has no reputation and it is self-evidently radical and partisan. As such it is not an RS by a long shot. For the record, I did not add anything that anybody did to the article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The reactor was sited 300 km east/northeast of the Golan Heights and 40 years later... Gilabrand seems to be throwing stuff on the wall trying to make it stick here.

I am somewhat concerned about the POVness of the article without Israeli influence, but Gilabrand is certainly not adding reasonable additional content at this point. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment -- Regardless of the article's name, after the discussion on the AfD and the RfC, I'm concerned that the article, as its written, is not being used for encyclopedic purposes but as an intentional WP:POVFORK and to make a WP:POINT. What could have been a neutral encyclopedic article discussing and/or listing cities or villages depopulated prior to Israel gaining control of the Golan Heights, has become an article full of weasle words and is being used to vilify and trash both Israelis and Syrians. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 18:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

While I do not agree with everything User:Gilabrand is doing, the overall consensus at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel debate was to either rename or delete entirely. User:Supreme Deliciousness, is your purpose in creating this article to make note of villages that once existed, or the fact that Israel destroyed them (notwithstanding the fact that they were abandoned)? I see a very pointy pattern here. Shlomke (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That was not the finding of the closing administrator, who closed as "Keep". There was a significant "Keep but rename" contingent. Shlomke - attempting to misrepresent either consensus or the closing admin's determination is not acceptable behavior here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert - where do you see me referring to the closing admin?? Attempting to tell a user what they are attempting to do is not at all acceptable either, thanks Shlomke (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said, Gilabrand's page move isn't much of a problem. Whether the move done by The Anome a little earlier really had consensus may be an interesting question, but that's not what this is about, is it?

And while Supreme Deliciousness may have a personal bias (who hasn't?), most of his edits to this article are backed up by sources, with the exception of his stripping the article back down to the list it originally was here and here. And I'd consider at least the first of those edits more of a disagreement about whether we want more than just a list or not than pushing any particular pov or making a point. The second does seem a little dubious. Huon (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the move without consensus, there is this amazing bit of coatracking by user Gilabrand. It doesn't look to me like the behaviour of someone who is here to build an encyclopedia.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but the fault in the problems with this article lies not solely on Gilabrand, but also with the creator of this article, who has a history of making controversial edits and creating POV-articles; The subject at hand is how to turn it into a neutrally worded encylopedic article, instead of the POVFORK and POINT article is currently is. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 19:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The article was created to stir up controversy. It started out as a long list of red links to dozens of "villages" with made-up sounding names, many of them simply the same name spelled differently. This person names an article 101 Cities and villages destroyed by Israel (after leaving anti-Israel and anti-Semitic comments on a variety of pages) and then goes sniveling to administrators when his unsourced POV article gets "tampered with." Yes, I am guilty of WP:POINT. But now that I have made that point, I tip my hat and say goodbye. The article is already vastly improved compared to what it was before. At least it has a few sources and a little more substance.--Gilabrand (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Someone may query why I put in a move-for-discussion Pre-1967 Syrian towns on the Golan Heights → List of Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel. That is because someone put that move in Wikipedia:Requested moves#Uncontroversial requests, but a look in Talk:Pre-1967 Syrian towns on the Golan Heights showed me that that move was acrimoniously lengthily controversial, so I transferred the move to the moves for discussion. This dispute looks like getting to be one of those cases where the discussion about moving or deleting the article quickly becomes longer than the article. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Admin help needed:

After the afd and rfm there was no consensus for it to be moved, can some admin please move the article back to its real name from the one that Gilbrand forced upon the article? If people want to change its name we should begin at the articles real name, not something no one has agreed to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APre-1967_Syrian_towns_on_the_Golan_Heights&action=historysubmit&diff=326483118&oldid=326466563 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Syrian_towns_and_villages_destroyed_by_Israel --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment -- Seems like a sensible move to me (and not that I wouldnt say that about most of this editors edits on this article). It seems to be the article name that is both the most neutral and the article name that corresponds to what the sources say (i.e. most, but not all villages were abandoned and then demolished or destroyed, making it unclear whether we should call the article List of abandoned... or List of destroyed...). In any case this is a content dispute and should be discussed on the article talk page. But all the drama sourrounding this article makes it doubtful whether it is really a net gain for Wikipedia, or rather an additional drama magnet with each side trying to push its own POV into the article, thereby disgracing Wikipedia. Pantherskin (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The proper way to move an article is through discussion on the talk page and RfM. There was such a discussion and consensus did not support such a move. There was then an AfD which also did not result in a consensus for rename (although I argued for a rename myself). We simply should not allow such actions against consensus to be left unreverted. I hope that an admin will move it back so that further discussion can take place according to our policies. Unomi (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope so too. I find it disappointing that the rules can be broken repeatedly by some users without anything being done about it, essentially creating facts on the ground according to their preferences. User:Gilabrand has moved pages to where she thinks they should be located before too without initiating move discussions. When asked politely to undo her moves, she has declined (See her talk page for an example). It would be nice if instead of flouting procedure time and again, someone would do something to make sure she understands this kind of behaviour is not conducive to collaboration and should be avoided in the future. Tiamut^talk 15:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

As long as admins are looking at this article[edit]

The most serious problem with the article is that, since its inception, it has been sourced almost entirely to the Arab Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Golan. This is an organization with no reputation and which is self-evidently radical and partisan. Retaining the article in this form without objection could set a precedent under which everybody will rush to create articles serving their own POV lifted straight out of - say - Richard Landes' blog (he is an academic after all), or - to take a more extreme hypothetical - articles like List of reasons the world is flat sourced to the Flat Earth Society. Bearing all this in mind, I think an admin statement reminding of Wikipedia's core principles could be helpful. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not true, there are many sources other then the Arab Center golan-marsad link in the article, including Israeli sources saying the same thing. The fact is that the list of villages in the golan-marsad link [[101]]is also confirmed in a separate source which lists almost all the same villages [102] and a third site finds the villages in the golan-marsad document [103] which gives us no reason to doubt the truthiness of the golan-marsad document.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)--

This should be discussed either on the article's talk page or on the Reliable sources noticeboard. I'll answer on the talk page; involving the noticeboard seems overkill. Huon (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• as a commentator on the recent AFD, i was surprised to see this name change. i agree that it should have been discussed, but i really really like this new name. content is another issue entirely. this name allows for plenty of room to discuss why the villages no longer exist, and can include the most POV sources without difficulty. i support extremely NPOV names for controversial subjects. let the body of the article hash it out. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at the most recent post to my talk page. I'm not sure if this attorney is trying to make a legal threat, or just awe me with her awesomeness. It's certainly borderline enough that I'm not going to put a WP:NLT block on her myself. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

He's trying to intimidate you here [104], so that does indeed constitute a legal threat, though a minor one. I'm guessing you don't actually feel all that intimidated by his personal puffery. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That's neither a legal threat, nor is it very awesome. It's just a stupid rant about how Wikipedia is a lawless place and administrators can just do whatever they want. --Atlan (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm with Atlan. Now I need to go find some articles to delete. *swirls mustache menacingly* Syrthiss (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a lawless place where administrators pretty much do what they want. I don't see a legal threat. Perhaps an attempt at courteous communication would be helpful. People are human and do get frustrated by the rather impenetrable and often times arbitrary processes we have set up here. If the subject of their article isn't notable, I'm sure the reasoning can be provided, or it can be taken to AfD for wider input, or what have you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

She's trying to create an article about a realtor who's a candidate for local city council, and argues that squibs stating that he has filed for the race make him notable. She also claims to believe that language like, "In his spare time, Hale is an avid family man ... Since making Tampa his permanent home, Hale has become very involved with his community and charitable organizations. ..." is not promotional. There's also a side serving of WP:UPANDCOMING. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment and attempted to explain the situation. If he's a family man, involved in his community, and devoted to charity, I wonder what the heck he's doing getting involved in politics? I thought a squib was the tip of a pen. I'll have to go look what we have on the subject... ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a lawless place where anyone pretty much does what she/he want. Fortunately, those smart enough to figure this out (& how to make this work) are almost always those who came here to write articles about subjects other people are interested in. Those who don't realize that this is really, honestly true? Well, they get tangled up in something stupid, like an edit war over where to place a comma. Or writing articles about unnotable real estate salesmen. -- llywrch (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've nearly given up. It looks like almost nobody is working on these articles anymore. Can we get a collaboration going or something? And somebody please deal with the recent wave. A little insignificant ^{Giving thanks to all that is me} 18:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggested a long while back that people sign up to take specific shifts. If 336 people would take 1/2 hour each week, we'd be assured of covering them all. DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've wondered a couple of times why there isn't a new page patrol project, DGG's idea would be easier to implement through that. Although nobody would have an duty to turn up for their shift. But if NPPers put down the times when they are active, it would at least help those with too much time on their hands (i.e. me ) to see when more patrollers are needed - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Newpage patrollers are needed pretty much around the clock. However, you could check WP:HAU for a list of highly active users, and see when the least amount of those are on. (For the record, I believe that most people are on during American East Coast "operating hours", so any hours that might be considered "off-peak" would be optimal.) GlassCobra 20:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

A lot of us who regularly patrolled NP quit outright due to recent events and others are just waiting until the issues at WP:NEWT are resolved before they resume patrolling. Setting up some kind of wikiproject of NPPers and actively recruiting them would probably be a good idea. In my experience, the worst time for NPP is during the times when the Western Hemisphere is asleep. Hoax articles, attack pages and other garbage can roll in at frightening speeds during this time. If you can find folks, especially admins, in other countries who will agree to patrol newpages during these periods, the weekly backlog will shorten considerably. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk)

I tried to pitch in the other day, reviewed about 20 of them. Maybe one or two didn't seem worth letting in, & I got entangled in the rules around the whole process trying to flag that handful, so I decided the entire effort wasn't worth it. I don't care; let them all in. If they're a problem, I'll sort them out later when I find them. :-/ llywrch (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I came across this user page as the author was testing several edits on the Texas National Guard article. From the account's user talk page I got the impression that this account is intended to be used by several people (web staff) of an organization, so I think this is a violation of rules like "no password sharing" and WP:username. Also, conflicts of interest are bound to occur here. De728631 (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right, appears to be a violation of WP:ORGNAME. ♠The Ace of Spades^♣♥_♦ 22:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Warned for COI. ♠The Ace of Spades^♣♥_♦ 22:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What the hell is a "Disclaimer" section of the article they are obviously copying from somewhere? DMacks (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

No idea, but I reverted the article to a former, neutral version. De728631 (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I have pointed out the relevant parts of WP:USERNAME, along with a link to WP:CHU -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 23:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, a name change would just make them harder to pinpoint. The account should have been blocked right away as a violation of the two policies pointed out already. This account is obviously intended to be used by multiple people, to only edit articles that they have a vested interest in, to give the appearance that they are somehow "sanctioned" or approved by the organization, and is thus totally inappropriate. GlassCobra 00:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Such editing is indeed going on now, albeit by IPs. Again I reverted disruptive edits on related articles involving the Texas Armed Forces. De728631 (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Fangusu (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 123.236.27.179 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

I bring this up here, should this IP's edits need to be reverted or it noted that they come from a sock or impersonation account. Most urgently, it appears to be edit-warring and harassing certain former oponents who have already tried reverting him as seen here and here and thus may require faster attention than Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations gets. Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done for 55 hours.--chaser (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast action! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Please compare this edit from the first IP with this edit from the second IP. These IPs appear to be edit warring with User:Verbal here, here, and here and are doing so with such incivil edit summaries as "Verbal, why don't you just take yourself somewhere else... like possibly self-fornicating?" The second IP's third edit was to an RfA, which is highly unlikely for any new user anyway. Not sure if it is who Verbal suspects, but something funny is going on here and the aforementioned incivility and edit-warring is totally unacceptable. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Can an admin semi-protect the Phil Babb article please; IPs from a forum have decided to start a rumour about him and vandalise the article accordingly. I have filed a request at WP:RPP but there looks to be a delay or backlog or something. Cheers, GiantSnowman 22:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for two weeks. NW (Talk) 22:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You're a gem! Much appreciated, GiantSnowman 22:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. As for the backlog at RfPP, going to clear that up now. :) NW (Talk) 22:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you're a machine! ;) GiantSnowman 22:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Raynec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I am requesting that action (ban or lengthy block) be taken against this user. Over a period of about two months, he has consistently engaged in acts of vandalism on a number of articles related to Armenia and Azerbaijan. He systematically deletes the words "Armenia" or "Armenian" and replaces them with "Azerbaijan" or "Azeri", in complete defiance of the cited sources. I reverted him on the articles related to Gardman and Mkhitar Gosh and formally warned him of the discretionary sanctions on his talk page but to no effect. Today, I reverted him on Erzurum article after he deleted the Armenian names of the city and replaced them with the Azeri alphabet. I warned him if he persisted, I would report him. And sure enough, he did not heed my warning and is once more removing the words Armenian from the History of the Nagorno-Karabakh article and replacing him with "Azeri". On the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic article, he is deleting cited work and adding unsourced and POV material. He simply hits and runs on these articles and fails to ever engage on the talk page. I was turned away from the "Administrator intervention against vandalism" page and told to report this user's problematic edits here. The admin felt that Raynec's edits fail to constitute vandalism but I beg to differ. I cannot see any worse examples than removing the name of a people and a place and replacing it with the name of another people, in complete defiance of all historical sources. Immediate action would be desired. Thank you. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I have notified Raynec about this discussion. GiantSnowman 22:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I reverted what I thought was vandalism but then thought, maybe it is not vandalism and person is serious? See this diff. What are admins thoughts? Should a check user be made?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Considering the fact that it was at Talk:Suicide, I think vandalism is a safe assumption.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 16:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Very borderline WP:SUICIDE. However, I generally advocate "better safe than sorry" in these situations. Singularity42 (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

They never actually said that they were going to commit suicide, but, if this is real, then they're definitely depressed and/or suicidal. However, it's certainly possible that this is just a troll. (On a different note, I was not aware of Wikipedia's policy about suicide threats. I was wondering about it just a few minutes ago. I've threatened to kill myself on other websites before, but never on Wikipedia.)--66.177.73.86 (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, technically, it's an essay (and, from what I've heard, a rejected proposal)--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 00:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It's an essay that is generally followed, but was decided shouldn't specifically be made policy. Singularity42 (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

CU doesn't accomplish anything for IP editors. This IP address geolocates to Thailand, and I for one would not be eager to try to contact Thai cops and explain the situation to them. Looie496 (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see there is anything we can do. It is the only edit by an anon IP address, and we have no way of contacting them. It would be possible, I suppose, to post a user-page message, but I'm not sure it would do any good. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Everything that can reasonably be done has been. -- llywrch (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

"I've threatened to kill myself on other websites before, but never on Wikipedia." I haven;t stopped laughing yet. Great bunch of people you got here, reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.81.177.148 (talk) 10:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've reported the above IP to AIV, as its only purpose here seems to be to denigrate wikipedia's editors, in the manner demonstrated above. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Who? Me, or 84.81.177.148?--66.177.73.86 (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. Please be more specific next time, though.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Not cool. We cannot take up the task of a suicide watch just because we're a top-10 global traffic website, but that means we need to be amazingly careful with words. Big website = big risks, regardless of disclaimers and legal policy. Just the Suicide article is natural and very legitimate, but "WP:xxxxx" article types (even a rejected policy), are things users very often assume things are okay to run with if they can pull up any of them as a guide. As admins and the admin-minded it does fall on us to keep that content in order. Matters this serious should probably be extremely scrutinized like we'd do with new or controversial BLP articles and temp blanked if looking suspicious. Articles could use work and clarification... Hell, I'll work on them myself, without reasonable objection. Mostly downplaying what we can try to do but still offering proper support since our policy is partially to direct people to where they can learn about the things we can't directly discuss or do. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 20:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

There was a request for it to be moved, the admin said there was no consensus: [105] There was also a request for the article to be deleted: the majority of votes voted to keep the article without it to be renamed: [106] User:Gilabrand has went against these things, moved the article himself while claiming "its not a list" and adding irrelevant text to the article topic: [107] [108] he has added the nuclear reactor thing before [109] and it was removed by another editor: [110]. He has also re added the hama massacre link [111] which was also removed by another editor: [112] claiming that the List is an article about Syria is destroying its own villages [113] notice here that another pro Israeli editor has removed three sources saying that Israel destroyed the villages. [114] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Gilbrand about this discussion. GiantSnowman 15:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there's some POV-pushing by Gilabrand and others going on. While the move from "List of Pre-1967 ..." to "Pre-1967..." probably was in good faith (since the article did become much less of a list), the effort to remove any indication of destruction of villages by Israel (including the removal of a scholarly source as "unreliable" by User:Jalapenos do exist, here) while at the same time adding anything and everything "bad" the Syrians did, whether related to pre-1967 villages or not, makes assuming good faith rather difficult. Huon (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The Arab Center for Human Rights in the Golan has no reputation and it is self-evidently radical and partisan. As such it is not an RS by a long shot. For the record, I did not add anything that anybody did to the article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The reactor was sited 300 km east/northeast of the Golan Heights and 40 years later... Gilabrand seems to be throwing stuff on the wall trying to make it stick here.

I am somewhat concerned about the POVness of the article without Israeli influence, but Gilabrand is certainly not adding reasonable additional content at this point. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment -- Regardless of the article's name, after the discussion on the AfD and the RfC, I'm concerned that the article, as its written, is not being used for encyclopedic purposes but as an intentional WP:POVFORK and to make a WP:POINT. What could have been a neutral encyclopedic article discussing and/or listing cities or villages depopulated prior to Israel gaining control of the Golan Heights, has become an article full of weasle words and is being used to vilify and trash both Israelis and Syrians. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 18:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

While I do not agree with everything User:Gilabrand is doing, the overall consensus at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel debate was to either rename or delete entirely. User:Supreme Deliciousness, is your purpose in creating this article to make note of villages that once existed, or the fact that Israel destroyed them (notwithstanding the fact that they were abandoned)? I see a very pointy pattern here. Shlomke (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That was not the finding of the closing administrator, who closed as "Keep". There was a significant "Keep but rename" contingent. Shlomke - attempting to misrepresent either consensus or the closing admin's determination is not acceptable behavior here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert - where do you see me referring to the closing admin?? Attempting to tell a user what they are attempting to do is not at all acceptable either, thanks Shlomke (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said, Gilabrand's page move isn't much of a problem. Whether the move done by The Anome a little earlier really had consensus may be an interesting question, but that's not what this is about, is it?

And while Supreme Deliciousness may have a personal bias (who hasn't?), most of his edits to this article are backed up by sources, with the exception of his stripping the article back down to the list it originally was here and here. And I'd consider at least the first of those edits more of a disagreement about whether we want more than just a list or not than pushing any particular pov or making a point. The second does seem a little dubious. Huon (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the move without consensus, there is this amazing bit of coatracking by user Gilabrand. It doesn't look to me like the behaviour of someone who is here to build an encyclopedia.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but the fault in the problems with this article lies not solely on Gilabrand, but also with the creator of this article, who has a history of making controversial edits and creating POV-articles; The subject at hand is how to turn it into a neutrally worded encylopedic article, instead of the POVFORK and POINT article is currently is. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 19:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The article was created to stir up controversy. It started out as a long list of red links to dozens of "villages" with made-up sounding names, many of them simply the same name spelled differently. This person names an article 101 Cities and villages destroyed by Israel (after leaving anti-Israel and anti-Semitic comments on a variety of pages) and then goes sniveling to administrators when his unsourced POV article gets "tampered with." Yes, I am guilty of WP:POINT. But now that I have made that point, I tip my hat and say goodbye. The article is already vastly improved compared to what it was before. At least it has a few sources and a little more substance.--Gilabrand (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Someone may query why I put in a move-for-discussion Pre-1967 Syrian towns on the Golan Heights → List of Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel. That is because someone put that move in Wikipedia:Requested moves#Uncontroversial requests, but a look in Talk:Pre-1967 Syrian towns on the Golan Heights showed me that that move was acrimoniously lengthily controversial, so I transferred the move to the moves for discussion. This dispute looks like getting to be one of those cases where the discussion about moving or deleting the article quickly becomes longer than the article. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Admin help needed:

After the afd and rfm there was no consensus for it to be moved, can some admin please move the article back to its real name from the one that Gilbrand forced upon the article? If people want to change its name we should begin at the articles real name, not something no one has agreed to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APre-1967_Syrian_towns_on_the_Golan_Heights&action=historysubmit&diff=326483118&oldid=326466563 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Syrian_towns_and_villages_destroyed_by_Israel --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment -- Seems like a sensible move to me (and not that I wouldnt say that about most of this editors edits on this article). It seems to be the article name that is both the most neutral and the article name that corresponds to what the sources say (i.e. most, but not all villages were abandoned and then demolished or destroyed, making it unclear whether we should call the article List of abandoned... or List of destroyed...). In any case this is a content dispute and should be discussed on the article talk page. But all the drama sourrounding this article makes it doubtful whether it is really a net gain for Wikipedia, or rather an additional drama magnet with each side trying to push its own POV into the article, thereby disgracing Wikipedia. Pantherskin (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The proper way to move an article is through discussion on the talk page and RfM. There was such a discussion and consensus did not support such a move. There was then an AfD which also did not result in a consensus for rename (although I argued for a rename myself). We simply should not allow such actions against consensus to be left unreverted. I hope that an admin will move it back so that further discussion can take place according to our policies. Unomi (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope so too. I find it disappointing that the rules can be broken repeatedly by some users without anything being done about it, essentially creating facts on the ground according to their preferences. User:Gilabrand has moved pages to where she thinks they should be located before too without initiating move discussions. When asked politely to undo her moves, she has declined (See her talk page for an example). It would be nice if instead of flouting procedure time and again, someone would do something to make sure she understands this kind of behaviour is not conducive to collaboration and should be avoided in the future. Tiamut^talk 15:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

As long as admins are looking at this article[edit]

The most serious problem with the article is that, since its inception, it has been sourced almost entirely to the Arab Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Golan. This is an organization with no reputation and which is self-evidently radical and partisan. Retaining the article in this form without objection could set a precedent under which everybody will rush to create articles serving their own POV lifted straight out of - say - Richard Landes' blog (he is an academic after all), or - to take a more extreme hypothetical - articles like List of reasons the world is flat sourced to the Flat Earth Society. Bearing all this in mind, I think an admin statement reminding of Wikipedia's core principles could be helpful. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not true, there are many sources other then the Arab Center golan-marsad link in the article, including Israeli sources saying the same thing. The fact is that the list of villages in the golan-marsad link [[115]]is also confirmed in a separate source which lists almost all the same villages [116] and a third site finds the villages in the golan-marsad document [117] which gives us no reason to doubt the truthiness of the golan-marsad document.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)--

This should be discussed either on the article's talk page or on the Reliable sources noticeboard. I'll answer on the talk page; involving the noticeboard seems overkill. Huon (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• as a commentator on the recent AFD, i was surprised to see this name change. i agree that it should have been discussed, but i really really like this new name. content is another issue entirely. this name allows for plenty of room to discuss why the villages no longer exist, and can include the most POV sources without difficulty. i support extremely NPOV names for controversial subjects. let the body of the article hash it out. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at the most recent post to my talk page. I'm not sure if this attorney is trying to make a legal threat, or just awe me with her awesomeness. It's certainly borderline enough that I'm not going to put a WP:NLT block on her myself. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

He's trying to intimidate you here [118], so that does indeed constitute a legal threat, though a minor one. I'm guessing you don't actually feel all that intimidated by his personal puffery. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That's neither a legal threat, nor is it very awesome. It's just a stupid rant about how Wikipedia is a lawless place and administrators can just do whatever they want. --Atlan (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm with Atlan. Now I need to go find some articles to delete. *swirls mustache menacingly* Syrthiss (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a lawless place where administrators pretty much do what they want. I don't see a legal threat. Perhaps an attempt at courteous communication would be helpful. People are human and do get frustrated by the rather impenetrable and often times arbitrary processes we have set up here. If the subject of their article isn't notable, I'm sure the reasoning can be provided, or it can be taken to AfD for wider input, or what have you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

She's trying to create an article about a realtor who's a candidate for local city council, and argues that squibs stating that he has filed for the race make him notable. She also claims to believe that language like, "In his spare time, Hale is an avid family man ... Since making Tampa his permanent home, Hale has become very involved with his community and charitable organizations. ..." is not promotional. There's also a side serving of WP:UPANDCOMING. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment and attempted to explain the situation. If he's a family man, involved in his community, and devoted to charity, I wonder what the heck he's doing getting involved in politics? I thought a squib was the tip of a pen. I'll have to go look what we have on the subject... ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a lawless place where anyone pretty much does what she/he want. Fortunately, those smart enough to figure this out (& how to make this work) are almost always those who came here to write articles about subjects other people are interested in. Those who don't realize that this is really, honestly true? Well, they get tangled up in something stupid, like an edit war over where to place a comma. Or writing articles about unnotable real estate salesmen. -- llywrch (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've nearly given up. It looks like almost nobody is working on these articles anymore. Can we get a collaboration going or something? And somebody please deal with the recent wave. A little insignificant ^{Giving thanks to all that is me} 18:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggested a long while back that people sign up to take specific shifts. If 336 people would take 1/2 hour each week, we'd be assured of covering them all. DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've wondered a couple of times why there isn't a new page patrol project, DGG's idea would be easier to implement through that. Although nobody would have an duty to turn up for their shift. But if NPPers put down the times when they are active, it would at least help those with too much time on their hands (i.e. me ) to see when more patrollers are needed - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Newpage patrollers are needed pretty much around the clock. However, you could check WP:HAU for a list of highly active users, and see when the least amount of those are on. (For the record, I believe that most people are on during American East Coast "operating hours", so any hours that might be considered "off-peak" would be optimal.) GlassCobra 20:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

A lot of us who regularly patrolled NP quit outright due to recent events and others are just waiting until the issues at WP:NEWT are resolved before they resume patrolling. Setting up some kind of wikiproject of NPPers and actively recruiting them would probably be a good idea. In my experience, the worst time for NPP is during the times when the Western Hemisphere is asleep. Hoax articles, attack pages and other garbage can roll in at frightening speeds during this time. If you can find folks, especially admins, in other countries who will agree to patrol newpages during these periods, the weekly backlog will shorten considerably. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk)

I tried to pitch in the other day, reviewed about 20 of them. Maybe one or two didn't seem worth letting in, & I got entangled in the rules around the whole process trying to flag that handful, so I decided the entire effort wasn't worth it. I don't care; let them all in. If they're a problem, I'll sort them out later when I find them. :-/ llywrch (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I came across this user page as the author was testing several edits on the Texas National Guard article. From the account's user talk page I got the impression that this account is intended to be used by several people (web staff) of an organization, so I think this is a violation of rules like "no password sharing" and WP:username. Also, conflicts of interest are bound to occur here. De728631 (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right, appears to be a violation of WP:ORGNAME. ♠The Ace of Spades^♣♥_♦ 22:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Warned for COI. ♠The Ace of Spades^♣♥_♦ 22:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What the hell is a "Disclaimer" section of the article they are obviously copying from somewhere? DMacks (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

No idea, but I reverted the article to a former, neutral version. De728631 (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I have pointed out the relevant parts of WP:USERNAME, along with a link to WP:CHU -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 23:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, a name change would just make them harder to pinpoint. The account should have been blocked right away as a violation of the two policies pointed out already. This account is obviously intended to be used by multiple people, to only edit articles that they have a vested interest in, to give the appearance that they are somehow "sanctioned" or approved by the organization, and is thus totally inappropriate. GlassCobra 00:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Such editing is indeed going on now, albeit by IPs. Again I reverted disruptive edits on related articles involving the Texas Armed Forces. De728631 (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

IP 87.244.124.68, claiming to be the subject of the article, has been making edits of various kinds, some to update the article, others to make it fit what he claims to be the importance of various aspects of his career. At no time has the IP provided any sources for these edits, merely stating that he know what he is doing, where he lives, etc. In the past, the subject has requested that we suppress various portions of the article (sourced to The Times, Debretts, and other such obscure scandalsheets) for privacy reasons. Any suggestions? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've notified the editor. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, say thank you My Lord, Wikipedia is most honoured by your noble presence. Now, I must rush over there and introduce myself. Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, it's possible this is the real Billy Villiers, and he's entitled to the same consideration under WP:BLP as anybody else. One of my concerns is imposture; the other is reliable sources and verifiability of the edits. (As a Quaker, I avoid all honorifics; no Milording for me.) --Orange Mike | Talk 17:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Autobiography you shouldn't really write about yourself on Wikipedia, so if it is him, he should stop. GiantSnowman 17:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If you read all of WP:AUTO, it's a little more complicated than that. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

"This page in a nutshell: Avoid writing or editing an article about yourself, other than to correct unambiguous errors of fact" - sounds pretty simple to me. GiantSnowman 17:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a control issue - the subject wants to control what goes into the article. There have been many similar cases in the past, such as Jim Hawkins and Sally Boazman. As long as WP:BLP is strictly adhered to, the subject doesn't get to dictate what is and what is not in the article. Mjroots (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. The sum total of the disputed edits consisted of 1) an attempt to remove the description of Villiers as a "writer, actor and producer" and 2) the addition of the information that Radier Manor was off the market. #1 would have been harmless to leave stand for a day or two while talking out the present compromise (to describe him as a former writer, etc.) and #2 is trivial to verify, insofar as one can verify a negative. (I don't expect the Times to run a lengthy article announcing that Radier Manor is off the market, but it doesn't appear in the listings of either estate agent and its web page suggests that Jersey will be leasing the grounds for some time in the future.) I realize we have a duty to protect Wikipedia from the people declaring themselves to be the Hereditary Captain-General of Ruritania (and the people joe-jobbing others in such a fashion), but the vigorous reverting and referrals to Vogonesque bureacracy that occur as soon as someone touches their own biography hardly paint Wikipedia in the best light. Choess (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, Lord Jersey was, IIRC, helpful in getting one of our more persistent hoaxers—who was vandalizing Earl of Jersey, among other pages, about two years ago—to find a more productive use of his time. Choess (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Can anybody check whether 75.150.239.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a school? They have a long list of warnings and have vandalized a lot of pages. If its not a school, something should be done. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about a block - they have one edit today, three last month, and those were the first since May. TNXMan 19:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind they haven't made one constructive edit. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Lots of IP talkpages are studded with dead vandalism warnings. It doesn't mean they need to be blocked. Moreover the sort of block you're talking about could ensure that the first constructive edit from that IP never happens. Crafty (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified the user(s) about this discussion. GiantSnowman 20:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• User has been incorrectly or insufficiently warned. Re-report if the user resumes vandalising after being warned sufficiently. This belongs at WP:AIV once they've persisted vandalizing after recent warnings. –xeno^talk 20:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Fangusu (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 123.236.27.179 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

I bring this up here, should this IP's edits need to be reverted or it noted that they come from a sock or impersonation account. Most urgently, it appears to be edit-warring and harassing certain former oponents who have already tried reverting him as seen here and here and thus may require faster attention than Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations gets. Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done for 55 hours.--chaser (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast action! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Self reporting this edit, in which I removed a comment in which an editor speculates that the subject may have a mental illness. I believe this to be a just application of WP:BLP, but I submit my edit here for further administrative review. Also, FTR, I think the section immediately below it (in which someone asks about his sexual orientation) should also be removed, but I don't feel that the WP:BLP mandate is as clear in that case. Thanks in advance. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur with your removal; there is something a bit creepy about that particular question. As to the other section, it's not particularly relevant, but it's not a BLP violation, especially since he is asking if reliable sources exist. It might be refactored a bit to remove some of the details, but I don't think it needs to be nuked from the talk page. As a side note, questions like that are a solid argument to make everything other than article space pages opaque to Google. It's not a BLP violation, but it *is* a bit speculative. Horologium (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Horologium.--chaser (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) BLP applies to talk pages, but I think there's benefit in that section remaining to inform people about the policy. If someone brings up things they've read in blogs and so forth about someone's sexual orientation on the talk page, it does make the rumor more prominent for those that read our talk pages. But that is a minor BLP problem, one of a different degree than talk page chatter about rumors of criminal acts, for example. The asperger's thread, OTOH, appeared to be wholly conjecture and so removing that was appropriate. That's my take.--chaser (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That was my read exactly; thanks for the confirmation. Also, FWIW I agree with your comment regarding masking non-mainspace pages from search engines. Is there currently an active discussion somewhere in the Wikiverse on this topic? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 5:03 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Several, of various degrees of (in)activity. See WP:NOINDEX. Revive one!--chaser (talk) 01:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that User:Demoosfp is changing the height statistics on a large number of sports articles. I left a request for them to stop the unsourced changes, but it continues unabated. I have to log off for a few hours and won't be able to finish checking up on the changes, as such could someone here kindly direct this user in the right direction and perhaps block if they won't discuss the matter? Thanks --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 22:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked until they undertake to put up or shut up. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Please compare this edit from the first IP with this edit from the second IP. These IPs appear to be edit warring with User:Verbal here, here, and here and are doing so with such incivil edit summaries as "Verbal, why don't you just take yourself somewhere else... like possibly self-fornicating?" The second IP's third edit was to an RfA, which is highly unlikely for any new user anyway. Not sure if it is who Verbal suspects, but something funny is going on here and the aforementioned incivility and edit-warring is totally unacceptable. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Can an admin semi-protect the Phil Babb article please; IPs from a forum have decided to start a rumour about him and vandalise the article accordingly. I have filed a request at WP:RPP but there looks to be a delay or backlog or something. Cheers, GiantSnowman 22:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for two weeks. NW (Talk) 22:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You're a gem! Much appreciated, GiantSnowman 22:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. As for the backlog at RfPP, going to clear that up now. :) NW (Talk) 22:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you're a machine! ;) GiantSnowman 22:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Raynec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I am requesting that action (ban or lengthy block) be taken against this user. Over a period of about two months, he has consistently engaged in acts of vandalism on a number of articles related to Armenia and Azerbaijan. He systematically deletes the words "Armenia" or "Armenian" and replaces them with "Azerbaijan" or "Azeri", in complete defiance of the cited sources. I reverted him on the articles related to Gardman and Mkhitar Gosh and formally warned him of the discretionary sanctions on his talk page but to no effect. Today, I reverted him on Erzurum article after he deleted the Armenian names of the city and replaced them with the Azeri alphabet. I warned him if he persisted, I would report him. And sure enough, he did not heed my warning and is once more removing the words Armenian from the History of the Nagorno-Karabakh article and replacing him with "Azeri". On the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic article, he is deleting cited work and adding unsourced and POV material. He simply hits and runs on these articles and fails to ever engage on the talk page. I was turned away from the "Administrator intervention against vandalism" page and told to report this user's problematic edits here. The admin felt that Raynec's edits fail to constitute vandalism but I beg to differ. I cannot see any worse examples than removing the name of a people and a place and replacing it with the name of another people, in complete defiance of all historical sources. Immediate action would be desired. Thank you. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I have notified Raynec about this discussion. GiantSnowman 22:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

See Cromagnon (band) (2nd nomination) for discussion. Pickbothmanlol 01:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

 closed @Kate (talk) 01:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the hurry, though? It would be closed tomorrow anyway. Tim Song (talk) 02:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

None that I saw. I just noticed the request, and as it was a relatively easy closure to make, went ahead and did so, since the request has been open almost two weeks. @Kate (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought, it's actually not a snow close. Relisted debates can be closed once the consensus becomes clear. Not quite sure why this justifies an ANI post, though. Tim Song (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the second time I noticed it was re-created after I tagged it for speedy deletion. Should this page be salted before we end up in a upcoming recreation conflict? Pickbothmanlol 02:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Is the article about the band? Because Google News results indicate it's quite notable [120]. Why is it getting speedy deleted? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that it was created very poorly, no offense to the creator of the article. Pickbothmanlol 03:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

With the proper search notability looks minor, but I have incubated the article to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Shallow Reign and informed the author of its new location. (It certainly does meet A7 as created.) Anyone is, of course, welcome to help work on it.

For the record, the page was created once under Shallow reign and once on Shallow Reign which is not nearly sufficient reason to salt. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I worked it up a bit and restored it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

As a long-term anonymous editor, I am growing increasinly concerned with the way User:Jayron32 has been using his tools in regards to recent patrol, in particular, how they treat new users. For instance, here you see him warning to block an editor. While it may be true that the account wasn't here to be constructive, perhaps Jayron32 could've said something along the lines of:

"Your edits do not appear to be constructive and you may be blocked if you continue. As an administrator on Wikipedia, I am open to justifying why your edits are being reverted and discussing with you what we can do to resolve this matter."

A message like this one would let the user know that their edits are warranting admin attention and that they could be blocked if an admin sees the need to do so but would also let the user know that they can discuss with the matters with the admin intervening (remember, a lot of newcomers have limited knowledge of how Wikipedia operates) and perhaps try to come to a constructive conclusion. But instead, the user gets

"Your edits look like vandalism and if you do not stop, you may be blocked."

"Your edits look like vandalism"? WP:AGF anyone? "If you do not stop, you may be blocked." WP:BITE!!!!. OUCH, that combined with the lack of invitation to discuss the relevant edits by either them or the admin on either their or the admin's talk page. Also, look at the edit summary. Do administrator's really need to be writing summaries like that when editing this way?

That is but one example. Another, and perhaps a more serious case, is here where the user is giving an only-warning block message. Once again, it can be hard to try to WP:AGF on edits such as this one but at the time of starting this post, that was the user's one and only edit. The only-warning block message seems rather extreme, especially when it could have been a deliberate edit of vandalism or it could have just been a badly misguided test edit and remember too that not all users are familiar with the Sandbox. (WP:AGF). WP:BITE seems completely tossed aside here, once again no invitation to discuss any matters, just a sharp "only warning, do it again, blocked from editing" and nothing else. If I was that user, I would probably be too scared to edit here ever again.

Something needs to be done. If Jayron32 keeps doing this, think of how many potential contributors could be scared away from the project.--122.57.84.195 (talk) 02:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST [121] Had to say it... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I think his warning was fine. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You think his warning was fine? Which warning? Or both of them? Think of how welcome a user who has made one edit, which may have in fact been a test edit (badly misguided edits are not always vandalism) would feel to get a message such as this one. We want to greet newcomers to the project, not drive them away. If it was blatantly obvious that the account wasup to no good, fine. But even changing football to a word like "faggot" doesn't begin to warrant such a warning.--122.57.84.195 (talk) 03:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

BOTH. If I had my druthers, vandalistic edits such as the ones that merited those warnings would get an immediate hard block. Obviously not a test edit. But maybe I'm in the minority. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 03:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Each administrator has there own personality and methods of how to best moderate or administrate the site and I don't see anything wrong with that, although I should tell him I already have the MajorMinorMark issue taken care of with another administrator. Pickbothmanlol 03:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, yeah... I received the message at my talk page about this, and am confirming that I know the anon editor above has started this thread. Any other editor can read my comments and also check the contributions of the editor in question, and decide if my warning was appropriate or not. An interesting question is how the anonymous IP user in question knew that I issued that particular warning 2 days ago. But whatever. My actions here need no defense, and I let them speak for themselves. I have nothing further to say on the matter. --Jayron32 03:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I only know that you issued these warnngs because I began checking your contributions history, when I became aware of such actions when editing an article under a different IP at the same time as a "vandal" and seeing you give them an only warning for one single edit, that wasn't that bad. Too long ago to be able to get the diff or even remember the article but I remember the incident clearly.--122.57.84.195 (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I have a stalker. Cool. I always wanted one. --Jayron32 03:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I have two administrators stalking my edits ever since I was unblocked. Trust me there fun. Pickbothmanlol 03:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry but I don't buy changing National Football League to National Faggot League in the article lede as a "test edit". If you can't find the sandbox, then you add a space at the bottom of an article, or an "a" or "hi" ---- those are tests. National Faggot League is blatant vandalism plain and simple. We want people to be scared of making edits like that. Wknight94 ^talk 03:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I've always found the warning templates with EXCLAMATION POINT signs in them a bit off putting, as if people can't comprehend a simple "Please don't vandalize" or "please don't experiment in article space, use a sandbox instead." It's telling that regulars here see it as a high crime if they ever get stuck with a template by some unsuspecting editor who mistakenly applies our protocols even handedly. But those issues seem like they would be better taken up at the Village Pump. If something looks like vandalism and it's an an only edit, some kind of warning seems reasonable. Maybe suggesting Jayron and other admins adopt one with a "please" and without the intimidation and threats in the usual ones is worth a try, but I don't even know if customization is possible with autmoated tools? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

What's funny is, in this case, I actually didn't use a template. I actually don't use them too often, more often than not my warnings are individually written, as this one was. I will sometimes use a template for the really eggregious, obvious stuff, but usually not. --Jayron32 03:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This is what I would do if my wiki was more active as I like to think that hand-typing it from scratch shows new users you actually gave a damn to look through there contributions and write an actual responce. Pickbothmanlol 03:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

There will always be a problem with AGF, potential new users, etc. With the amount of edits and vandalism pouring into this site each day, we don't have time to give every user the benefit of the doubt, especially in a situation where their only edit is just another piece of vandalism. I think Jayron32's edits were fine. A little insignificant ^{Giving thanks to all that is me} 03:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The examples cannot be called inappropriate. There is a limit to AGF, and when you replace "football" with "faggot", you are past that limit. Trying to AGF about obvious vandalism is just stupid, and will only encourage them more. AGF in cases where there is even a remote possibility the editor is acting in good faith, otherwise WP:RBI. Suggest closing this. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree on all points. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 03:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Good use of tools. Edison (talk) 05:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Complaining IP turns out to be a block-evading sock. Surprise, surprise. "Plaxico" strikes again! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

His account exists only to promote MonaVie, which I'm 100% sure he's an employee of. He's been warned, he's gotten one short-term block for edit-warring, and he's recently created MonaVie Active as a content fork since he's realized that he isn't going to be able to turn MonaVie into an advertisement. I'm so tired of him, and so annoyed with him, that I'd prefer not to block him myself. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse block as outlined by FisherQueen. Crafty (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Neutrality is one of our core goals, if someone is only here to push a specific point of view then that is not acceptable. ^Chillum 01:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing his edits and block log, I've enacted the indefinite block. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, he doesn't get to defend himself and you don't even have to post warnings and diffs? Oh, well, new user, that's how it goes here at AN/I. One complaint and BAM! IndefBlock. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

He is not a newbie; he has been here for a month. He has been warned, although he has removed those warnings from his talk page. In fact, he's been blocked twice for shorter periods of time for the same things. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You admit the block is retaliatory: you're tired of him. I think one month is not long enough to be considered an established user on wikipedia! I don't see any diffs that you've posted about his prior blockings. Just how tired you are of him. And quickly, 10 minutes later, he's blocked. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the administrators' noticeboards; I know that my fellow admins know how to look at his edit history for the diffs of his edits, and to his block history for his prior blocks. We've allowed him to advertise his company for a month, which I think is very generous of us. Tell you what- I'll be glad to support an unblock if he agrees not to edit on the subject of MonaVie or Acai in the future. I doubt he'll be interested in the offer, but I could be wrong. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I suspect you're right that he will not take you up on the offer, but there's no loss for trying. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) to IP: A little AGF on your part would be nice too. I have noticed this user before, and he has ignored every warning offered to him. I reviewed his contributions in full before I enacted the block, and I did so because it looked quite clear he had no intention of changing his behaviour. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Notice also the context of your quote. I didn't say, "I'm tired of him, so someone block him." I can block him myself. I said, "I'm tired of him, so I don't want to be unfair. Someone else who is less annoyed look and see if you agree he should be blocked." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You blocked him with one request and the input of two other admins after 10 minutes. That's fast! Give other users some time to post input, give the user time to respond, anything that shows I should AGF, and I'll be glad to. Wikipedia administrators don't look too closely when it comes to supporting a fellow administrator. I would have liked to be able to assume good faith by a balanced and fair discussion of the problems, rather than a rush to block. However, I accept your proposal above. Let's try it. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

IP, can you find any GF edits? Pop the diffs here -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 02:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

(side comment) Since when do admins leap to support each other? This page is basically a long catalog of admins bitching at each other. And the archive goes on and on and on... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to blocking or attacking a relatively new editor (case in point). Other than that, yes, it's pretty much a cesspool of absurdity intermingled with long blocks about the drama-magnets. Back on topic, let's just try once more reasoning and call it a done deal whichever way the editor chooses to respond to the offer.--IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Why feed IP? He comes in here screaming about how the block is bad without having done any research at all into the problem. He has a right do do that, I suppose; we all have a right to ignore him. Endorse indefblock, closing thread. Tan | 39 02:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I also endorse this block as entirely appropriate. Spamming is not acceptable. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

FisherQueen

• Endorse block – unconstructive users waste time and reduce the quality of articles. No good-faith edits that I can see. Ignoring warnings is discourteous and disruptive: RBI it is. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 17:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Or at least RB Ott and I Tan. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If the editor agrees to not edit MonaVie, Acai, other problem articles[edit]

The editor might agree to not edit the MonaVie and Acai articles as suggested above by User:FisherQueen.[122]

If the user agrees to this in a request to be unblocked, I would like the wikipedia community to assume good faith and support this.

I will teach the user how to edit wikipedia articles in a more neutral fashion. He can be watched and blocked again if necessary.

In addition, I would like a neutral, by which I mean no one who has posted in this thus far, editor (administrator or not) to agree to check the final version of the article when its rewriting and editing to clean up problems is finished. If you are neutral and write well, please volunteer your services for a final read-through with an eye to neutrality and facts, at the Talk:MonaVie. Thanks. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I satisfy IP69.226.103.13's definition of "neutral": in fact until I stumbled on this discussion I had never heard of User:Ott jeff, of MonaVie, or of Acai. I read the above discussion, and decided to offer my services for the checking that IP69.226.103.13 suggests: in fact I wrote an offer to do so here. However, before clicking on "Save page" I decided to have a look at Ott jeff's editing history to see what the controversy was about. Frankly I do not see an editor who, being inexperienced in Wikipedia editing, did not fully understand how things work, made a few mistakes, and may well learn with a bit of support; rather I see an editor with a determination to plug a point of view, willing to ruthlessly suppress information not supporting that point of view, willing to twist facts to support that point of view, contemptuous of other editors who oppose him, and unwilling to adjust to fit in with Wikipedia's policies. I wonder why anyone would wish to take steps to keep such an editor on board. Needless to say I have dropped my intention of offering to help bring him back. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

No, you're not neutral if you come to AN/I to stir up a personal attack against the editor ("ruthlessly," "twist facts," "contemptuous") when that aspect of the conversation has been dropped. Your post is pointless. You can think about something and change your mind without calling it to anyone's attention. The request for someone neutral is for an article editor, not someone to monitor Ott. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

IP, from your response it would appear that by "neutral Admin" you mean someone who agrees with your opinion about this user. Even if that was not your intent, what you wrote has now discouraged anyone else from taking an interest in helping Ott jeff -- even if JamesBWatson is being unfair to him. The matter is now over, except for the usual squabbling that follows. -- llywrch (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking for someone to review the article, not Ott jeff, LLywrch. Don't know why anyone would dismiss one user based on the actions of another as you are implying you are doing, but don't know why you comment without appearing to have read what you are commenting on. You've missed the topic: the article is what needs a neutral admin or editor, any editor will do, doesn't have to be an admin.

As the article is in wikipedia, the encyclopedia we are writing, there will be someone who cares more about writing the encyclopedia than about getting a free shot at AN/I. Always is. The quality of the encyclopedia is important enough to enough people that some things, even on AN/I, come with guarantees. That's why there's an encyclopedia. You might read the article yourself some time, see if you can contribute to it. That's ultimately the goal here: to provide articles for people to read.

My opinion on the user doesn't matter. Wikipedia is about the articles. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 08:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Ronald Ryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Check the article history. Two editors: Escapeeyes (talk · contribs) and Purrum (talk · contribs) have been at an edit war at this article, with little to no discussion at all, just back and forth, back and forth, for months now. I am about this close to indefinate full protection or some such, but then I thought its rather unfair to everyone who actually wants to obey the rules that these two should get away with this for so long. I don't want to act unilaterally, but I think that some sort of editing restriction/article ban needs to be discussed at the community level to shut down this rediculousness. Any suggestions on how to proceed? I am open to anything. --Jayron32 05:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidence that purrum has been notified: [123] --Jayron32 05:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

evidence that escapeeyes has been informed: [124] --Jayron32 05:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That article appears to be a POV mine field. Your idea for a topic ban on the both of them seems reasonable, and then maybe a disinterested party could attempt to clean up the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Escapeeyes has edited nothing but the Ronald Ryan article and came right back after the 1 month block and continued the same behavior. Unless there are objections, I propose a block until he has understood and acknowledged our method of editing. (now implemented.)

On a sidenote: Oh God, that article is in desperate need of a rewrite. I would suggest stripping it down to the bare essentials and starting over. henrik•talk 20:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Or reverting to a version before their appearance. This looks like an acceptible candidate for the wrong version, & someone can sift out the wheat from the chaff in the later drafts. -- llywrch (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be a starting point, though even that revision has significant problems.

I've blocked User:Escapeeyes with the idea that they need to produce some sort of acknowledgment that they respect the fundaments of collaborative edtiting before being unblocked. Though I do not think User:Purrum's conduct has been any better, I've not imposed any sanctions on him so far. henrik•talk 23:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit uncomfortable with unilateral sanctions here. Perhaps a topic ban against Purrum proscribing him from editing the article at all; if he violates he could be blocked. Any objections? Ideas? --Jayron32 00:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I would have no objections to that (Perhaps a strongly worded warning making it very clear that this is not the way we behave could be a thought as a lesser alternative?). But I think the real key to resolving this longstanding dispute is to write a better, neutral, article; one that doesn't immediately send either party off in a fit of rage. henrik•talk 08:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Will reinserted what looks to me like a clear BLP violation into an article [125] (and removed my formatting edits). The content has been removed now by two different editors. It's unclear to me why his POV pushing and BLP violating smears against global warming skeptics continue to be tolerated on this site. The article is about a meteorologist and commentator, so it's not at all clear to me why we would be putting in allegation made by an alleged blackmailer regarding his dating history? Furthermore, the accusations themselves violate BLP guidelines because they occured in 2006 and there isn't any evidence of a conviction or anything else against the accused perpetrator. Why is Connolley being allowed to use this unencyclopedic nonsense to smear people in a relentless crusade against article subjects he disagrees with? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there a problem with the source? Have you tried discussion on the talk page or at WP:BLPN or WP:RSN before coming here? This doesn't seem to be clear, as it looks like an RS, and you haven't provided links to other forms of resolution, or any other attempts. ANI isn't the first point of call. Verbal chat 23:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Gee, that diff sure looks like he's inserting a reference for the statement. This seems to be a content dispute, rather than a BLP violation. The place to discuss WP:WEIGHT is on the article's talk page, not AN/I. Perhaps dial back your rhetoric a notch, too? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This particular bit was used to argue notability of Watts in the AfD by Alex Harvey. If this is really useful is open to debate. But I don't see a BLP problem, and I certainly see no need for this hectic complaint without any attempt to discuss the issue on the talk page or elsewhere. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

"Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects must be considered when exercising editorial judgment."

"This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to information about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that it complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines."

"When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.

"This is of profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."

This content is a clear BLP violation in at least four respects. If Connolly or anyone else thinks it's appropriate to include the allegations of a blackmailer in a meteorologist's article they are most welcome to take it to the BLP/N noticeboard. The policy makes clear where the burden rests. I will be fascinated to read what the subject's dating history has to do with his notability as a meteorologist. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a straightforwards news coverage of an attempted extortion. The article does not rest his notability on that event; he is notable for the meteorology and climate change critic aspects of his life. He admitted the relationship and extortion to the press, according to the publically visible part of the article (rest behind paywall); he's not apparently making much effort to keep it private.

I can see her name being there being somewhat BLP sensitive for her - is that your claim here?

For him, it would seem significant enough for some notice, and the coverage seems to be minimal, accurate, and not particularly titilating. If a person is notable, having been blackmailed or attemptedly blackmailed and the blackmailer arrested seems significant in their life overall.

I don't see how the comment puts him in a negative light, which is the primary focus of BLP. We need to be extra sensitive with private information, and negative information. Purient details here would be inappropriate, but that doesn't seem to be present.

I think a case can be argued that it's inappropriate anyways, but I don't think that BLP's presumption of removal can stretch this far. If you can describe how this is negative, privacy invading, or otherwise inappropriate in more detail I'd be willing to listen to that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I consider this kind of material completely inappropriate in any article that is not about an individual specifically notable for such news stories. An encyclopedia is not to be confused with the yellow press. It's not Wikipedia's job to perpetuate temporary breaches of someone's private sphere caused by criminal action.

Or to argue strictly according to the BLP policy: "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, and omit information that is irrelevant to their notability. [...] Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care." WP:NPF

This minor incident does not magically become relevant to the subject's nobility just because someone's erroneous claim that it is played a role in an AfD. Hans Adler 02:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

We include all sorts of information on people once notability is established - notability establishes having an article, not the limit of what we include once someone reaches that threshold. BLP cautions us on sensitive information which might harm the article subject - private information, negative information, etc. But having been the victim of a crime is not necessarily private or negative. In this case here, the subject of the article talked to the press about the incident - they do not seem to consider it too private, or too negative, or they wouldn't have made a statement.

It still might not be best to have it - but the case that it must go is not well established yet. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

If no urgent administrative action is requested here, this request does not belong on WP:ANI, which is not a venue for dispute resolution. There is a dedicated venue, WP:BLPN, for discussing WP:BLP concerns.  Sandstein  06:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Can someone with a cool head interject at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Ireland vs France (2010 FIFA World Cup Play-Off) which has decended into not much more than name-calling and bad faith accusations all around? Appreciated. Grsz¹¹ 23:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This is more an issue of constant bad-faith accusations and attacks by MickMacNee (talk · contribs) that he had previously been carrying on because this issue wasn't featured at WP:ITN. Every user who votes delete can expect some sort of attack by this user for whatever reason. His disruptiveness has made it impossible to work collaboratively dispute being asked several times to cool down. Grsz¹¹ 23:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

MickMacNee is stirring up drama and badgering other editors who disagree with him? No shit! Never seen that before... --Jayron32 00:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The bad faith accusations that abound don't come from me, that's for sure. I have been variously described as a POV pushing Irish fan over there by Grsz and another editor. The fact I have a rampant pro-Irish POV is surely going to amuse many regulars here. I have responded to plenty of people at the Afd, that's for sure, by either asking for clarification or examples, or simply pointing out that their rationale is too short and is likely going to be ignored (for both deletes and keeps). That other editor is the one person who is taking it too far and insisting on threading comments with me all over, but it is not unmanageable yet. I have hardly been 'harassing all deleters' as alleged, I have steered clear of anybody who has given a clear, full and on-policy reason to delete. Anybody can see that I have never advocated to keep the article by violating CRYSTAL or by invoking OTHERSTUFF, yet what was Grsz's post toward me? To accuse me of doing just that. Then he claims it was a good faith comment. He was either trying to get a rise out of me, or was simply trying to tell me my opinion having not even read the discussion. MickMacNee (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm marking this as resolved because no administrator action is requested. There seems to be no need for intervention; the closing admin will filter out any irrelevant comments when evaluating the result.  Sandstein  06:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

See a previous AN/I discussion here

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive579#Guidelines_for_AFD_commentary

While the previous discussion about Proxy User (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) wasn't about his minor edits, its about his conduct in general. He made a rather blatant attack on an AfD. When I saw that I checked his contribs and noticed that he is marking every single edit as minor. Checking his talk page User_talk:Proxy_User#Minor_edits I see he was previously warned in June not to do that. I issued him a reminder and asked him to stop editing disruptively. He's made no response to that but, as is my habit of occasionally checking the contribs of people I've warned to see if the behaviour has been corrected, I noticed that he has persisted in marking every single edit as minor. While some of his edits are indeed minor, changing section titles [128], making comments on talk pages [129], [130] have all been written since the warning. he has neither acknowledged nor explained why he feels the need to mark every edit as minor. I think he's been given sufficient warning and time to change his habits but shows no interest in doing so.--Crossmr (talk) 03:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not talk to the user first? tedder (talk) 04:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue was raised on his talk page twice, neither of which were templates and he ignored it both times.--Crossmr (talk) 06:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see your note to the editor from four days ago, since it was up on the page a ways. OTOH, using edit summaries might help it be seen too. tedder (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I linked to it in my summary of events. The edit summary also indicates which section I edited and he would have gotten a new message note the next time he edited. I made no effort to disguise the warning I left him. He was also warned in June and seemingly has made no effort to change his behaviour since then. You've questioned this editors behaviour before, and I would suggest that his continuance of disruptive editing that he's been warned for twice and the recent personal attack on the AfD seems to indicate someone who seems to have trouble editing with the guidelines and policies set out here.--Crossmr (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't a personal attack - it was actually a rather vile BLP vio. Some support for a block based on the BLP violation was noted in the last thread, but no block ever materialized. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 08:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Except he ended it with indicating that people who wanted to delete had some kind of bias which assumes bad faith. Either way that comment certainly wasn't inline with our guidelines and policies nor is his current behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 09:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

At Missy Rayder, some IPs have repeatedly attempted to change her birthdate. I do not doubt that the date that they are changing it to is correct. It seems likely to me that she got started in the industry using fake ID with her sister's (Frankie Rayder) birthdate changed or something. However, the WP:RSs all use this date that may be wrong. What am I suppose to do?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I would revert the unsourced edit (as you have done) and educate/warn the user about sourcing (something not yet done). ArcAngel (talk) 07:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. If it continues, should I seek page protection? If so how much further trouble would warrant such an act?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

There isn't enough recent disruptive activity to justify page protection at this time. I would just continue warning the IP and report them to AIV if they continue to not heed the warnings abour sourcing. ArcAngel (talk) 07:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Rest west (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has some very strange contributions, mainly copy-pasting messages that I've had on my talkpage, signing them himself and adding them again, as well as just general trolling. He appears to have several sock-tags on his talkpage. Could he be blocked, please? Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 08:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

They are being very odd - and not at all encyclopedic at the moment - but weren't warned very well that we're not a social networking site etc. I have left a warning. If the behavior continues for another day in the same vein, I think that's about it... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

He's not using it as a social networking site, he's being deliberately disruptive! Leaving false block-notices is not networking... ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 08:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I refactored TreasuryTag's ANI notice to included a direct link to this thread - I hope you don't mind. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Would someone care to remind user:KimDabelsteinPetersen, user:Atmoz, and user:William M. Connolley that they do not WP:OWN talk pages. They are repeatedly removing a discussion topic on Talk:Michael E. Mann. In addition Connolley has a direct WP:COI with the subject as they both blog together.WVBluefield (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified all three editors about this discussion. GiantSnowman 20:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be related to the re-insertion of a private letter [131] by WVBluefield that has been republished in part by i Wired I think (the letters were originally obtained due to a hack apparently). No real opinion on the merits, although i wonder why the source itself can't be examined (and why the letter needs to be republished in full on the talk page). Also, WVBluefield seems to have hit 5RR on this. Aside from that, I'm not sure what administrator action has been requested. Seems that WP:DR should suffice. --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverting my contributions on the talk page is strictly prohibited, and 3RR doesnt apply. Nerv mind WMC's massive wp:COI on the topic. WVBluefield (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Which exception to 3RR are you claiming? This isn't simple vandalism, since the other editors have articulated reasons why this material shouldn't be there. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

They have no right to remove my comments on the talk page, as they never provided one solid reason why they should. Where, exactly did they articulate a reason why the material couldn’t stay on the talk page? KDP's first edit summary[132], not the right place to "discuss" removing someone else’s talk page contributions, stated that the letter wasn’t reproduced by a RS is complete nonsense because the source is right there at the top of the talk page thread. The rest of the editors simply piled on. WVBluefield (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Either the letters are genuine or not. If they are, it's a copyright violation to reprint them on the talk pages. If they aren't, they are a BLP violation. Either way they have to go. -Atmoz (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

And in any event, I've given 4 reasons why re-adding would be a bad idea on the talk page. However, since this is now under discussion there, hopefully things can be civilly hashed out there, and this can be closed. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 21:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to be out of town for this weekend, but i will stand behind the fact that i removed the text. I did it because it was a forum like posting, with no relevance to the article in question - i also notified WV on his talk-page about this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The comments placed on WV's talkpage, by me and other editors[133], seem to have been removed right after posting this complaint, and while that is the WV's prerogative, it seems a bit rude not even to mention that we tried to establish at least some for of dialogue/rationalization for the removal of the talk-page comment. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a straightforward 3RR by WVB. I'll go report it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Already reported by Atmoz. There is a bit of a backlog at AN3; could one of you kind admins nip across there and sort it out please? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I seem to recall that not so long ago, reports at AN3 were always handled promptly and efficiently by a very dedicated administrator. It's sad to see that things have slipped so. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the good old days :-(. Meanwhile, I'd like to point out that WVB is deliberately erasing all traces of the warnings he was given e.g. [134] William M. Connolley (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I cannot erase anything here and the record of the changes made to my talk page are archived indefinitely, I am removing the unproductive remarks of a troll. I am more than happy to engage peopel who approach me in good faith and reserve the right to shit can the comments of those who dont. WVBluefield (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I am removing the unproductive remarks of a troll is clear incivility. Please block WVB for it William M. Connolley (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, right. Whilst you are up on your civility high horse WMC, please note that calling editors dense as you did last month to WVBluefield is easily construed as a personal attack. Glass houses and all that.... Pedro :  Chat  23:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, chattering admins: the AN3 report associated with this still awaits your attention William M. Connolley (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

AN3 report has been actionned; thanks. This can now be closed William M. Connolley (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

An editor has been harrassing me from the range of 166.205.xxx.xxx, for these last 2-months. He has 'in the past' boasted that Wikipedia can't do anything about. Could something be done about it? GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've meant to look into this and got sidetracked. this edit is most telling, and this user is making good on their threats. I think a range block on the 166.205 as nothing seems to come out of it. Pending someone looking at it. Canterbury Tail talk 21:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Goodday, if you like I can semi-protect your userspace. The down side of this is that it will prevent all new users, even the sincere ones, from contacting you. Let me know here or on my talk page if you would like this. ^Chillum 21:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't want the innocent to suffer, because of that dick. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you list out some of the IPs? We may be able to construct a rangeblock that's smaller than the 65,536 addresses represented by 166.205.*.*. Jehochman ^Talk 21:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It may take awhile, I'll have to check my contributions. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's some IPs he's used. 166.205.138.250, 166.205.132.99, 166.205.133.112, 166.205.132.96, 166.205.133.79. This particular IP 166.205.133.38, might be the smoking gun. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

166.205.133.38 points to the 'Wireless Data Service Provider Corporation'. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

More info about the ISP can be found here. They describe themselves as "non-profit organization established in 1996 to promote interoperability for wireless data subscribers and to provide a common Network Operations Center (NOC) for the management and distribution of IP addresses and wireless network identifier information." I don't know if it is an open network or if it requires membership. If they require membership then a collection of timestamps and IPs sent to them may allow them to suspend the abusing user, if it is an open network then little can be done short of semi-protecting the target pages or blocking the whole ISP. ^Chillum 22:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, if nothing can be done about him, then we better hang on to our hats. If unchecked? after today he'll be more bothersome. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The provider is used via contract by multiple wireless companies. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Regrettably for the innocent IPs, this tormentor is cementing my views on 'mandatory registration'. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Given the IPs you've listed, I think we can cut it down to 166.205.[132-139].*. What we should do is ask for a checkuser to look at the range and see if there would be any collateral damage to innocent editors, and then we can get that range block put into place. I'll email them. Jehochman ^Talk 19:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be terrific. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

All the users on that IP ranges are iPhones. That's probably why he thinks we can't do anything about it. His IP is dynamic. Anyway, I looked at 166.205.128.0/20, aka 166.205.[128,143].0. In this case, that'd be fine to block if you wanted to block 166.205.[132,139].0. There would be some collateral damage for one or two genuine anonymous users, but if it really is so bad that you want to block the range, you can. Please use a descriptive block reason though, so that the people that do get caught in collateral do know that they've done nothing wrong. I'll leave the decision on whether or not to block to you. --Deskana (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Well the IP is going around and reverting all of GoodDay's contributions every time they come on. It's not just the occasional act of minor vandalism, it's a protracted campaign against a valuable editor. Canterbury Tail talk 21:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just applied three range blocks that are narrowly targeted (/24), but should cover all the IPs noted thus far. Please leave me any additional IPs that cause hassles, and I will keep blocking until the perpetrator finds something else to do on the Internet. Jehochman ^Talk 21:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocking the range I suggested would have had the same effect due to the lack of users on some of the /24s, but that works too. --Deskana (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Does the rangeblock function accept a general purpose regular expression? Jehochman ^Talk 02:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. All it accepts are IPs and CIDR suffixes. --Deskana (talk) 11:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm grateful to you all. Thanks, thanks, thanks. Hopefully that anon won't be bothering anybody again. GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

About a week ago, I filed this move request at WP:RM. Now, another editor has come along and, without commenting on the talk page, moved Thomas Blackburn to Thomas Eliel Fenwick Blackburn—a title that certainly appears to violate WP:COMMONNAME. Could I please get an administrator to move Thomas Blackburn (disambiguation) to Thomas Blackburn (since the parenthetical "disambiguation" is no longer necessary) and close the move discussion? (I can move Thomas Eliel Fenwick Blackburn to Thomas Blackburn (poet) myself and fix the incoming links.) It seems somehow wrong for me to have to file another move request to get this done, when the first one is still unresolved. Deor (talk) 10:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The contributor who moved the page has indicated no objections, so, sure. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. Deor (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gerryh7 all suspected accounts were confirmed for engaging in sockpuppetry. I have indefinitely blocked all registered accounts. I also indefinitely blocked the IP user 99.151.120.90 for a period of two weeks. My question is whether that is a good block length for the IP (who edited as recently as the 18th). Feel free to adjust the block length if you think I made it too long or too short. LadyofShalott 16:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

"indefinitely blocked the IP user for a period of two weeks"? :-) Probably a bit on the long side, but within reason. Tan | 39 16:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Two weeks is about what I would have done, considering how far back the contributions go. — Jake Wartenberg 16:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Oops... didn't mean to say that, and did not do that! I've struck the incorrect part above. Thanks. LadyofShalott 16:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Firefly322 (talk · contribs) and William S. Saturn (talk · contribs) have been edit warring at User_talk:Firefly322 and Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_9 over BLP-violating comments, specifically [135] and [136]. Firefly322 has been blocked for 55 hours by PeterSymonds, but continues to restore the comments to his talkpage. William S. Saturn has passed 3RR on the RfD page, as well. Some more attention here would be appreciated. Nathan ^T 23:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I have asked specifically what the BLP issue is, on the RFD talk page. This should not have reached this level. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You should almost never restore comments deleted for BLP reasons without first discussing the issue. The fact that these comments violate BLP should be easy for anyone familiar with the policy to discern, and edit-warring over them past 3RR is unreasonable by any measure. Nathan ^T 23:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I apologize. If I passed 3RR it was unintentional and will accept the consequences. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punitive - so if your comment means that you will not revert any more, then we're done and no block is warranted. MastCell ^Talk 00:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're incapable of understanding what the problem is with edits such as [137] then Wikipedia might possibly be the wrong place for you. Firefly322 was lucky to escape with 55 hours IMO - I would have blocked indefinitely until he could state that he understood the problem and would not repeat it. Black Kite 23:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Will, I have to agree with Black Kite on this one. How is it appropriate to discuss living people in that manner on Wikipedia? Certainly Orangemike and others get away with doing it about conservatives like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh who they don't like, and I know we're talking about a mass murderer and not a political commentator in this instance, but it still isn't proper. Once it was objected to I think you should have let it be. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see anything in WP:BLP that specifically covers edits like the above "71" diff. There's a difference between making concrete claims such as "John Doe killed his children" with no links to prove it and saying "John Doe is a very evil person" or "John Doe is a very evil person because he did X" where X is something very clearly true. I think we have become too strict if it is no longer acceptable to make moral judgments about a living person on one's own talk page that are based on verifiable truths about that person. I also don't see where such a thing is covered in the current BLP policy. It doesn't seem to meet the legal definition of defamation, for example, which is given in the first paragraph of the article. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't imagine the circumstances under which comparing someone to Hitler and NAMBLA, and calling them an Islamic extremist, is acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia. That it comes on a user talk page (and, in this case, an RfD) makes no difference - the BLP policy applies there as anywhere. Nathan ^T 00:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Not the point, really. "John Doe is a very evil person" regardless of context is clearly an opinion and thus original research. We're not here to make moral judgements about people, we're here to write an encyclopedia. The fact it's on a non-articlespace page is irrelevant here. Black Kite 00:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The post did far more than assert that someone was "evil". Wikipedia's site mission does not include testing the limits on the legal definition of defamation. We're a nonprofit encyclopedia, and it would really be better if individuals who wished to test the acceptability of this statement did so at their own personal website. Durova³⁶⁶ 00:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no comment on the comment made about Hitler on the user's talk page. However, I feel the edit on the RFD was not a BLP violation. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• First, it strikes me that blocking was no necessary -- this IMHO could have been handled with discussion or other less punitive measures, which should have been pursued first. Second, it does appear to me that there is not a consensus at the RfD, nor should an involved party close a contested RfD IMHO. Third, as to Nathan's suggestion that he "can't imagine the circumstances under which comparing someone to Hitler and NAMBLA, and calling them an Islamic extremist, is acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia," I think that may perhaps be just a bit of an overstatement. I certainly can. Himmler, Goering, Idi Amin, Bin Laden, Attila the Hun, Ayatollah Khomeini, Leopold II of Belgium, Pol Pot, and Vlad Ţepeş might all vie for that honor for starters. And certainly there is something different in one making edits expressing their view (as here) than stating a fact as true, as in an article edit, though I would agree that BLP violations (which come in different flavors) should be looked at carefully.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Which of those is a pedophile, a brutal tyrant and an Islamic extremist? Nathan ^T 00:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Now you're stretching what the original statements in dispute actually said. I think the bottom line is that we should try to conduct ourselves in a professional and dispassionate manner. Since we are writing the articles on living people, it's important that we refrain, generally speaking, from disparaging them. I acknowledge the points made though that discussion shouldn't be stifled by tossing around BLP accusations too freely, but when NAMBLA and Hitler are getting worked in I think the envelope is being pushed too far. We should strive to focus on article content work and collegial discussion rather than engaging in discussion regarding our personal opinions of whether article subjects are evil, or just very very confused. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think those are very wise words, extremely well put. At the same time, I think the block was innappropriate. There were other wasy, short of a block, to be explored for this borderline (at worst) characterization elsewhere than in the person's article.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we avoid having editors complain generally about how liberals get away with murder vis a vis enforcement and conservatives get hammered? General complaints degrade the signal to noise ratio. In case it isn't abundantly clear, I'm speaking directly to CoM, who has a habit of inserting him/herself in AN/I threads to complain about admin abuse in general and american politics specifically (a topic where they are topic banned from discussing broad subtopics). Protonk (talk) 03:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Black Kite's deletion[edit]

I feel it was highly inappropriate for Black Kite, as an involved party, to close the RFD. I hope someone will revert this action and let the RFD run its course since discussion is ongoing. At the moment it appears to be No Consensus. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hardly. It was the ANI thread which actually led me to the RfD, which had been open for ten days - and an ANI comment about general conduct which was mostly unrelated to the RfD doesn't mean I am "involved" in it. Very few of the "Keep" rationales were convincing, IMO. Black Kite 00:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've read through most of the discussion, and in the end I agree with Black Kite's closure. There was an opinion split among established editors, but the consensus to delete is fairly apparent based on the arguments presented. To be frank, Saturn, how is an outsider going to trust your word that there "appears to be no consensus" when you were so heavily involved in the discussion, replying to nearly everyone who supported deletion? JamieS93 00:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a poor close based on an opinion rather than a proper reading of the discussion by an admin who is involved in related discussions. But I think it would have to go to DRV now? Hopefully Black Kite will exercise better judgment in future. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

What Child said. Perhaps BK can revise it?--Epeefleche (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath. I think it's time to move on. I don't think a bad close requires admin intervention, so that probably needs to be pursued elsewhere. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Please explain how commenting on an ANI discussion makes you involved in something. By your logic, if someone asks for a checkuser to be run on some accounts, and I run the check and post the results, it would be inappropriate for me to block the accounts myself, since I'm "involved".

Ludicrous. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the close. Black Kite articulated a reason not advanced by any other participant, but that's a DRV reason. What makes him an involved admin is his intense dislike of me. For examples, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive203#Proposal:_.22Cry_BLP.22_blocks or peruse the archives of Talk:Rachel Corrie. If some other administrator would like to re-close the RfD, feel free. Black Kite is ineligible to do so, and should have known better. Jclemens (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• I closed the RfD in a manner opposite BK's but I want to note here that I vociferously object to the classification of BK as an involved admin in this case. Even a cursory reading of WP:INVOLVED will reveal that commenting in an AN/I does not make an admin involved in a content dispute. Nor does some allegation of personal distaste (Especially given that the RfD only tangentially relates to Jclemens). Protonk (talk) 03:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised you treated it as a valid reopening, when even you seem to realize it was a valid close. You reversed Black Kite's decision, effectively, but on what rationale? Jclemens should simply have been reverted. Nathan ^T 03:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agree. Jclemens is is no position to dictate who is or is not involved, and is certainly not entitled to unilaterally revert another admin's close. He should have been reverted. For the record, it is my opinion that Black Kite's close was correct. GlassCobra 03:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. Jclemens should never have undone BK's close, and Protonk should have respected BK's decision. AniMate 03:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Un-flippin-believable. Jclemens has been EXTREMELY involved in both this and a related RfD (as have I, for the record). I cannot fathom how an admin can think it would be proper to undo another admin's XfD closure based on a perception of being "involved"...a tenuous perceptino that that...when Jclemen's own involvement is beyond dispute. I really, really wish Protonk had honored Black Kite's closure and not treated it as a legitimate reopening, but that may be a matter for DRV. The primary issue here is jclemens, and a desysop should absolutely be on the table here. Tarc (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't have closed it if I had thought it would be such a shitstorm. Honestly I didn't know about the extent of the drama-rama when I made the close. I just tried to justify "delete" multiple times and I couldn't. Protonk (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Since you found it so close a call (and I'm not criticizing that finding), it might have been better to just leave it be and wait for the next admin to come along. PhGustaf (talk) 03:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think "delete" or "no consensus" were both valid closes, however BK's close should never have been reverted. Closing differently than they did gives the appearance of legitimacy in regards to Jclemens actions. AniMate 04:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if that's a reasonable interpretation of "when in doubt don't delete" Protonk (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've undone my close. I never intended the original close to be a repudiation of BK (anyone who actually read the rationale couldn't have come to that conclusion). I'm not comfortable reinserting BK's close and I caution other admins interested in closing it to be mindful of the nuances at work. Protonk (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Protonk made the right decision, what was wrong was Black Kite's ignoring of the views of the editors at the RFD. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

There has been no official determination that this was a terrorist act, and it is not wikipedia's place to claim otherwise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this at the RFD page, it has been reopened. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Generally recapitulating arguments from RfD will not be productive here. Protonk (talk) 04:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Saturn is singularly obsessed with labeling that guy a terrorist when he hasn't been convicted of anything yet. That's been the issue for the last week or two. There is no end to it. Except someone making a decision, which someone tried to do today, to no avail. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding unblock request[edit]

I believe this removed comment is relevant to the unblock request, but the user does not want me commenting on that page. That is understandable, so I am noting it here instead: The incident that led to Firefly322's block began with a personal attack against other editors, not just an insult against Awlaki. ~YellowFives 02:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yellow, might it not go back even further? For example, might it perhaps relate at all to, after your having had a dispute with Fire, your appearing at the page he created the following day to hit it with an AfD, and even now you are not withdrawing despite repeated requests and the clear consensus in favor of keeping it?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Firefly mentioned the new article on a talk page I was watching, and I thought it was non-notable. That might well be the reason why Firefly does not want me commenting. That is understandable, as I said. I'm not complaining about the removal of my comment. I just said I the personal attack is relevant to this block, so I'm noting it here instead. ~YellowFives 03:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

My involvement here is through commenting at the RFD. Firefly posted a comment [138] which appeared to equate "BLP-screaming" editors, presumably including myself, since my delete rationale was BLP, with supporters of Islamic extremism. I would have responded there, except it was easier to just walk away chuckling. But there's no doubt that was a personal attack on anyone who cited BLP concerns at the RFD discussion. Perhaps made by an editor who stumbled onto the wrong website, I dunno. BLP is a policy here, and the editors who try to uphold it don't support any particular view, they just care anout the policy. Equating concern for BLP with support for Islamic jihad or terrorism or whatever - that's unacceptable. Franamax (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

and, in general, it is not appropriate for us to denounce even the worst evil-doers. Their deeds accurately reported speak for themselves. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'm rather surprised, after all this talk of BLP violations, that YellowFives just wrote (in a not completely unrelated discussion) "Daniel Pipes hates Muslims." If such statements are in fact BLP violations (and in his case statements less innappropriate than that have been termed libelous), I think this deserves some attention. I would appreciate it if someone would take the appropriate action, or let me know what should be done. Wikipedia just can't afford to have editors writing such things on Wikipedia, as it raises concerns of lawsuits and is otherwise innappropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm generally in favor of considering the bulk of BLP as an articlespace content policy, and restricting its use in other spaces to only the most egregiously disruptive cases. Editors must have decent freedom of speech for the purposes of making their points if we're to remain an open encyclopedia embracing a wide range of viewpoints. YellowFive's edit was entirely allowable (if unhelpful and unconstructive), and, frankly, I think the block against Firefly322 cannot be justified on BLP grounds (disruptive editing grounds now, is certainly a possibility). That is, if it was the edit I'm looking at [139], it's a straightforward expression of opinion making no specific factual claims (that somebody is evil is by definition a matter of opinion) and cannot be considered legally defamatory. The slow metastasization of BLP beyond its role as an enjoinder to be cautious and conservative when dealing with articles about living people is, frankly, disturbing. Ray^Talk 04:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Crum's deletion[edit]

Highly inappropriate again. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Take it to WP:DRV. AniMate 05:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Useless. Undo the close and let the discussion continue. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

No, and if someone else does that I will block them for disruption. FFS thecorrect venue for this in the first place was DRV. Viridae^Talk 05:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Please stop confusing "decision I disagree with" with "inappropriate" Protonk (talk) 05:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Protonk took the words right out of my mouth. If the close was "inappropriate" DRV is the correct forum to make your case. AniMate 05:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The first close came about from discussion on this page the administrator Black Kite was involved in while discussion was ongoing. It should have never been closed in the first place. This is a complete disregard of WP:Redirect and the true meaning of BLP. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Good close. Saturn is obsessed with labeling this guy a terrorist, and he wants the debate to go on forever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

What guy? The redirect redirects to an event, not a person. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Why are you obsessed with the terrorism label? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Stop it. This line of inquiry isn't going to produce anything useful. The correct course is to go to WP:DRV if there are objections to the close. Discussion about the terrorism label is not something that requires admin action. AniMate 05:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not obsessed. I'm irritated by this Wheel War brought about by Black Kite's terrible decision. DRV has been opened. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Here it is. I probably malformed it. I think it's best if I step away for a while. I need to cool down. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Jclemens wheel-warring[edit]

Jclemens wheel-warred in un-closing the discussion and un-deleting the redirect. While he cited "involvement" by the original closing admin, he too himself was involved, and proceeding in that manner was highly inappropriate. He only needed to approach BlackKite and comment on it, or go directly to DRV. Grsz¹¹ 05:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

False, he made the right decision. Black Kite disregarded the Keep votes and no consensus was appropriate. Jclemens did not close inappropriately while involved, Black Kite did. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

There wasn't a wheel war. The third administrative act is where WP:WHEEL comes into play. That being said, Jclemens act was amazingly inappropriate. If he disagreed with BK's close he definitely knew better than to use his tools in the conflict. He was 100% involved and familiar enough with our policies to know there were other routes he should have taken. AniMate 05:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Was Black Kite (who made the initial close) not involved? --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Did he comment in the original discussion? No. Grsz¹¹ 05:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Did he comment here (thus involving himself) before closing? Yes. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe in the "Everybody who ever disagrees with me is therefore unable to fairly judge any argument I've been involved in" way of looking at it. If that's the case, then I'd say he's involved. Grsz¹¹ 05:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think BK was involved, but that really doesn't matter. When you see someone break the rules, you don't then break them yourself. AniMate 05:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Am I to understand that the "involvement" that Jclemens believes invalidated Black Kite's closure is BK's 2 posts in Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 November 9? I'm about to do some serious facepalming if so. Tarc (talk) 05:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, according to Jclemens' statement above, he believes that Black Kite is involved because Black Kite dislikes him. However, Black Kite is actually only involved on a minuscule level; as he noted, "an ANI comment about general conduct which was mostly unrelated to the RfD doesn't mean [he was] 'involved' in it." GlassCobra 06:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Blackkite's closing statement demonstrates a strong personal opinion on the subject matter consistent with his involvement and discussion here, but isn't a proper weighting and evaluation of the arguments. He should have offered up his opinion in the discussion rather than impose his opinion and personal preference as overriding those offered in good faith by participants in the discussion. This is not the first time Blackkite has done this sort of thing. It would be great if he would exercise greater restraint. The integrity of the process and showing respect for fellow editors is important. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's time to nip this drama in the bud. What administrative actions are currently being requested? AniMate 06:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• User:Jclemens has disliked me ever since the Saint Pancake debacle and I doubt very much if he would've reverted the close if anyone else had made it. At that time he made great play of the fact that I supposedly wheel-warred to delete a G10 redirect (later supported by the community at DRV). Well, if that's the case, he has just done exactly the same thing - except it was a wheel-war to re-instate. Not only that, but he made this comment in the AfD ("Keep and strike all !votes which reference NPOV, which is not a policy-supported reason for deletion of redirects. Sorry, but the level of knee-jerk silliness in this thread demands that editors with an actual policy clue speak up") and so was not only heavily involved, but made a comment which made a bad faith assumption on behalf of many editors. I think it's about time that someone asked this admin to keep away from anything that involves WP:BLP, and about his use of admin tools in this matter. Also, his claim that I can't close any XfD in which he's commented because I don't like him is frankly laughable. Imagine if we extended that to any admin who has had a dispute with another user. Black Kite 11:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • You know what, BK? Feel free to open an RfArb if you really want to. Until then, I will continue my practice of staying away from things you're involved in, and I would welcome it if you did the same. I never claimed to not be involved with the RfD; I claimed you were involved with me. You're absolutely right--I would not have reverted the close had anyone else made it. This particular facet of this drama would have been avoided if you'd simply left well enough alone and let the next admin close it. Oh, and saying editors are arguing for deletion in a manner inconsistent with policy is not WP:ABF when multiple editors are, in fact, arguing for deletion in a manner inconsistent with policy. Jclemens (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
    • "You're absolutely right--I would not have reverted the close had anyone else made it.". Had I the inclination to go to RFAR, that comment might well be a serious problem. But frankly, I haven't. I do see the good work that you do in other areas of the encyclopedia but we obviously have a major disagreement over the issue of NPOV/BLP on redirects. Not that I don't think you're wrong - I think you're very wrong, and I think the community position supports me - otherwise I would bow to consensus. But really, that's not a massive issue and I'm sure it's something that we can work round. Cheers, Black Kite 21:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I appreciate that, thanks. Likewise, I reciprocate in my belief that I am right--although I would appeal more to 5P and reason than the community; my experience is that what the community does (!votes) is strikingly different than what it says it does (enumerated policies and guidelines). I suspect that in other circumstances this would be a great conversation to have over a beer. Jclemens (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Proposal: "Cry BLP" blocks is a bit of a red flag as well, as it appears this admin was looking to sanction users who made arguments he disagreed with. Tarc (talk) 13:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to discuss[edit]

• People at this discussion who are interested in the broader topic, as opposed to the individual behaviors, are invited to comment at Wikipedia_talk:Redirect#Section_regarding_neutrality_of_redirects. As you are likely aware, current guidelines are that NPOV (and, by extension, BLP issues) are not reasons to delete redirects, a fact about which editors (including myself) have strong opinions. If you have an opinion, I invite you to bring it to that page. I think it's past time people put up or shut up on the matter: are we interested in making our encyclopedia accessible, or more interested in making sure that redirects don't point in ways that convey objectionable opinions? Ray^Talk 17:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Can't say I really put much faith in a discussion premised on a logical fallacy and biased against one particular point of view. One can support the use of non-neutral redirects while at the same time drawing a line at BLP transgressions. Tarc (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I can only present the world as I see it. If you take issue with my characterization, feel free to do so at the discussion. If you choose not to participate, that is of course your prerogative, but failure to participate doesn't free us from an obligation to follow consensus. Ray^Talk 19:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Consensus does not override BLP policy, especially in a discussion that starts off on such a wrong foot. Tarc (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

without it being a judgment on either side of the particular question, within the very broad limits set by the WMF, consensus has made BLP policy, and consensus interprets it. To the degree any pronouncement is authoritative, it's because we choose by consensus to honor it. Who else is responsible for Wikipedia , if not all of us collectively? We have all worked or studied in places where a central administration of some sort made policy, and everyone there had to follow it. enWP has no such administration, and no such dictated policies. What we agree on is policy. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Minor correction, BLP actually came from the Foundation. Although I agree with the point you are making that consensus should be used to assess each situation on its merits. A blatant violation vs a technical violation (which may not be an in-spirit violation) is an important distinction to make and one which isn't made often enough. Orderinchaos 20:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Jclemens's POINTY behavior[edit]

Jclemens (talk · contribs) has now created Hiroshima terrorist attack, which was brought up in the above RfD discussion, in order to prove a point. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a known issue; jclemens created this during the Ft. Hood redirect discussion, not just today or anything like that. That one at least seems headed towards an unquestionable delete, thankfully. Tarc (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm having increasing difficulty with Belov, who has repeatedly made unconstructive edits to articles such as Son Dam Bi and Kim Ok-bin. Belov claims to be a new user, but bold and aggressive editing and use of Twinkle suggest otherwise, and I'm also concerned that Twinkle is being used to edit war. Specific concerns:

• Inappropriate revert here and again here and here using Twinkle.
• Inappropriate labelling of edits as "vandalism" to restore disputed changes here and here, again using Twinkle.
• Unwarranted revert here merely because Belov was apparently working on the article at the same time I was, and again here.

Regarding the current content dispute at Kim Ok-bin, I have repeatedly identified the issues with Belov's contributions in my edit summaries and on the talk page, but has so far seemed content to dismiss theses concerns without properly adressing them. Best thing I can do is to step away from the article for the time being, but I would appreciate some assistance with the Twinkle/revert issues outlined above. PC78 (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I have been getting help with my "vandalism" as PC78 called it. In the IRC chat (by Fetchcomms and Jake) and they have been helping me along. The editor PC78 seems to have ownership issues as well. And has told me not my problem, you can't revert perfectly good edits for no reason According to the Wiki policy "if you don't want your edits edited on Wiki then don't submit them." I don't see why this editor is reporting me. PC78 also has certain articles listed on her user page and that's actually proves her sign of ownership because she is not allowing editors to edit her favourite articles. And PC78 reverted my changes repeatedly after I explained my reasons. PC78 also seems to be going through my edits on articles that didn't include them. Another editor on that Son Dam Bi article had a discussion about it with me and we've resolved our issues on the Son Dam Bi article. Belov 16:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I never referred to your edits as "vandalism" -- it's you who has labelled my edits as such. This isn't a question of ownership (which has nothing to do with watch lists), it's about the quality and manner of your editing. Regarding the diff you link above, that was in response to when you reverted me just because you were working on the article at the same time, something there was no indication of, and not something that IMO warrants a revert. You have not properly explained why community concensus regarding the layout of filmographies need not apply to Kim Ok-bin, or why you keep trying to change her name to "Kim Ok Bin" in the infobox, or why mention of her university need not be referenced with a reliable source; many of your contributions lack edit summaries and/or are marked as minor. And why is it you feel that "if you don't want your edits edited on Wiki then don't submit them" applies to you editing my contributions, but not vice versa? What makes it "ownership" if I revert you, but not if you revert me? PC78 (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I agree that Belov is misusing Twinkle and recommend that an admin remove his privileges. Auntie E. 18:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello people.

A user called Starrylight (talk · contribs) started editing different Indian film articles adding they are copied from other films without any sources. I reverted him and he turned to an administrator who informed him that my edits were correct and he should cite sources for anything he adds, else it would be in violation of WP:OR. He started adding sources. In the case of a film article, Mere Yaar Ki Shaadi Hai, he cited bollycat.com and planetbollywood.com, two completely unreliable sources (which I clearly know from my experience while working on a BLP FA as they were invalidated). I reverted him and informed him that every source must adhere to WP:RS. He wanted me to prove that they are unreliable, even though I explained that according to WP:BURDEN, onus is on him to prove the reliability of a source, not on me to prove the opposite. Today I looked for a decent source and found an article from The Times of India, which supported the previous claim in the article, according to which the film is partly inspired from My Best Friend's Wedding. He reverted me again calling my edits vandalism. According to a CBS article, the director of the film denies having copied MBFW. The user insists on stating that the film is a remake, although clearly it is not a fact. The film is claimed to be inspired from MBFW, and the director denies it. That's how it should be presented. I'm not going to revert him again. Need your help. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

According to this, we can also see that the user tries to enforce his WP:TRUTH. He says, "THe movie is a remake indeed as reported many places which is also common knowledge and the director denying it does not change that." Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I clearly disagree with the version as conveyed by Shahid. I have already voiced my concerns and objections below in my report. This is not a retalitory or imitating report but a genuine report based on the experience over the last couple of days. I am also very tired from repeating myself and I feel the approach of Shahid depite his history or experience is objectionable in light of the way he handled this particular dispute. The manner has been incivil and threatening throughout and offputting as far as future editing goes. I am tired of the many accusations and hostility. I am one of those people who reads wikipedia a lot so I recognize neutrality and reliable references and full context. I have been in good faith and my account can be read below in my report. Starrylight (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I have run into problems with this user. Althought I have tried to convey my objection to the claims made by Shshshsh/Shahid. Unfortunately I have gotten nowhere. From day one he has been threatening and non-co-operative but no attempt of a actual discussion on why he disagrees has been attempted. I am in no way trying to state my opinion. There are many references which support this both as part of Bollywood remake lists and the criticism that the director has received. I also feel the directors quote is taken out of context, and I am confident we can all agree that taking quotes out of context, borders on bias. The director will also make no admission, as that will have legal reprecussions as well as incur credit for the original moviemakers. If compared with the Ring, this was a US remake of a Japanese horror with credits. The remakes are common knowledge especially to us Bollywood viewers. I really did not anticipate such problems over this. Nevertheless, after the initial threat, I did attempt to find references and inserted them where applicable. Surprisingly, the user did not deem them reliable. I asked for an elaboration/substantiation as to why he ´thinks so. No answer received. There are grey zones on wikipedia, so he should be able to explain "decent" and "unreliable" references in this particular case, as the claim is his, and thus the burden of proof and argumentation is his. I raised the issue with an admin for clarity and the discussion is ongoing. Instead of waiting for an outcome, the user has moved to a different admin and been continuous unfriendly and threatening me with ANI reports. He also continues to accuse me of warning him when in fact I did not post any warning. I can not be held responsible for what other people post on his talk page. I stated all this to him but the accusations persist along with threats. He has removed all criticism and warnings on his page but objects to my removing his warnings. I do feel this is very demotivating, as I am being accused of all evils and this is not exactly how one imagines editing on wikipedia will be like. A very uncomfortable experience indeed. I trust somebody will be able to clarify the matter. Starrylight (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note - please note that this message is clearly an imitation of my above message against the user. He has been adding unreliable sources and reverting me for replacing them under the accusation of vandalism when I actually added reliable source. As you can see on Talk:Mere Yaar Ki Shaadi Hai#Help_needed - these sources are clearly unreliable according to another editor as well. But he just has his truth. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

As you can see from the above "note" the harrassment by user is continous. I am not even allowed to make a report. This is not an imitation but I am genuinely fed up with the constant harrassment, threatening and incivil behaviour by this user. It is remarkable that even ones report can not be left alone for administrators to deal with. Instead this user will even ruin that. I have explained my objection in clear English, but I feel this user does not want to understand. This is very unfortunate behaviour and clear seeks to tamper with any attempt of bringing attention to their behaviour and baseless accusations. How many discussions must this user start before they actually feel content? This is not a discussion page but a noticeboard. Starrylight (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall being incivil or harrassing you, please put up diffs if you stand behind your words, otherwise they are not to be taken seriously. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Well you have been incivil to me and harrassing me. I also don't understand your need to open a discussion in several places about the same thing. Maybe we should continue under your report.Starrylight (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I see no evidence of any harrasment from Shahid. I also was a participant, if a minor one, in the FA whose candidancy involved a lot of discussion as to what were and were not reliable sources. The sources Starrylight seeks to use have been judged to not meet reliable sources standards as per WP:RS, and thus information cannot be reasonably added to any articles based on only such sourcing. It should also be noted that claims that someone based one film on another are claims regarding generally living people, and in such instances must meet the much stricter WP:BLP standards. I sincerely urge Starrylight to read through both pages I have linked to. Unfortunately, I have to say that the material sourced from those unreliable sources, or, worse yet, simply from "everyone knows" unsourced "common knowledge" is not acceptable by wikipedia's standards. If the material cannot be sourced from reliable sources, then it cannot be added to the articles, and, particularly if statements regarding living people are involved, should be removed as inadequately sourced. It's as simple as that. John Carter (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

John Carter, I would call it harrassment when Shahid persistantly and repeatedly accuses me of being somebody I am not and for posting warnings on his site, which I did not. I stated this to him clearly, but his accusations without proof continue. I believe it was a very conscious decision to side track the topic at hand. It is harrassment when his approach involves threats and warnings without any attempt to discuss matters in a civil way. It is also harrassment when he now seeks to tamper with my report by starting a discussion under it. A disussion that has taken place several places now. Maybe we can continue talking under his report. Prior to inserting my references I did not know that these were deemed unreliable by wikipedia. I only had Shahid's words for it and that is why I asked him repeatedly for a substantiation or explanation. Starrylight (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

While I can understand that you did not know what was and was not reliable according to wikipedia, it is more or less every individual's responsibility to know what is and is not acceptable. And the claim above that he was "tampering" with a complaint is also groundless. Individuals who repeatedly add inadequately sourced material relating to BLPs in particular are also, I think by policy, potentially subject to blocking, particularly when the material is derogatory, which making a claim that someone copied someone else's work is. You were also given a link to the RS page by Shahid earlier, which you removed from your talk page. I agree however that any statements identifying you with an anon vandal on another site are probably unacceptable. I however do not see any evidence of this discussion, so cannot comment on such claims. John Carter (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably unacceptable? So it is only probable if Shahid makes claims which he can not back up against me. But it is not strictly as unacceptable when I in good faith insert references to back up information after being prompted for sources in an article? This discussion has been opened so many places by Shahid that it is difficult to keep track now. But if you look for it, you can find his claims as he has made them repeatedly. I did go to the links provided but these are general guidelines. There is no list saying so and so reference is unreliable. That is why I asked him to elaborate. He has been incivil and hostile from day one. Instead of discussing things as I see happens in other article discussion pages, he just started off with threatening warnings. He is tampering and that is not grounless. Look at the way he has started the tampering by discussing in the middle of my report when in fact he has voiced these things before in numerous places. I don't really see how you can seek to justify that. Afterall the noticeboard does not serve the purpose of lengthy discussions. He made a report and so did I. But as usual he objects to even my making a report. I don't really feel this is leading anywhere. But I would appreciate it now the relevant administrator can deal with the reports and I have voiced my concerns and objections. I don't expect you to understand but this has sincerely speaking been a very unpleasent experience. Starrylight (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I know that all of the "list of Nobel Laureates by age" were deleted in an AFD, but I don't remember the original name of the pages, so I cannot locate them. I bring this up because they have been recreated under different titles (List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates by age, List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry by age, List of Nobel laureates in Economics by age, List of Nobel laureates in Literature by age, List of Nobel laureates in Physics by age, List of Nobel laureates in Physiology or Medicine by age), but there's no point in nominating for deletion until the old discussion is found. Maybe someone can help? 209.243.6.249 (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you are thinking of the articles deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Noble Prize in Peace winners by longevity, though those (apparently, since I can't see them) seem to have covered only part of the content of the current articles? Deor (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Just trying to head a conflict off at the pass, so to speak. Fred1296 (talk · contribs) seems to be an SPA for promoting comedian Chris Rush. Fred1296 is also probably indef blocked user Tony159 (talk · contribs), who made the same edits to the same articles.

Fred1296 has also added small articles for Rush's book and three albums, the book has already been merged back into the article. Delicious carbuncle has merged/redirected the albums back to the main page for Rush [140] [141] [142]. DC has made comments on Fred1296's page (as have I) to discuss the matter, but Fred1296 has reverted the redirects repeatedly without adding any content, stating in his edit summaries "Good enough for a page" and "As good as anyother page in same category".

I'd hate to see a full-scale edit war break out over something like this, so more opinions on the matter would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

First of all I am a fan of Chris Rush, and since there wasn't any pages for him I decided to create them. I am however NOT trying to promote him. I am just working with the available information on the web. I do understand why the book was merged into Chris Rush sice it didn't have much for its own page, but to delete the three album pages are ridiculous. There are hundreds of other comedy album pages with the same or even less on it, yet nobody deletes those or merges them into the artist's pages. First Rush, Beaming In and There's No Bones In Ice Cream have plenty of info needed for an encyclopedia stand point. There is obviously some problem these editors have with Chris Rush or even myself considering it seems to be the same ones always trying to delete the pages. When I start to see other pages in the same category being deleted or merged like FM & AM for instance (which is identical to what I created) maybe then I'll be more understandable. Untill then I'm going to fight to keep these pages up and updated too, but when I'm costantly having to undo edits that are made from users who don't believe Chris Rush or any of his works are notable or famous enough it makes it a bit difficult. Thank You Fred1296 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred1296 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The behavioral evidence seems to indicate that these two accounts are likely the same person, but I would feel more comfortable seeing a checkuser on this one, as the idea that two different fans had created these pages is a slight possibility. --Jayron32 03:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tony159, which I just started. Lets do this formally to put a nail in this one for good. --Jayron32 03:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to note that while FM & AM may be a bit sparse in the references department, it clearly meets the general notability guideline by virtue of having won the 1972 Grammy Award for Best Comedy Album. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

And Mussolini made the trains run on time. That fact does not address the (possible) block dodging issue... --Jayron32 04:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll defer to you in Mussolini-related matters. My point was that none of Chris Rush's albums appear to be notable unlike the example offered by Fred1296 of the George Carlin album FM & AM. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

As you were... Nevermind. --Jayron32 05:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The SPI case has been rejected. Meanwhile, the album articles remain and Fred1296 has recreated a twice speedied article about a comedy club... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree Fred1296 has been consistently reverting edits made by a number of editors, with the net effect being that he seems personally involved in promoting this particular comedian and the comedian's books and albums. Even without knowing if there's a relationship between this editor and this comedian, Fred1296 is exhibiting WP:OWN and, arguably, appears to be violating WP:NOTADVERTISING. -- Tenebrae (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes I admit to reverting edits and I believe the last one I made on First Rush deemed to be appropriate. I read the reason why it was merged into Chris Rush, and though didn't see anything that was remotely close to promoting him, I removed the statement to which had not been there in earlier versions. It was back to the same way it was when it received no complaints, but then its still merged again back into Chris Rush. Now I'm here having to write this and waist my time even though everything on the page had it's own references and that I said clearly in the edit summary that I had changed it back. This is becoming a big to-do about nothing. Why not go edit and delete the thousands of other pages that are not formatted correctly and have a bunch of BS on them, because my pages are to the best they can be and I'm always looking to make them better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred1296 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

"...my pages..."??? Either we have a massive WP:COI or a massive issue with WP:OWN. You do not have any pages. They are Wikipedia's pages, and open for editing/deleting as per the licence you granted when you clicked "submit". At that point they have to meet notability and have actual reliable sources - not just ones that you say are notable. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't try to examine every word I say, your head might explode. As far as actual and notable sorces, the ones I put down are real and factual. Just because you don't believe to know them doesn't mean there less of a reference then anyother. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred1296 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I am an admin here at enwp, but I am just a template programmer so I need help with this:

We have problems with Eubulides (talk · contribs). He is trying to do copyright infringement on a massive scale. He wants to unlink all icons here on enwp, for instance in different kinds of message boxes. His reason is to make the boxes more accessible to blind users, so that their image links aren't read out in screen readers. But as you guys probably know we are only allowed to unlink public domain images, since pretty much all other licenses require attribution and require that one can find out what license the image has.

He has single-handedly done massive changes and extensions to the guideline Wikipedia:Alternative text for images, and since then used it as a reference for his demands.

When we refuse him to unlink an image in a protected template, he does this:

1. He makes a new very complex version of the template and puts it in the /sandbox sub-page of the template. His code makes the image unlinked, and makes any other images fed to the template also unlinked by default.
2. He changes the documentation of the template to fit with his new code, even though his code has not been deployed. And his documentation tells people to not link images, and usually fails to mention that we are only allowed to unlink public domain images.
3. He repeatedly puts {{editprotected}} on the talk page of the template, no matter how many times different admins have denied the request.
4. He draws a copy of the old image. That is, he paints a new very similar version. And he uploads it to Commons.
5. He sets the license to "public domain", thus not respecting the license of the image he has copied.
6. He adds a description that he made the image entirely by himself. He does not attribute the author(s) of the image he copied.
7. He then comes back to enwp and tries to make people use his new "PD" image as icon, so it can be used without a link.

No matter how much we try to explain to him he shows a total disregard for copyright, attribution and procedures here at enwp and at Commons.

For instance, one case involves the {{portal}} box here at enwp. It is used on over 2.4 million pages. For the discussions, see Template talk:Portal#Remove link from image, for accessibility.

(I have reported his image uploads at commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Eubulides.)

I would appreciate if you guys investigated his edits and do what ever the procedures say you should do with them and with him. I'm sorry that I'm not read up on the procedures regarding this, I was just made an admin here at enwp since I handle high-risk templates. (The templates I code tend to become very popular, so they get protected.)

--David Göthberg (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Has he uploaded any derivative images besides File:Portal-puzzle.svg? That's the only one I can find, apart from possibly File:Compass_rose_pale.svg, though that doesn't seem to be being questioned. Note: I'm not an admin, here or on Commons, just trying to help out. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the consensus on Commons is that these icons are not copyrightable, so making new versions is perfectly acceptable. See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Portal-puzzle.svg for example. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

But that is not the only issue here. He also unlinks other images. That is, images that others have made and that certainly are not public domain. And he edits templates (or demand that we edit for him if protected) so the default when an image is fed to those templates is to suppress the linking of the image. Thus all existing usage of those templates will have unlinked images. And he refuses to explain it properly in the documentation of the templates, so most new usage will also have unlinked images. And he does this on many high-use templates.

As I see it, if he is allowed to continue with this then we might get the following problems: Someone might sue Wikimedia for publishing their images without attribution, and people who want attribution for their images will refuse to upload them to Wikipedia/Commons.

--David Göthberg (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't that only be a problem with fair-use images (which shouldn't be used in templates) since all our other licences are compatible with the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL, which all of Wikipedia is licenced under anyway? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes the licenses for the images used in templates are usually more or less compatible. But almost all these licenses require that the author is attributed and that a copy of the license is sent along or linked to, thus we need to link to the file pages so one can see the author name and exactly what license it uses. Note that CC-BY-SA 3.0 and the GFDL also have this requirement. And that is a hard legal requirement, it's not just for fun.

--David Göthberg (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

So the three options are to either to only use PD images, link to the original images, or attribute the authors as part of the template? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You are almost right: But just stating the name of the author below the picture is not enough, you still have to link to the license (or show a visible URL to the license, or show the whole license text), so then you can just as well link to the image page instead. There are two parts here: The attribution and the license. Both parts are required in almost all of the licenses used by images on Wikipedia/Commons.

And a side note: In many countries (for instance in most of northern Europe) you even have to attribute the author when using PD images. I live in such a country, so I have to attribute the original author when I rework or publish a PD image. Thus in a strict sense I am no longer allowed to work with the templates that don't link the PD images.

--David Göthberg (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Well you are, since the servers are in Florida, so none of your Wikipedia work is published in Europe. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

No, since I am in Sweden, so when I do the save of a page then Swedish law applies to me. It doesn't matter where in the world the servers are, the author of the image can still sue me in Sweden. But the Wikimedia foundation that is in the US and has the servers in the US can't be sued for lack of attribution for a PD image. (Well, they can be sued, but will win the case.)

Anyway, that was a side note. The issue at hand is that non-PD images must have both the attribution of the author, and a link to the license text. And User:Eubulides is systematically removing such links from lots of templates. And he tries to remove the links from templates used on literally millions of pages. So I am asking that the admins here at Wikipedia deal with this problem. As I understand it I am not allowed to deal with him myself, since I am "to involved". (He has damaged templates I made, and unlinked images I made, and most of all I have been arguing with him for too long.)

--David Göthberg (talk) 01:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

After my recent tizzy with the Game Show Congress article, I was met with this post by a noted member of the game show community: "You want to make this all go away? Use your editing prowess and Wikipedia skills, armed with all the new information now at your disposal, to post new, better articles about these important parts of quiz and game show culture[…]dozens of other industry professionals past and present think the Game Show Congress is relevant. And there's no article because Bobby Peacock and a couple of buddies decide otherwise? That's wrong, and right now, you're the guy to fix it." I honestly have been totally unable to find any relevant sources regarding the article, and no matter how much I explain it, this user refuses to believe that it doesn't meet the notability guidelines — it was even deleted via AFD, which this person thinks is just a bunch of chums whom I got to agree with me. I don't know how to tactfully tell him that there's no way the article could be recreated by Wikipedia's standards, which he thinks are arbitrary and tilted in favor of established users. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Some people just will never be convinced. The best we can do is try and get another member over there to explain just *why* the article was deleted (and Robert KS's post over there while the AfDs were running didn't help the article's case either, sad to say). Preferably it should be someone who was uninvolved with the whole thing. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 21:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Sometimes it takes forever to get the point across, unfortunately. Ignoring the vested folks over there until they take the time to read and understand the rules regarding notability and community consensus would be a reasonable approach. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Edward przydzial (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is once again vandalizing Barack Obama "Joker" poster, but his most recent edit might be a violation of WP:LEGAL. Can someone take a look? Gracias. APK because, he says, it's true 23:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Edward przydzial has been blocked per WP:NLT by User:LessHeard vanU. EdJohnston (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

He's also surfaced on OTRS ticket 2009112110013776 .©Geni 23:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It does look like a legit, albeit misaddressed, DMCA takedown notice. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Other than all the crap about Obama, socialism, and fascism, which is just that: crap.--jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not sent to the designated agent and is therefor not legit. In adition consider this.©Geni 01:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Never mind. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I am requesting immediate block of User:Lordofthetv for threat of harm. I need someone to follow the procedure laid out at Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm Thanks Tim1357 (talk) 02:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked by Accounting4Taste. A8UDI 02:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Great, now we need checkuser to get IP address. That way we can alert the authorities. Tim1357 (talk) 02:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:RBI. @Kate (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:VIOLENCE. It says we have to report all threats. So we cant ignore this one—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim1357 (talk • contribs)

WP:VIOLENCE is an essay, not a policy. And it wouldn't override reality in any event. In my own experience of reporting these, police don't investigate threats of I'm going to kill you unless "you" can be identified. If Accounting4Taste wants to file a police report, he's free to. I'm sure the foundation/a checkuser would be happy to provide the police the IP address if he did such a thing. But if he doesn't care, then we don't need to do anything. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks for clearing that up. My interpretations was that we have to take all of these things seriously, no questions asked. Thanks! Tim1357 (talk) 03:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• One should not ignore credible threats, but upwards of 99% of all threats fail the credibility test. I can only remember one or two cases in five years where there has been a truly credible threat of harm. Guy (Help!) 08:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Childish vandalism and credible threats of violence are two different animals. Hence, my (now reversed) resolving of this topic and advice to rbi. @Kate (talk) 08:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

User Martindudziak has made a threat of legal action on TETRADYN Applied Bio Cyber Sciences, Inc.. ttonyb (talk) 05:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. TNXMan 05:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello there, about a month and a half ago, I was blacklisted from Twinkle for making a few bad reversions. Since then, I have been granted rollback rights and have been fighting vandalism through use of Huggle. I would like to continue using huggle, however there are situations where Twinkle is more useful, such as when I am using university computers (which do not allow most executables to be executed.) I would like to be removed from the blacklist. Feel free to look at my actions as a rollbacker. I believe that I have demonstrated better judgment since losing Twinkle. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 06:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• The admin that blacklisted me has been alerted of the thread here. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 06:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Apparently Nezzadar is going to keep coming back here every fortnight until I surrender. Fine, I give up. He defeated the point of blacklisting him anyhow, when he went and got Huggle instead, and then some silly administrator decided to grant him rollback too.

    But before you agree to lift the ban, I suggest you go look at why he was blacklisted in the first place, and then check out the results of all the other times where Nezzadar has asked for Twinkle back, been declined, and gone off in a huff shouting stuff like "I have an overarching policy against tolerating stupidity. Repeated experience has shown me that AGF doesn't work with IP addresses. The vast majority of bad edits not using accounts are decidedly malicious. If you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend that there's good faith where there overwhelmingly isn't, feel free to do so. I won't."[147]

    That's the only diff you're getting this time; I've already been through this three times. Hesperian 07:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

For those interested:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive570#Reinstatement of TWINKLE

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive571#Testing the waters

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive573#Restoration of Twinkle

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive574#New Account - Sinneed 07:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Nezzadar should really have been granted rollback until the underlying issue were resolved. It's really all the same issue, and one shouldn't have been granted if there were still reason to block the other. Seeking out one while being banned from the other is essentially just circumventing the ban, unless Nezzadar saw fit to make sure the granting admin was aware of the Twinkle ban (and something tells me he did not, but correct me if I'm wrong). FYI, rollback is required in order to use Huggle. Equazcion (talk) 08:05, 21 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Request I don't see.

Granting note here

And a thank-you here

Notifying user:Pedro of this thread. - - Sinneed 08:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Request is here, at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback. A user who was banned from Twinkle for the reasons Nezzadar was should never have been granted rollback, and I doubt Pedro would have granted it had he known. Equazcion (talk) 08:28, 21 Nov 2009 (UTC)

That looks like wp:canvassing#Forum shopping to me.- Sinneed 08:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The reasons given for removal of TW are here: (admin only). If there is the slightest hint he hasn't changed his behaviour I will removal rollback. Does Huggle need rollback to work? Viridae^Talk 09:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep. @Kate (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment, Nezzadar has the tools now. It's up to him to ensure that he retains the community's trust in their use. Let's give him a chance to show that he can use them properly, but I propose that if any of them are misused, then access is denied to all of them. If he can show that he can use them properly now that he has them, then he should be allowed to do so. Mjroots (talk) 09:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I just did a quick flick few the last few days worth of edits and came up with three problems:

• [148] Apparently good faith edit rolled back as vandalism without explanation. The IP was warned.
• [149] Same as above.
• [150] Same again.

And this is just randomly checking about about 40 reversions over the past few days. ON the basis of this I am removing Rollback and his TW access should not be restored. Viridae^Talk 09:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Response from Nezzadar[edit]

I had a feeling this would happen, and therefore am not angry about this. One thing I would like to say however is that from my time with rollback, I noticed a surprisingly high level of vandalism, and chased after as much of it as I could. Let me address the three edits, as well as the overarching problem of bad reverts.

The first of the I reverted it because it was factually inaccurate and was not cited. Quasi denotes something is "sort of." There is nothing quasi about licence agreements, breaking them can land people in serious trouble, and legally, they are contracts. This was reverted because it is, quite frankly, harmful.

The second I reverted because another editor had already reverted the change before, with a valid edit summary. In a choice between someone putting back removed information without an edit summary, and a person removing information with a valid edit summary, I am going to choose the second.

As for the thrid, this one was likely a mistake. My thinking was that this was unneeded, low EV, adverty information, which was not cited, and was on a high traffic article.

As for making mistakes, a few editors have come to me and told me that I made mistakes. Some I agreed with, apologized, and helped them do it over correctly so it wouldn't look suspicious. Some I rejected, as there was no merit to the requests. That is how reverts are supposed to work, everyone makes mistakes. Because I was already under observation, mine were noticed, but I am sure all of you have bad edits too. It's sad that only one person gave me the benefit of the doubt, but that seems on par with how admins operate. My one regret is that no one ever offered to help me, people just rushed to criticize. So much for community. At least there are some areas of Wikipedia where people still talk to each other about issues.

Nezzadar ^[SPEAK]

• Regarding the accusation on me forum shopping, perhaps I am, however since no one actually talks to me, even when I reach out on a limb and apologize, I have no other way of trying to improve. Asking the parent over and over gets tiring, however it is the parent's responsibility to guide, not just punish, and I think that WP admins make for rather poor parents in that regard. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 21:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've tried to help in the past, and can say from experience that if no one's offered you "help" on this particular occasion, you might want to consider that it's because they've learned their lesson. You have a habit of jumping down people's throats when they give you advice. Your demeanor has improved on that front; recently you seem to be making a conscious effort (or taking pills), but only very recently, and I'm not convinced that it's carried over yet into your judgment of making reverts. I would try to be patient in terms of requesting that your rights be restored. Showing that you "really really want it" only makes people nervous abut your motivations, and your end-run around the Twinkle ban for rollback/Huggle doesn't put anyone's mind at ease. I'd focus on areas other than vandalism prevention for a while if I were you, before making another request, and by a while I mean a month or two. Again I'm not trying to berate you, but you asked for help and I'm telling you what I would do. Equazcion (talk) 21:47, 21 Nov 2009 (UTC)
• Nezzadar - wp:NOTTHEM - "...I have no other way of trying to improve..." - Just no. You improve by improving.

You continue to focus outside yourself in order to fix a problem inside yourself. In very general, this does not have a great history of working.

Read what was written here in response to your request: Each is from someone who "actually talks" to you. Read the responses to your (too many, too fast) requests to have twinkle restored. Each response is from someone who "actually talks" to you. Not all of what is said is useful: humans are speaking.- Sinneed 07:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Despite the WP:BITE guideline, Wikipedia is widely perceived to be hostile to new editors. I believe it would be more accurate to say that some (more than a few) experienced editors are hostile to new editors. I hate vandalism, and I see lots of vandalism by IPs and some by brand new accounts. I see test edits that IPs revert themselves (if someone with a tool doesn't beat them to it). But I also see a lot of bad reverts of good IP and newbie edits, based solely on suspicion that an IP edit is a bad edit. I see a lot of rude edit summaries reverting good faith, but erroneous, edits. I saw one experienced editor accuse a newbie of vandalism for "correcting" a correct British spelling to American; most people don't even realize that there are different spellings in different national varieties of English. Occasionally, I've researched a newbie's unexplained, unsourced fact change or addition, and the edit turns out to be correct. It is not reasonable to expect an IP or other newbie to know about doing edit summaries, citing sources, or other Wikipedia basics. I hope that Nezzadar, and others, will bear this in mind as they crusade against vandalism. —Finell 22:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Your first reversion was made with an auto edit summary, you then gave the IP a warning. I won't get into the content dispute here, apart from to say that many people may feel that "quasi contract" is correct. (Do you have a reliable source to show that they're not quasi-contracts? Did you look for any sources?) The fact remains: you reverted a good faith edit (even if you think it's incorrect do you really think it was a bad faith edit?); you warned the editor (and that was the first contact anyone from WP had with them) and then when people told you it was a problematic edit you demonstrate why those tools were removed. Maybe it would be a good idea to go and welcome that IP editor? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that some people go around welcoming every new user they find does not make it necessary for me to do so. The last time I welcomed someone, it turned into a huge mess (anyone remember this idiot?) I don't make small talk to random people anymore. I've been burned too many times by vandals, over-zealous admins, and random IPs to go out of my way to be nice to people. People just aren't nice. If that means that I can't be a soldier in the war on vandalism, fine. I'm proud of being a misanthrope, and I won't change my beheavior. As Hersperian wonderfully quoted me out of context, AGF isn't perfect. Neither am I, neither are you. Enjoy cleaning up the mess when things slip through the cracks. You chased away someone who genuinely wanted to help protect Wikipedia, and it has made WP just a little bit worse. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 00:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Your method of trying to make everyone feel bad by saying they're getting rid of a tough and honest vandal fighter who tells it like it is and takes no guff from no-one will prove fruitless. Protecting Wikipedia isn't as much of a problem as it once was, because the tools are getting better and more automated, making it easy, and anyone can easily do it. Plus vandal fighter numbers are high anyway, probably due to that very ease. Right now the asset is considered to be the editors who are willing to do the more painstaking effort- and patience-ridden job of welcoming new users. Communication isn't an automated process. If we ever have a shortage of people willing to revert, inform people that they are idiots, and move on, we will surely seek you out -- however we presently have no such shortage. Equazcion (talk) 01:29, 22 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Nezzadar. In October when you were here, I recall stating "Re-read the purpose of the tool. Hell, we remove rollback for only a couple of minor transgressions - why would Twinkle be any different - and it's usually only temporary? Because you generally do good work does not ever give you carte blanche to bite, and otherwise use it wrongly". Nobody on Wikipedia is willing to accept the regular wrong use of a powerful tool, just because a lot of the time it gets used well; we don't take "the good with the bad" in this case. I was really hoping to see improvement - as was the admin who gave you rollback back. How you move forward with this is key: you will need to show a more-than-brilliant understanding of the vandalism policy and how/when to use powerful automated tools. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Nezzadar: as an editor who is totally involved, I would just like to remind you that Twinkle should only be used to revert obvious vandalism. Looking at the three examples above: the first edit may or may not have been a correct statement of fact - but I can see no reason to believe that this was anything other than a good faith edit. The second edit: again, whether it was factually correct or not, I would have assumed that this was a good faith edit. I'm glad that you admitted the third one was a mistake - again, this would appear to be a good faith edit.

The problem isn't that you are making the odd mistake - the problem is that you are making quite a few mistakes: reverting good faith edits happens on occasions to all users of automated tools like Huggle and Twinkle - but if there are too many mistakes, it is correct that access to such tools be withdrawn, until the editor can show (with their manual edits) that they can follow the procedure for vandalism-fighting. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Nezzadar - your over zealous attitude (War, soldier, fight) *has* driven away editors from Wikipedia, and has made WP just a little bit worse. Do you care about that? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, The fact that some people go around welcoming every new user they find does not make it necessary for me to do so - you're not being asked to welcome every new user you find. You're being asked to check that edits fit the strict criteria for vandalism before you give those editors vandal warnings, and you're being given an opportunity to show that you're learning from all the people trying to help you. The fact that you see those people as enemies, as people who 'have it in for you', is a shame. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Can I get some eyes on editor RogerZoel (talk · contribs · logs)? There's an issue regarding his signature that I almost dismissed as petty, but his responses and reverting point towards an issue that probably won't go away soon. In a nutshell, he refuses to have a signature that has a link to his userpage or talk, in violation of guideline WP:SIG: "Signatures must include at least one internal link". Now, he is just signing posts to my talk page with five tildes, claiming that there is conflict in the document and that Wikipedia is "not a police state". Sigh. If anyone has the patience to explain the issue to him, I'd really appreciate it. Check his latest contribs for more details; no point posting diffs here. Tan | 39 17:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You know, you are quick on the fly. Calm down and give me time to understand the situation. No ned to rush people through. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerZoel (talk • contribs) 17:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't be calmer; you refused to acknowledge any understanding of the issue at all in three or four exchanges. Thus, I brought it here, for other people to comment on. Tan | 39 17:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, slow down, will ya? It takes time to read the wiki resources through. I'm not an "expert" wiki person like you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerZoel (talk • contribs) 17:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) RogerZoel, the internal link in your signature is an important courtesy which makes it easy to keep track of participants in multi-editor discussions; it also makes it much easier for other Wikipedians to get in touch with you. (This being a collaborative project, that type of easy interaction is very important.) Just put a link in your signature – or just use the default signature, which contains a suitable link – and you'll be fine. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a little matter of Wikipedia:Assume good faith; when an editor comes along and says, "Hi! I think I should tell you that signing your name on talkpages is expected." the usual response is, "Okay". "Point me to where it says I should!" is probably inappropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Man, I can't wait for LiquidThreads. — Jake Wartenberg 17:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

RogerZoel, there's nothing you need to understand. You have to sign your posts with four tildes, so it leaves your username behind. End of. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 17:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, edits like this and this are just plain disruptive, and I suggest a block if he doesn't start behaving himself sharp-ish. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 17:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The whole thing smacks of being rather WP:POINTy to me. — Kralizec! (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Well actually, WP:SIG indicates signing with 5 tildes is an acceptable option, if not a preferred one. The wording about requiring a link to your user page, talk or contribs appears to be directed toward people who do custom signatures but omit links. I guess it might apply here but it still makes the document contradictory, since earlier it indicates it's okay to sign using just the 5 tilde option. In this case the guy seems to be being disruptive, but still, the guideline seems to be an issue. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that you have to be working hard to parse every possible meaning out of WP:SIG, in order to find a reading that supports such an interpretation. More to the point, you would need to have set out to find some such interpretation, by hook or by crook. However, I have in the meantime made the following change to the policy: [151]. Since policy is a record of what the community expects of itself, and the community expects readable signatures, I don't think there will be any issue with this. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Well it lists it as one of the "other options" and devotes an entire section to it. You don't have to work hard to squeeze in my interpretation... you basically have to spend 5 seconds and read the table of contents. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Sancho Mandoval - This IS exactly how the document is perceived by me. I knew I am not the only one who sees it in this way. I'm still reading through the discussion page which is so long and confusing. 18:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I endorse Gavia Immer's change as a reflection of what is expected here. When discussing things on talk pages, people need to be able to see who said what, and should not have to dig through the history to figure it out. Roger, please sign your comments with four tildes from now on to facilitate communication and good will in the community. LadyofShalott 18:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Then I will no longer respond to talk pages as anyone can arbitrate anything they want to suit their wishes. Wikipedia is becoming a police state and that is such a failing for Wikipedia! Roger Zoel (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 18:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

you people should be ashamed of yourselves! someone who clearly wants to learn wikipedia on his own pace is bullied and condemed because he wants to be left alone from those who want to strike up a casual conversation. calling him disruptive is uncalled for. this is a smart person who sees this site that can benefit from him. i've seen him examine every rules and regulations relating to whatever he is trying to do and even ask me how I see them to be. but because those who want to be his "friend" are offended when declines the offer attacks him as being unconformative to the community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.136.64 (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

24.60.136.64, you are misrepresenting the situation here. A link is required in a signature to enable easy communication between editors. Having a fancy signatue without a link is not allowed. Signing with four tildes is the norm on Wikipedia, and has been for a long time, for the reasons set out above. Mjroots (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

And now a noble IP rises up to defend poor, maligned Roger! This train wreck (or, depending on your perspective, tilting at windmills) gets better and better. — Kralizec! (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Every edit is marked as minor, too. It's the third (fourth?) coming of mcjakeqcool. Tan | 39 22:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The IP is from Massachusetts, while mcjakeqcool's IPs come from England. MuZemike 22:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't being serious. I was just pointing out the similarities. Tan | 39 23:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Other disruption by User:RogerZoel[edit]

I request a short block of RogerZoel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) so he can take time to learn about the community's policies, guidelines, and practices. This editor's disruption is not confined to the signature issue. As his contribution history shows, this editor disregards collaboration toward consensus (he edits as a lone ranger), edit wars, appears to be pushing a particular religious POV, and is uncivil. We really don't need more editors running around behaving this way.

My contact with this editor was when he complained at WT:Manual of Style that an administrator was edit warring over whether to have spaces in the wiki markup for headings (which seemed improbable to me) and was biting a newbie (I thought he was referring to himself as the victimized newbie]].[152] (Today, looking at his contribs, I discovered that he was edit warring over spaces in the heading markup and other layout issues.[153][154][155][156][157][158][159][160][161][162] His trip to the MOS talk page was an unsuccessful effort to recruit support for his side of the edit war.) I replied there about the heading markup (the spaces make no difference in the rendered page), and took the time to to reach out to help this editor. I left a Welcome on his talk page (the long version), and asked for information about the specific incident he referred to so I could look into it.[163] He left a brief, polite response on my talk page saying that he didn't need help, and he signed it with a standard signature.[164] Later, without explanation he delinked his signature;[165] I restored his linked signature for future reference.[166] He reverted my edit of my talk page, saying that delinking his signature was supported by WP:SIG.

In fact, the the Wikipedia:SIG behavioral guideline was crystal clear even before Gavia Immer's clarification:

Internal links

Signatures must include at least one internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page; this allows other editors easy access to your talk page and contributions log. The lack of such a link is widely viewed as obstructive.

That's the community's guideline. Showing the wikicode for generating a timestamp (as part of a more "artistic" signature or for any other reason) later on the page is not an alternative to the requirement of a linking signature.

More importantly, this editor utterly rejects that idea of editing by consensus. He disdains discussion with other editors[167] and has vowed to master Wikipedia:wikilawyering to get his own way.[168] In fact, his only purpose in delinking his signatures on talk pages is to make it more difficult for other editors to communicate with him. His typical response to comment on this talk page, often about his disruptive behavior or failure to follow Wikipedia's conventions, is to blank his talk page: Revision history of User talk:RogerZoel. When he does reply, on another editor's talk page, he is uncivil.[169][170][171][172][173] And he regards administrators' efforts to enforce this community's norms as imposition of a police state. This it the type of attitude that is poison here. I respectfully request action by an administrator to curb this editor's disruptive behavior.

By the way, he is not a newbie trying to learn the ropes. He made that point loud and clear on my talk page.[174]

Thank you. —Finell 22:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I had to leave a post. I'm not pushing any religious POV. I haven't added or changed any religious content on any religious page or provided any views on religion. Roger Zoel (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits show that he appears to have acceded to community expectations regarding the .sig issue ([175], [176]). However since there are no rules against being acerbic or brusque, I do not feel that any additional administrator intervention is required. — Kralizec! (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it really necessary for user like, Toddst1(talk) to harass me on an issue that has already been resolved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerZoel (talk • contribs) 03:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It's so easy to forget that 4 tildes, unless you resolve to make a habit of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to add it and it wuoldn't at that time Roger Zoel (talk) 03:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

All you have to do is add 4 tildes before you hit "save page". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I did that, but somehow for this instance it was freaky. Roger Zoel (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I fully endorse describing RogerZoel as disruptive. While the signature issue is resolved (sort of. Nothing Sinebot can't handle), his incivility and failure to get the point are very disruptive behaviors indeed.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 04:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been following the sig rule and I have not been uncivil to anyone since it was pointed out to me from this. Roger Zoel (talk) 04:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but you have been otherwise disruptive, making false accusations [177] in response to good faith edits. Toddst1 (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

See 75.248.243.136 & 75.248.85.194 or a typical example

Looks like maybe a script warming up? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Those do look like the output from some sort of text-generation program. I won't pretend to know what is being tried out here, but it doesn't seem related to building an encyclopedia and might be an attempt to test a future spambot. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks just like the output of Racter. ^Chillum 02:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that it's this individual, a long term problem at Satan IIRC. Block on sight, I'd say. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. He's been a long-term intermittent pain at Talk:Iron Maiden, generally hitting only once or twice a month but occasionally much more often. He posts things that contain sentence fragments and words related to the article (in that case, Iron Maiden band member names, or album titles, etc) but make no greater sense. His IP is very dynamic from a huge range so I'm not sure how much can really be done. ~ mazca ^talk 16:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

There has been a months long slow revert war at History of terrorism there has been an unsuccessful mediation attempt Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-10-21/History of terrorism.

One of the participants in the dispute, User:Sherzo has not been active on Wikipedia since November 6.

The current problem on the article page is not so much the slow revert war, but the tone taken by the user using IP addresses to make reverts. See edit history of "History of terrorism". Here are a couple of comments from the last couple of days while revering edits made by a number of other editors:

• 15:37, 21 November 2009 86.25.181.202 (rv, moron)
• 09:40, 21 November 2009 Domer48 (rv blanking)
• 08:40, 21 November 2009 86.25.181.202 (Shouldn't make assumptions, editors like you are the biggest problem on wikipedia why not try reading the talk or even examine the edit history!)
• 18:52, 20 November 2009 RashersTierney (Reverted to revision 326821230 by Haberstr; no edit summary that would indicate content change - strongly suspect the intermediate eds. by disruptive anon IP.)

The problem is that this anonymous editor (judging by the style of comments made and the type of edits made) has been editing this article for many months with a number of different IP addresses, So there is no point in blocking 86.25.181.202 as 24 hours earlier the editor was using 86.25.180.153. AFAICT the same editor has also edited with User:LSG280709 which they claim (using yet another IP address) that they can no longer use because they have forgotten the password (see edit by User talk:92.239.38.135).

So my solution to the uncivil disruption that this anonymous editor is causing is to block the article History of terrorism for new accounts and IP editors for a period of three months. This will still allow other editors to edit the article who hold differing views (such as User:Haberstr and User:Sherzo) and the anonymous editor providing that they create an account and build up an edit history. But it will also bring editing back into line with the usual levels of civility and levels of behaviour we expect from all editors editing this article.

I have posted this my intention here to inform other administrators that I am about to take this action, and to say that if they disagree with my action, just as an administrator can unblock a blocked user, so they can revert my block on this article. -- PBS (talk) 11:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried WP:RFPP? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It never ceases to amaze me how terribly obvious people can be while attempting to tell others how brainless they say they are. Namely, when a new IP has 3 edits, 1 of which is to an article[178] complaining about what makes bad Wikipedia editors, then this incredibly uncivil comment to the talk page of another contributor here[179], combined with that "rv, moron" and anger at the suggestion of puppetry when comparing 2... very very very limited IPs? Perhaps they were unaware it had changed for whatever reason or forgot about the likes or meaty puppets? The first of them only has 4 edits and is quite in the know, so I'd really have to think they're related to a prior disgruntled account... and the one username above does kind of stick out from habits. Questionable civility aside of several contributors, picking out who's being "meaner" by amount blanked/edited, edit summaries, lack of use on the talk page, etc., leans against the IPs. I respect the hounded editor in this case since it looks like more of a baiting attempt to start something bitter than it was actual works of insult, and was spotted as this.

The semiprotect should handle that or at least expose how much someone really wants to push an agenda. If even that gets frustrating this would probably be an easy CU or puppet case to settle it all (high likelihood), though they always seem so overworked :( Perhaps the threat of one if incivility continues would by itself be enough? If someone knows they're beat they usually won't bother with the most painful part. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 17:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)