Resolved

 – Nothing to see here. Move along. VG ☎ 16:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Man with one red shoe seems to have a habit of wiping his talk page, which I see has contained quite a few warnings relative to the amount he has contributed. I am currently choosing not to get into an edit war with him at Bucharest even though I think he is utterly wrong on the matter at hand. Someone who has not been in conflict with him might want to look into the pattern of his edits, I've seen just enough to tell me that I'm not willing to assume his good faith, which means I should stay out of the picture. - Jmabel | Talk 20:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without looking into the rest of it, any user has the right to blank their own talk page. See WP:BLANKING. Oren0 (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above, when an editor gets reported and an admin finds they have a habit of blanking their talkpages which just happen to contain many warnings regarding the same things... Well, it usually doesn't go well for that editor. However, if an editor becomes a well regarded member of the community - who needs those reminders of a less than savoury past cluttering up the page? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with people looking into my history. As for blanking my page is not related to any warning, I don't let any comment on it. So, what is the complain about, my edits in Bucharest, or my blanking my talk page -- just to be sure that I understand what is this about. I'm pretty sure I didn't break any rule. So, what's this about? man with one red shoe (talk) 01:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really hoped to just add a request for someone independent to take a look at your conduct, and reach whatever conclusion they might, and other than the request I intended to stay out of it myself, because I'm probably biased by how I crossed paths with you. But since you ask me directly:

1. I thought your removal at Bucharest was wrongheaded, so I reverted it with an explanation. You reverted me back.
2. I don't engage in edit wars, so I did what I usually do in a situation like this to try to work out whether to work this through with an unfamiliar editor on on the talk page of an article. My two quickest guides to someone's character on Wikipedia are their user talk page and their contributions. The short of it is, I didn't particularly like what I saw. It looks to me like you make a lot of contentious edits (and few uncontroversial ones), and have a habit of blanking your talk page. Blanking your talk page is allowed, but it is generally considered dubious conduct (I think pretty much any admin will back me up on that). Contentious edits are allowed, but a pattern of them does not suggest to me someone I want to deal with, and can indicate trolling or any of a number of other problems.
3. What I saw was enough for me to conclude that I didn't want to spend my time engaging you in discussion (though I guess I've now wasted even more time than that would have taken. Oh, well). It was also enough to make me wonder whether on net you are contributing positively to the building of an encyclopedia.
4. Taking off my editor hat and putting on my admin hat, I was a bit concerned about the combination of contentious edits and blanking the talk page. I felt someone should follow up and see if there was a problem here (there might or might not be, I really have no firm idea), but since I was already annoyed over the Bucharest matter I basically recused myself from being the person who would follow up.

In short, I've asked here for someone disinterested to look into the pattern of your edits, because what I saw concerned me. If they say "no problem", fine, at least from an admin point of view. That's definitely the last I am saying on this. I'm no more interested in having a fight here than in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 08:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. So you didn't agree with my edit and you decide to report me to the Admin noticeboard. Nice. BTW, I explained my revert too, you didn't provide a reference that the nickname is still in use.

2. Why you didn't open this discussion on Talk:Bucharest instead of bringing this to ANI for two reverts on a trivial matter? Did I refuse to talk to you in the talk page?

3. So you decided that it's not worthy to discuss with fellow editor, but to report him/her to ANI... again, very nice.... are you an admin? is this the common attitude among WP admins?

4. Blanking my web page is well within my rights and it shouldn't be suspicious, this is a under-the-belt hit, it's like judging somebody for how they walk or how they talk not for what they have to say. If an admin will tell me that's against the rules I will stop blanking my talk page but till then I will do it and I don't like to be reported to ANI for something that's well within my rights.

BTW, I don't respond here because I'm afraid of any consequinces because I know that I didn't do anything wrong, but I'm a bit concern to see an admin behaving in this shameful manner. Basically you didn't like two of my edits and you reported me here with no basis bringing up arguments "blanking my talk page" that shouldn't have any weight. -- man with one red shoe (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Jmabel was perfectly right in reporting you here. It is not normal to blank your talk if you've been repeatedly warned. Just be honest and you'll get somewhere. Arguing, rather than negotiating/explaining what you did to everyone isn't going to get you farther. Just my 2 cents --Belinrahs (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the history of my talk page, I've always blanked my talk page, is not related to any warning, and when Jmabel reported here I didn't have any fresh warning, and most of the warnings have been frivolous (or at least that's my opinion), Jmabel didn't post anything in my talk page, but again, my blanking the page has no relationship with any warnings and as far as I know blanking a warning is a sign that you got the warning, the warnings are in the history anyway, so this is not a cover-up attempt, it's just how I deal with my talk page and again this is well within my rights. Are you an admin? Is this an official position that I shouldn't blank my page? Is there a policy regarding personal talk pages that I've missed? man with one red shoe (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Jmabel that there is a disturbing pattern here reinforced by the constant blanking of the talk page while making contentious edits, blanking legitimate warnings. One of Jmabel's comments was very interesting to read "but a pattern of them does not suggest to me someone I want to deal with, and can indicate trolling or any of a number of other problems.". This comment relates to it [1]. The comment shows going to an admin to fight for keeping "trollish" comments on a talk page that is for suggesting improvements to the attached article. While the user himself described the comments as trollish, he launched a whole campaign to keep and post them again and again, which included AN thread, talk thread, and the above qouted post to an admin all the while not explaining which guideline of Wikipedia mandates posting and retaining admittedly "trollish" comments on article talk pages. Hobartimus (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I vote block at least for a little while, per the findings of Hobartimus. The user clearly has no interest in doing anything constructive for Wikipedia. --Belinrahs (talk) 12:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not involved in that dispute on the nickname for Bucharest, but it looks like User:Man with one red shoe is removing a nickname despite talk page consensus, which is also supported by plenty references. So, I'd say he's at least POV pushing, if not downright trolling. He only engaged on discussion on the talk page yesterday (Oct 26), before then he just kept reverting with no discussion. There's still some hope he'll give up without being blocked. YMMV. VG ☎ 16:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"he just kept reverting" - I reverted two times and each time I explained why. The admin who reported me here didn't even start a discussion on the talk page, I did, which shows that I'm willing to discuss my edits. I think your description of the events is misleading.

As for the issue that Hobartimus reported, I stand by my actions, people were trying to censor on talk:Hungary by removing comments that they didn't like -- no other reason. The conflict was solved when we got a third opinion that basically supported my point that we shouldn't delete content in talk pages unless there's a clear violation of the rules. Obviously I was on the right side of the fence, Hobartimus is not unbiased since he was part of that discussion which didn't end up the way he would have liked. Again, I'm not at all ashamed for that discussion against censorship, if you don't believe me take a look at the events and see what was the third opinion and the result of the debate. Why should I be judged and punished because I voiced my opinon against censorship when people eventually supported my position, not Hobartimus'? man with one red shoe (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This whole thread seems remarkably free of concrete evidence of any wrongdoing on MwORS's part. Nothing even remotely approaching blockable. Move on people, nothing to see here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really hate to do this. I'm pretty thick skinned, and generally detest people coming here to complain of incivility or personal attacks. But completely unprovoked remarks about me by Everyme (talk · contribs) have left me speechless. I'm not going to say more, to resist poisoning the well, but I'd very much appreciate some admins to examining this comment and then this thread, and take whatever action seems good to them.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that I tried to resolve this situation, unsuccessfully. See my comments here. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 23:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm grateful to L'Aquatique for her attempts. Unfortunately, the user doesn't seem to get it.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Everyme has been made aware of this discussion, can I summise the concern is that Everyme has offended Scott MacDonald's sensibilities by inferring that an good faith difference of opinion by SM has been termed "intellectual dishonesty"? If so, I agree that Everyme should apologise for the lack of good faith shown and intemperate language used - different philosophies can produce different results from the same evidence; to label a differing conclusion as "dishonest" is both arrogant and incivil. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, apologies for not informing everyme, but I didn't want to be seen as baiting him, so I was staying off his userpage. If it had just been the accusation of intellectual dishonesty, I'd have let it pass. But he also, without any provocation, compared me to Ashley Todd (a liar and a "race baiter"), and then when I (fairly mildly) invited him to remove his comment, I was subjected to a further abusive tirade. An apology would be nice personally, but that;s not the point, it is more important from the project's point of view that we communicate that there are limits, beyond which we don't tolerate this attitude. I repeat, that I'd never interacted with him before.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would Everyme been aware that use of that name (it means nothing to me) would have been particularly offensive to you, or to anyone, and is it possible that they still misunderstand that this is the case? I have to say that I missed this point when reviewing the links. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Em, his post doesn't make sense without it. But read all his remarks and draw your own conclusions.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I hadn't noticed that Ashley Todd is the name of the hoaxer... On repeat review I don't think that Everyme meant what you have taken it to mean (IMO, regarding concerns over the BLP considerations of someone who themselves are admitted liars coupled with the "intellectual dishonesty" language), but they have not made any effort to explain themselves better and certainly not taken the route of apologising for any misunderstanding - but rather simply requested you to review the past content and draw different conclusions. I would prefer that Everyme made some comment here before seeing if any admin action is required. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe he meant something else? Maybe when he called me dumb, and stupid or dishonest, he was actually trying to say something nice as well?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the real issue here is that this is ultimately about McCain-Obama. In a couple of weeks, Everye will lose interest in this, and probably Scott as well. Looie496 (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'm not American, and have no partisan allegiances. I'm not sure that political stress excuses Everyme's behaviour.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 03:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What then excuses your behaviour? Concern about BLP? Hardly so. And for anyone who doesn't know: Yes, I'm for Obama and I despise vicious racebaiting, whether it comes from a confused young woman or from anybody else. More importantly however, I'm worried about encyclopedic accuracy and quality of discussion. Consider that the entire dispute began when Scott actually tried to argue against "Ashley Todd's mugging hoax" as the article title thusly. I responded to that by bitchslapping his comment, and I maintain that I was not only right, but doing the right thing. Everyme 07:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• First off, Scott, thank you for your honesty in not informing me about this ANI thread. Thank you so much. I'm not entirely sure where I gave you the impression that I might possibly prefer not being notified over being "harassed" (a favourite buzzword of BLP-policy-fans btw, oh the irony). Well, for the record: I would have preferred it had you notified me, which I personally regard as a matter of basic politeness. Maybe you, Scott, would interpret a simple notification of an ANI thread about yourself as "harassment", but, just to kindly inform you about it, not everyone would and certainly not myself. Thank you very much for being so very considering and honest there. Wonderful.
  
  As to the merits of the thread itself: I've explained my position and my reasoning over and over, without getting any reply as to the merit of my reasoning. For Scott to say that "[...] he also, without any provocation, compared me to Ashley Todd (a liar and a "race baiter"), and then when I (fairly mildly) invited him to remove his comment, I was subjected to a further abusive tirade" is yet another comment I can only ... marvel at. I made it clear, both in my initial comment, then again at my user talk, that what I meant was the perception of some extent of intellectual dishonesty (for the record: my according reasoning has not been responded to by anyone so far). Deliberately mixing it up with Todd's racebaiting (an entirely different point in my initial comment, mind you) is, well, a wee bit far-fetched to say the very very least. So far-fetched indeed that I yet again can hardly think of any other valid explanation for why he would do that (and Scott did it in his initial comment at my talk page already).
  
  Scott refused to respond to my explanations, instead chose to be "just rather stunned". Well, again, I ask you, and this is all I care about: Why, just why, would you, at that article talk page, produce an arbitrary definition of "hoax" which you must know is entirely made up by yourself and wrong on top of that — and, most ironically, serves your stance in the article? Why would you do that? There are not so many possible explanations I can conjure up for that. Please respond to my reasoning for once. You, or anybody else who feels up to the task. Consider that I also made it very clear that in saying that I perceived his comment there as intellectually dishonest, my intention was obviously (or so I think) not to personally attack Scott. It was merely something I arrived at as the imho most likely conclusion of my reasoning. I did not comment on Scott, I commented on his comment, and told him in no unclear terms what I think of his comment, and, more importantly, why I do. Everyme 07:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Just a footnote here, but I'd like to note that Scott's memory appears to fail him when he claims above that "I repeat, that I'd never interacted with him before." Everyme 07:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of comment about another editor is completely unacceptable: "I didn't assume for a second that you, Scott, might actually be dumb enough to believe your own bullshit, like your definition of what a hoax is. But ok, I'll leave the choice to you: Either you are intellectually dishonest, or you're stupid." The fact that you refuse to admit it was wrong or strike it is concerning as this is clearly a personal attack. (Full disclosure, I've had previous disagreements with Everyme) Oren0 (talk) 08:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is your explanation for his awkward definition of "hoax" at that article talk page? I merely summarised all the possible alternative explanations I could think of. Since I believe Scott is intelligent, that leaves intellectual dishonesty as the most likely explanation for why he would give an arbitrary definition that just so happens to play to his stance on the article. Again, and for hopefully the last time: It's not a personal attack, it's applied logic. Also, again: Prove me wrong and I'll happily retract. But right now it's just not in my hands, I feel like I've done my homework. Please respond to my reasoning, which concluded with me seeing some degree of intellectual dishonesty as the most likely explanation for Scott's initial comment. It's the most charming of the possible explanations I could think of: I was actually being polite and carefully weighed my limited knowledge of Scott. Everyme 09:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't currently have the time to get involved with this, so I can't give an opinion either way, but I have previously had to negotiate with Everyme over gross incivility after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 South Carolina Learjet 60 crash and I got the impression that was not the first time, either. Maybe, if we decide this was unsuitable (again, remember I haven't actually gone over this in detail), it's time somene dished out a block. How long are we going to leave this? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 09:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a truly hilarious situation. I can either renounce, against my better current knowledge, what I assume to be flawless reasoning on my part, or face a block. Well, I'll have to go with the block then because I am unable to discover a flaw in my reasoning and nobody bothered to even respond to my reasoning. Nevermind that I felt insulted by Scott's way of POV pushing there, and how he insulted his fellow editors' intelligence. But at least he did it civilly, didn't he. And that's what counts. Fuck my reasoning, fuck encyclopedic accuracy. Right on. Everyme 09:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, I'd appreciate it if the section could be renamed from the imho quite misleading "remarks" name to "Reasoning by Everyme", or alternatively "Flawed reasoning by Everyme", depending on a response by anyone who actually bothers to look at the situation at hand and doesn't merely respond on their own grudge. I am as civil as the situation allows me to be. No more, no less. And it's once again fantastic to see for how little valid reasoning counts on Wikipedia, and how zero effort to provide a valid reasoning is being constantly indulged if only the user follows the hivemind definition of "civility". Everyme 10:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"...what I assume to be flawless reasoning..." is beyond hilarious; it goes a long way to evidence Scott MacDonald's complaint. No matter how "flawless" you might consider your reasoning, you have a duty to explain yourself in civil terms to a query (and you are required to AGF as regards such queries); your responses are uncivil, and arrogant, and unconducive to engendering a consensual editing atmosphere - being right isn't enough. Speaking of being right, are we not supposed to use reliable sources when ascribing motive or characterisations to a living person? Verifiability, not truth, is the basis of complying with BLP concerns, so ultimately "flawless reasoning" or lack of is unimportant. I strongly suggest that the discussion is directed to how the reliable sources describe the individual, and take it from there. LHvU (talk) 10:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do of course realise that Scott's reasoning there was based on his definition of "hoax" as "implying a deception over time, not claims made then quickly retracted." — To which, taking your edit summary cue re: WP:V, I responded e.g. by linking to the Merriam-Webster definition of the term. Now, why would an intelligent person like Scott make up that exact erroneous definition, on an article talk page where to me personally, he appears to be concerned more about the BLP policy than about encyclopedic accuracy? Why would he do such a thing? Why? What exactly is your alternative explanation, if you so decidedly disagree that it's intellectual dishonesty? At any rate, his wasn't valid reasoning, according to Merriam-Webster. He also displayed a less than neutral approach in inaccurately portray the situation as "Someone who may be unstable said some untrue things." — Which, come to think of it (and on top of Scott's downplaying the situation, i.e. Todd's lying to the police, the racebaiting and the self-inflicted injuries to make her story more believable), contains an actual BLP violation, namely his labelling a living person as [mentally, I presume] "unstable" without presenting a reliable source for that extraordinary and potentially libellous claim. As to "unconducive to engendering a consensual editing atmosphere" : Are you trying to make me laugh or cry with that? Everybody else disagreed with him, I just took issue at the way he insult his fellow editors' intelligence in making up that definition right out of the blue. I felt insulted, and I reacted by carefully pointing it out to him. Obviously, he didn't like that. But I'm pretty sure he knows deep down that my criticism of his comment was spot-on. That's why he didn't react to any of my reasoning. He didn't comment on that at all, not even reiterating his definition of a hoax. He knows I'm right, he's just pissed off that someone called him on it to the fuller extent to which his comment was unacceptable. Everyme 10:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do not, of course, realise that the question over the correct interpretation is irrelevant; we should use the term only if it is applied by the reliable source. Whether they are using the term in the correct sense is unimportant. Deliberating what constitutes the correct use is therefore original research, a point which Scott MacDonald also misses. The matter of the "consensual editing atmosphere" is in relation to your continuing incivil manner, and not to who is wrong or right. You earlier commented that you were frustrated by the fact SM was - in your view - incorrect yet their civil manner meant that they were not being castigated for their error. You seem blissfully unaware that ANI is not a venue for dispute resolution but for questions on violation of WP policies. You were and continue to be in violation of WP:Civil, and are displaying a lack of appreciation of WP:V. SM has also not understood the application of WP:V, but he has conducted himself in an appropriate manner in this instance. I am uncertain if sanctioning you is going to improve your understanding on how editors are supposed to conduct themselves, so I see no further purpose in continuing this discussing this with you here. LHvU (talk) 12:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google says hoax, not incident. Great dispute resolution, everybody. Let's move on. Everyme 12:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about the suitability of the term hoax. I made a case, and two people quite civilly told me I was wrong. That's fine and needs no dispute resolution. However, you then came in with gratuitous personal attacks, and when asked refused to remove them and engaged in more. Since that reflects on your weaknesses rather than mine, I've removed them myself and consider the matter closed. You, perhaps should reflect on your aggression, because if you continue in this manner I predict your future with this project will be short. I grant you the last word, and just hope it will not compound your incivility.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyme: Why don't you tone it down about 5 rhetorical notches? Your excuse that you "felt insulted" doesn't hold much water, I have to say. Your own response, on the other hand, was remarkably insulting. Just like Scott MacDonald can be wrong and civil, you should strive to be both right and civil. A conclusion of "intellectual dishonesty" is not supported by what Scott wrote, and certainly your further evaluation of him as either stupid or dishonest is also unsupported by any evidence. The flaw in your logic is this: You assume that in order to be wrong in this instance he must be stupid, deduce that he is not stupid, and conclude that he must be lying. Your first assumption is incorrect - you can be wrong without being stupid. Therefore your conclusion is not as flawlessly logical as you believed. Avruch ^T 16:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not logical at all. It's simply rude, and ad hominems are a logical fallacy. If someone does something wrong, there are other ways to react than arrogant and accusative speech. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 20:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling someone stupid is a personal attack, even if it's true. You can't logic away the fact that your comment was insulting and that's why you should retract it IMO. Oren0 (talk) 05:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott feels rightly insulted here. The comments by Everyme were highly insulting and should be withdrawn. Hobartimus (talk) 06:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite an outstandig example of wiki lawyering by Everyme, an apology is in order to insure that he understands that such insults wont be tolerated. Failiure to do so would most likly warrant a block as the user is well aware of our policies on civilty.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know either person, it just happened that I was reported above this discussion and my eyes wandered down. Does the guy go about insulting people all the time? If he does he should be warned, the discussions should be about articles, not about the editors, but insisting in getting "apologies" and "retractions" looks to me a bit like kids having a fight, let's behave like grownups, the guy should be warned not to voice again his opinion about fellow editors because it's against the rules (even if he considers he's right) and that should be it, insisting in getting apologies is a bit silly (oh my, will I be banned from Wikipedia because I said "silly"?) And by the way, I don't really get this. How can we ask (and actually force) somebody to be dishonest by apologizing for something that he obviously believes in? (this is a bit scarry, you know like 1984 and thought control...) At most the admins could say: "delete that sentence because is against the rules or you'll be punished for breaking the rules and don't continue to discuss editors", simple as that. BTW, shouldn't things that deal with incivility be reported in another part of Wikipedia? Isn't there a process, you need to warn the person and if the person continues with incivilities then you report them to WP:WQA. Has this noticeboard become a place where "justice" is dispensed summarily? Why are people reported here instead of where they should be reported? man with one red shoe (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I dislike posting in these threads, it is probably relevant to mention User:Wizardman's conclusion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dorftrottel#Conclusion. Also, an IP claims to be the individual under discussion as seen in this edit. --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unresolved

[2]. Is this appropriate? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 06:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I am not really seeing the issue. Is there more to this story that I should know so I can put it into context? Tiptoety ^talk 07:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The long discussion about Gabr-el and his incivility, and the long discussion on his Talk page about civility, has been archived, but It is only fair that I repay his great interest in my edits with my own interest in his edits sounds like stalking, to me. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 07:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The archived discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive486#User:Gabr-el. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 07:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A final warning about incivility is at User_talk:Gabr-el#Uncivility_.28again.29. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 07:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I have been dragged into this and having studied the user's behaviour I would say this user is getting out of hand. The users demand that I give him/her "an apology" for saying that he/she has a trolling behaviour says a lot. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 14:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he "retired", with a snotty message about leaving with peace and love. Anyway, it looks like for the time being, the problem is resolved. Marking as such - Tan | 39 18:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know I don't approve of you calling him snotty. I feel bad for making him feel bad. I only wanted him to sort out his behaviour. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 22:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, yeh, yeh. Meanwhile, where's that squid sushi I ordered. :b Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done(!). Real mature... Why are you even commenting anyway? Got a problem?サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 00:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just spotted this and find myself wondering, didnt we aquit him of being a sock before? I think this needs to be reviewed as I have no doubt they are two different people.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's still blocked, and this is probably interesting if nothing else. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary indeed. Anyway, I was made aware that Bluegoblin7 was extremely upset over the block, and was in the process of contacting a CU...something to do with account being hacked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary? He worked extensively at WP:ACC before the block. Garden. 11:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right. I'm an idiot, ignore me. Garden. 11:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you contacted the checkuser list and asked them if the tag is warranted ? That would be the most sensible and less dramatic option, I would suggest. Nick (talk) 11:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the user was globally locked by Spacebirdy. --Kanonkas :  Talk  11:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the block is likely to be unrelated with enwiki, so it would be better to contact a steward - Lar might be the best choice, being both a CU here and a steward. SUL util does not show any vandalism originated from Bluegoblin7 directly. – Sadalmelik ☎ 11:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We also need to block Bluegoblin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). DendodgeTalk^Contribs 11:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Been done SGGH ^speak! 11:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bluegoblin7 (talk · contribs) was a good hand sock puppet. They were on editor review, apparently with an eye towards gaining adminship. On smaller MediaWiki sites they would vandalize and then have a good hand sock revert the vandalism. Then the good hand sock would go to a steward and request admin access. That's what I have been told. The user has been globally locked. They can't edit anywhere. What concerns me is that BG7 created a lot of accounts here. This thread has made that clear. I am going to checkuser the lot them. Jehochman ^Talk 11:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those will have been made because of WP:ACC requests, so make sure the CheckUser's thorough enough to prevent accidental blocking of good editors. DendodgeTalk^Contribs 11:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a situation like this it would be beneficial to have more stewards with local CU privileges. En-wp is not in a world of its own, and our vandals vandalize small wikis and visa versa. I do not believe there would be major opposition here if a few people like Drini could follow interwiki vandalism trails here, and CU accounts if needed. – Sadalmelik ☎ 12:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought stewards could make themselves checkusers when needed. DendodgeTalk^Contribs 12:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they can, but they should have a good reason when they are doing so. --Kanonkas :  Talk  12:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, you seem to be right. meta:Checkuser#Access_to_CheckUser says: "If local CheckUsers exist in a project, checks should generally be handled by those. In emergencies, or for multi-project CheckUser checks as in the case of cross-wiki vandalism, Stewards may perform local checks." Stewards have even performed local CUs this month. I thought they could not do any CUing in projects which have local checkusers. – Sadalmelik ☎ 12:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im still yet to get my head around has to what evidence there is that he is Chris19910 and wether the cross wiki vandalism is by association or an entirely sepeate issue. Considering he has been aquited of socking before. So would someone like to tell me?   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New checks were performed on multiple wikis, and while there is no 100% technical guarantee that these users are the same (though pretty likely), CU clearly indicates massive WP:GHBH sockpuppetry, and some behaviourial evidence is pretty typical: compare [3] vs. [4]. So, regardless of whether BG7 is Chris or not, he was actively disrupting multiple projects to get a flag, and was desrvedly locked. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 20:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I dont see any vandalism in BG7's account, hence im gathering these vandalism claims are by association.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the idea behind good hand, bad hand accounts, Promethean. You won't find vandalism on the BG7 account because that's the good hand. Metros (talk) 23:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK so all of this is riding on him being Chris19910 right?   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 23:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further review of this situation has resulted in a reversal of the original checkuser findings. Bluegoblin7 has been unblocked. Thank you all for your helpful input. Jehochman ^Talk 00:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Cough* Apology to BG7 *Cough*. Thanks, Hopefully this wont become the next lame trilogy, I've seen enough at the cinema's don't let it start here :)   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I agree with him getting unblocked, but what >>"Extraordinary indeed. Anyway, I was made aware that Bluegoblin7 was extremely upset over the block, and was in the process of contacting a CU...something to do with account being hacked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)" << do you mean by that Ncmvocalist, did he say his account was hacked and if so, then something is really wrong, what was he trying to hide that he lied that his account was hacked ? ...--Cometstyles 05:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Detective Cometstyles your way off Clearly, because his account was locked globally, he coudn't log on and thus drew the conclusion that someone hacked his account. Blocks dont do this and im sure he wasnt expecting to have his account locked on top of the drama   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 00:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaroncrick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has uploaded a copyvio image Image:Launceston Seaport.jpg and has been warned (In fact a final warning) on the 4th of October this year from myself. I really don't want to see this user blocked but after someone who is welling to guide him that he can't upload any photograph he see's ect and that there is set policies and guidelines on here and Commons. Bidgee (talk) 08:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Apparently, he uploaded a cropped version of a Commons image. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, this one: Image:Seaport (www.tamarpulpmill.info).jpg. Is there a rule against doing that? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hum, it's a cropped version of a public domain image, Aaron has attempted to solve the problems when they were pointed out at them, and the problem has been solved on his talk page at User_talk:Aaroncrick#Copyright_problems where he has expressed that he was "just a little worried that i had done something wrong". I think this can be marked as "solved". --Enric Naval (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You didn't directly answer, but I conclude from that link that it IS OK to take a Commons image and crop it or otherwise alter it, as long as it's explained, and is done for a legitimate reason. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The image currently lacks licensing information; I can't image it would be anything other than PD. It really ought to be moved over to commons at that... to be honest, it would probably best have been uploaded as an alternate version of the original image since it's such a marginal crop. Otherwise, I agree that there doesn't seem to be anything wrong here. In fact, the current image goes a step farther than is really necessary in providing attribution to the original image. Bottom line, there doesn't seem to be a need for admin action here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the original is public domain, as it clearly states, then Aaron can do anything with it except claim that he created it. But that's exactly what he did: he stated that the picture is entirely his own work. Looie496 (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, since public domain images don't require attribution of any sort, he can claim it's his own work if he altered the image sufficiently. If he didn't, his sin is a pretty venal one. What he can't do is a minimal alteration, claim it as his own, and then claim copyright on it, and try to prevent others from using it without his permission. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 01:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:ShockerHelp has been vandalizing an article Indie Spotlight We have taken the appropriate steps Wiki has asked us to do. We have ignored this user ShockerHelp who has no affiliation with the company as we found out today. We have posted a few warnings on the User:ShockerHelp talk page along with an offical Wiki block warning. We have silently changed the article back to it's original content more then once. ShockerHelp has not fixed the article or added any factual info but added slander and eronious comments. ShockerHelp has not edited any other articles on Wiki leading one to believe the user has created an account only to vandalize the Wiki system. --JMST (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who's "we"? Is User:JMST a shared account? This seems to be a content dispute between two SPAs, neither of which seems to be contributing NPOV material. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the article is semi-protected (or even protected) for the moment and I'll be happy to mediate on the talkpage to try and a) establish what the problem is and b) make sure it conforms to policy (JMST's version has problems, Shockerhelp's article is just plain awful and is an attack article) --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and can both editors be blocked for clear breaches of 3RR, otherwise this is going to go on all afternoon. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted 3RR warnings to each. They obviously don't know too much about how Wikipedia works (they were having an argument at User:ShockerHelp rather than User Talk:ShockerHelp). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I was very ignorant of the proper etiquette required here. To clarify, the attack article that Cameron Scott refers to was in no part written by myself. I did revert to it in the sincere belief that however flawed, it still was closer to reality than the initial article. I was ignorant of the prohibitions against repeated reversions. I again apologize to the project community for this. After Sheffield's notice, I took the time to make proper revisions. ShockerHelp (talk) 04:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sorry yes I am a bit new to Wiki but just wanted to keep the page Vadal free. I did not know there was a 3 time 24hr revert rule but do now. I will only be adding info as it needs to be added and will leave the vandal fight to the admins. Sorry if I angered anyone but was just trying to keep the article I created vandal free.--JMST (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR does not apply to truely vandalistic edits. But you need to be careful that it truely is vandalism. Your current situation appears to me to be much more of of differeing extreme POV edits than truely vandalism. That doesn't make his edits right, but you still might very well end up blocked if you continue pushing your version past 3RR. On Wikipedia, ignorance of the rules can be an excuse. But you only get to use it once. Now that you know about 3RR, you'll have no further excuse in the future. OTOH, you have admin attention on the article now, which will hopefully help improve the situation.

Looking forward, his version was extreme negative POV, but yours, while not so extreme, is still POV to the positive side. If he can be reigned in, and he can come up with reliable sources verifying his criticisms, then some of his points may very well have a place in the article. But nothing like the total attack page he has been pushing. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's come up with a new version, looks better. Doug Weller (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Undent) Having read the article, it appears to be about a line of toys that don't exist, and a clear breach of WP:CRYSTAL, quite apart from the fact that most of the article is about the non-notable company that isn't yet making them, as clear a WP:COATRACK as I can imagine. The article is pretty much a product placement plug, and part of me says that the plugger deserves all he gets! I considered a G11 on it, but for now I've put it up at AfD. Mayalld (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like that intro, "a theoretical action figure line". I think I'll write an article about the Chicago Cubs theoretical next World Series championship. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the article has been changed to appear as a fictional line. Part of the toy line was sold at San Diego Comic Con 2008 and the rest is shipping in Dec and is listed in Diamond Previews (Diamond Comics is the largest distributor of toys and comic in the U.S.) Finished shots of the toy have been shown and the line is not fictional nor is the company producing them. They have produced toys from Adult Swim's Dethklok cartoon as well as a worlwide sold toy called a Shockini. None of these have been cited on Wiki because when an article is created trolls bent on destorying the name of the company move to delete them or edit them out of other cited info.--JMST (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I'm an involved party, but geez. . . [5][6][7][8][9][10], etc. Ronnotel (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it come flying through my watchlist, we appear to be at 13 project and usertalk pages so far. Maybe he could consolidate to a single noticeboard thread at Fringe or here? MBisanz ^talk 16:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw notes on OrangeMarlin's and MastCell's talk pages, and thought that was okay. But I think you're right that SA has overdone it a bit here. Has he been made aware of this thread? Probably just saying, "Hey, maybe not quite so much canvassing next time..." is probably all that needs to be done here. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have done that first but I've been invited to stay the hell away from his page. Ronnotel (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh... Fair 'nuff. I notified ScienceApologist of this thread and echoed my sentiments above, that I thought the scope of his non-neutral notification was a bit excessive. Full disclosure: I am very sympathetic towards SA's efforts in general, and am somewhat of a ScienceApologist apologist. :D I do think he goes overboard sometimes, as he did here. Hopefully this can be resolved peacefully. Cheers! --Jaysweet (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind the anti-anti-science stuff so much. It's the methods I take exception to. From his user page, he seems to think Inquisition v. Galileo should be reversed on appeal. ;) Ronnotel (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnotel is a cold fusion sympathizer with a grudge against me that could eclipse the moon. The situation at Cold Fusion is dire and we need outside eyes to look at it. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the root of SA's frustration is that wp:fringe, although theoretically part of Wikipedia policy, actually has no force. The real policy is "the majority rules", and if the editors attempting to implement wp:fringe are not in the majority, the policy does not help them in any practical way. For those of us who see the policy as an essential part of building an encyclopedia, this is a pretty disappointing state of affairs. Looie496 (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say one more thing. If people think that made-up rules like "Hey, maybe not quite so much canvassing next time" make sense, then I can just as easily do it under-the-table from now on and just start e-mailing people privately. I thought it would be better to do things above the table, but if people are going to be dicks about it and entertain the complaints of heavily biased parties who have been nurturing vendettas against me for years, what alternative do I have? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the test at wp:CANVAS is if the actions are disruptive. Does anybody see these actions as obviously disruptive to Wikipedia? These are short statements at neutral sights which illustrate a big NPOV concern (namely that fringe pushers are constantly reappearing to deconstruct valid previously established scientific consensuses... cold fusion is just one example). NJGW (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation. The policy cites an ArbCom decision to the effect: "Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article." I guess the question is whether the people being contacted are regular contributors to the Cold fusion page or not. Some of the contactees certainly are regular contributors, but by cross-posting to the various project pages, it seems possible, if not likely, that the ArbCom test might be met. I agree that there is a gray area here but I would like to familiarize SA with this interpretation so his future actions are in line with policy. Ronnotel (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that ScienceApologist perceives a situation where the regular contributors to this group of articles on a fringe science topic don't represent a balanced, neutral POV. The purpose of WP:CANVASS is surely not to discourage new participation from a broader range of editors in such a situation. Requesting contributions from relevant WikiProjects is, in general, a good way to encourage article edits from editors with an interest (and ideally, expertise) in the subject area. In the future SA should probably phrase his notices with a bit more tact, however, and avoid bringing his concerns to AN or AN/I unless administrator intervention is sought. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a general statement, posting brief requests for comments or notices of discussions on project talk pages is a good thing, in my opinion. It allows for all interested parties to be informed, and prevents the appearance of canvassing to specific of editors. -- Avi (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Posting neutral comments at WikiProjects is definitely okay. However, the comments of ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) were definitely not neutral.[11] He also appears to have been canvassing individual "friendly" editors with similar non-neutral language.[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] These actions are disruptive. --Elonka 20:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how the specific actions in this event are disruptive to the project or to the Cold fusion article. NJGW (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, this is what WP:FTN was invented for. And it works OK - at least as well as individual messages on usertalk pages, and it raises a lot fewer hackles. I bet virtually every editor canvassed by SA watches the fringe theories noticeboard - just leave a note there. As a general principle I am uncomfortable with situations where dedicated proponents of a fringe theory outnumber more neutral editors, and I find this to be a recurring issue on Wikipedia. However, leaving a large number of individual talkpage notices is problematic for a number of reasons. Let's use the mechanisms we've designed specifically to address these sorts of issues - that is, WP:FTN. MastCell ^Talk 21:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who reads those boards? I was just informed yesterday that WP:STALK was replaced by....I don't even remember, nor do I care. Cold Fusion is utter crap, I was in medical research when it was announced, and it was utter crap then, and it continues to be utter crap. I intend to watch the article, and if it's still crap, I'll ask anyone I damn well please to help out. I keep a list of crap, fringe-theory articles on my User talk page. I'll add Cold Fusion I guess. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Elonka. So, according to YOUR rules of all this, the best way to keep fringe content on this project is to stomp down on intelligent, scientific editors and suppress free speech. I get it, make sure to keep the fringe articles secret, so we scientific types can't find it. That's not going to work, and that is a very bad idea. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I share OM's view and SA's of Cold Fusion, and I even share their view that the people with a less-than-scientific approach to it have dominated the article, but to send to multiple noticeboards is at best unsubtle. And what I see just above is a declaration of intent to ignore the canvassing rules. I consider the invocation of "free speech" in matters like this an analogy to Godwin's law. Mast Cell is right--we have a method that should eliminate the need for this sort of approach. DGG (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

300wackerdrive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Has just come off a a 48 hour block for edit warring and 3RR violation [20]. His block came as a result of his edit warring to push in material into the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now article against consensus. Yet, within hours of being unblocked has gone right back to edit warring to get the same information he/she wants into the article ([21], [22], [23], [24], etc) and even insists in pushing controversial [25] material into the Barack Obama page. The editor seems more aggressive then last time and is also trying to provoke a user [26]. Could someone take a look at this before it gets further out of hand? Brothejr (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow; aggressive SPA! Reviewed editing history, block history. Blocked for two weeks for edit warring/disruptive editing. The next one, if needed, should probably be indefinite. Tan | 39 17:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a 9-day block probably would have been sufficient... If I Were King(TM), I'd just block these election-related SPAs until Nov. 5, with the thought they will either lose interest or reform after the election. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That occured to me, but that seemed as agenda-driven as the user's edits. I didn't want to send the message that we were censoring his/her views; I wanted to block based on policy - namely, a natural extension of the previous 3RR block. Tan | 39 18:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock requested. I would review this myself but (a) I made the previous block and (b) I just warned the user about not representing sources neutrally. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Offer to unblock him the day after the election and see if he's still interested. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of agree with bugs here. I don't want to unblock him, but I also don't want to decline the unblock request. the claims that he is working withing consensus don't mesh with he demeanor on WT:OR, where he presented a position and assailed anyone who disagreed as a "partisan edit warrior". Protonk (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point about appearing to be "censoring" him has some merit, except that after his block expired he want right back to it, more aggressively. So how much does someone want to mess with this guy? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined his block request, because his claim that he was "was attempting to courteously work within constraints on WP:SYNTH and WP:WEIGHT" in this edit ring hollow with me. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, I liked the part about, "Be careful, or you might let some facts slip into the article", the motto of any good-faith editor. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that the SSP is still open... seicer | talk | contribs 20:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reading his user talk page for his latest fun and interesting comments. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the SSP case (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74_(2nd_nomination)) has now been moved to the archives, despite the fact that no one has formally closed the case. I'm not sure how people want to proceed with the case--it looked like Sam Korn's recommendation that someone start a thread an ANI on how to deal with the suspected puppet and master had some consensus behind it. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

300wackerdrive went from new account to three blocks on the same article in a week. It's an SPA that has only edited a single article on a single subject, plus one attempt to insert the same material in the Barack Obama article. One week is a standard third block. 300W got 2 weeks, which is within reason given the election cycle and the utter lack of attempt to live within policy and guidelines. WB74 is on his fifth block in 5 months, but has a shortish (1 week) block this time. All of WB74's blocks, and all of his edits, relate to casting Obama in a negative light. He was nearly topic banned at least once, found to be operating an IP sock abusively (but never sanctioned, oddly), and appeared constantly on AN/I and elsewhere for disruptive editing, wikigaming, incivility, etc. He has the same interests, articles, style, accusations, etc., as a few other accounts that have been meatpuppeting each other over the same Obama-related issues. Who knows how many editors if any are operating multiple accounts? We may never get to the bottom of it, but whether it is on editor or five it's disruptive and a constant source of wasted bandwidth, unstable articles, and annoyance. 300W looks like a throwaway account. WB74 is set to be unblocked before the election so there will likely be more trouble.Wikidemon (talk) 01:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got the articles watchlisted, and have been keeping tabs on both editors (although I've been pretty busy as of late). Their continued self-wetting tirades is tiring, and the amount of blocks in a short amount of time is ridiculous. I'll indef' both if they resume their tactics post-block. seicer | talk | contribs 03:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support indef blocking on the next instance of misbehavior. From looking at the SSP case I think that WB74 and 300 Wacker Dr. are likely operated by the same person, and I would be willing to indef both accounts right now; but if others are willing to be more lenient, I have no objection. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allowing 300W to finish out the current 2-week block sounds OK to me. Rapid escalation of block length seems justified when the same behavior restarts immediately after the previous block expires. So going in one step from 48 hours to 2 weeks is not out of line in my opinion. His three blocks were issued by three different admins. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked Damiens on Saturday for one week for violating 3RR immediately after coming off of a previous block for violating 3RR. He's trying to raise a stink on his talk page because I didn't notice another editor violated 3RR with him... (Admittedly, I just checked his contributions, noticed a ton to the same page and looked at the diffs - I didn't even worry or think about the other editor). Can I get a review of this block? --Smashville^talk 21:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would have been appropriate to have commented to Rebecca, warned even, regarding the edit war, but I don't see that it invalidates the block on Damiens.rf; An editor may revert once, perhaps twice, and then they should discuss it - and this editor should know that. Unless he is claiming vandalism, that is bad faith editing, there is no allowance for continually reverting. Valid block, but perhaps Rebecca might be invited to comment here despite the edit war issue being stale? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block looks legit to me, procedure followed. MBisanz ^talk 22:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed per MBisanz, legit block, User blocked should deal with it as it was way too soon after his first block for the same violation. --[[::User:Arnzy|Arnzy]] ([[::User talk:Arnzy|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Arnzy|contribs]]) 03:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse block. I'd reviewed this block when an unblock was requested on 26 October. Smashville, you really should've looked at the other side, because there's no doubt that Rebecca should've known better, and been warned. In this particular case however, I don't see an inequity or invalidity in the block because I consider it an early detection of a problem editor. The 10RR was a major issue (blocked), then ignoring 3RR again was another issue (blocked again), but then the editing itself was (imo) a bigger issue, although no one has mentioned it in this thread so far. To put it briefly; if he continues editing in the way he has been, I won't be surprised if ban proposals are put forward in the near future. I do hope that there will be a reform in his editing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I know...I was kind of looking at it single-mindedly and didn't notice the other edits...I'm going to leave her a note on her page...--Smashville^talk 15:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – User talk blanked and locked by MaxSem. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 09:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a legal threat? Talking about obtaining information about Wikipedia's legal status? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. It isn't.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Just so that I'll understand in the future. Although your bald comment without any other explanation doesn't really appear helpful. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no threat here,just silliness. Even if he did look at the guidelines for "GUIDELINES FOR OBTAINING YOUR STATUS" as a charity, so what? He's quite entitled to.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more concerned about this little number an administrator put on his talk page. Seems extremely bite-y.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was in reply to [27] which was a nine times repeated block capital attack peppering a user talk page. But I have softened it a bit... --BozMo talk 22:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This more recent one is more explicit, came about during a conversation following an unblock request. Noting for clarity. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked User:SoxBot VI as it is malfunctioning; I am in the process of contacting the owner. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 22:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted Phil Spector three times today, in view of of blatant NPoV and BLP issues ("Both Veronica Spector and Darlene Love have included "scandalous" stories in their autobiographies. This, no doubt, helped them sell books they couldn't otherwise sell"; "The judge in the trial appears to believe that Phil Spector is guilty and may have taken matters into his own hands. His smack-down of Bruce Cutler is destined to become legendary must-watch legal tv") The new anon editor who is adding them doesn't seem to heed warnings on their talk page (some of which, oddly, refer in error, to Leonard Cohen). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no error in referring to Leonard Cohen. The I.P. has been problematic there as well, inserting clear and problematic BLP violations (involved admin are welcome to check out the I.P.'s deleted contributions. The I.P.'s talk says it's a rotating I.P., changing each time a user disconnects, but has clearly been used by the same person for at least the last nine hours so I've softblocked it for forty-eight hours. If a new I.P. pops up and pulls the same stuff, I'll semi the affected articles. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the template at the top of the talk page, the only parameter given is name of the ISP. All the other "information" you see is generic and probably impertinent (see Template:ISP). On a cable connection they aren't likely to change IP very often unless they deliberately change their MAC address. — CharlotteWebb 13:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – spamusername blocked and spamming to EL Toddst1 (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thepersiankittens keeps reinserting commercial links to what seems her cattery in Persian (cat)‎ and Himalayan (cat), despite my having warned him/her that this is a violation of WP:EL and WP:COI here. Could an admin look into it and tae whatever action is necessary, as needed? Thanks. --Ramdrake (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

I always get worried when I see a user page with personal info. This one takes the taco. Please delete this page ASAP for her own good and consider suggesting a new username for this person as well. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Blocked for edit warring, etc. Protonk (talk) 06:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aoso0ck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked twice for edit warring at medical specialty articles. He is now back reverting almost 3 months of changes in 3 seperate articles. Messages on his talk page are blanked, and the edit summaries he uses make no sense. NJGW (talk) 05:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of for one week. But... given tenacious tendencies of this editor, I have to ask if this is this enough? NJGW (talk) 06:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After further review, I've extended the block to 30 days. Dreadstar † 06:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 30 days is probably more than sufficient. I'll mark this resolved for now. Protonk (talk) 06:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• An IP user keeps adding information to Ryu (Street Fighter) that is clearly original research. I would ask for the article to be protected, but I feel as though he's just not clear on the OR policies. But I can't contact him because his IP keeps shifting, and I have a feeling he wouldn't look at the talk page of the article. What's the best course of action here? JuJube (talk) 07:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to talk anyway, which can't hurt. I don't see that the IP is being particularly aggressive, so it's not really something that needs administrative attention. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...but I'm not sure. Here we have it: User: Lilmae and User:Danargh. These two users were created within four minutes of each other today; now, each of them has a small number of highly-similar, experimental but then self-reverted contributions to the same article (Arthur (TV series)). I wouldn't call either of them a vandalism-only account (not yet, anyway) but there seem to be just a couple too many coincidences here to blithely AGF. Should I request a checkuser, or am I being overly paranoid? Thanks...Gladys J Cortez 10:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks a bit socky. I think a CheckUser's in order, per WP:DUCK - of course, they might not know it's not allowed, or it might just be a coincidence. The latter will be revealed by a CheckUser, and a polite note on both talk pages will reveal the former. DendodgeTalk^Contribs 10:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

This appears to be a SPA which has performed one edit on my user page. Would someone consider blocking this account for me? I don't feel I should do it as that could be interpreted as a conflict of interest. Tanks JodyB _talk 12:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --barneca (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Sent to MFD.

Are the opinions expressed in this user's subpage appropriate and permissible? It talks about a "small group," gives their name, and says in part "A fairly unknown organization, operating in the US. They are NOT considered a terrorist group and currently they do not stand as one" ..."The government is twisted in its own lies and should be removed immediately unless dire changes happen."..."We are the savior. We are the destroyer. Stand with us or fall. The time has come."..."A night of terror will follow.." Is this a permissible use of a user sub-page? Edison (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like an article in progress. If the user page says Do NOT try to contact me in hope of retreving information about TLF what other purpose does he have than to distribute a message (and then claim not to want to distribute it)? Odd. --Moni3 (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion this is either a prank or someone who stopped talking their medicines. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has done nothing in Wikipedia but to create this sub-page, and a userpage that says what Moni quotes above. I'd say this should go to MfD, stat. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Total Liberation Front is apparently a Cyber Nations alliance. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Martha Erin (Marthaerin1888) and I (MDCCCXLVIII)-we happen being biological sisters who currently attend the University of Wisconsin La Crosse-are good hearted Wikipedia editors who are newcomers and amateurs.

Martha Erin-my sister-started Wikibreak October 12th and she has confessed to meat puppetry and shared accounts (that is, Martha Erin, 23 others, I did edits using each others' edit accounts AND used meatpuppets-me included). Also, we shared Martha's computer while editing Wikipedia-THIS is her computer I am typing this notice on.

My sister already performed last messages. Anyone can put messages on Marthaerin1888 or my personal pages at MDCCCXLVIII. My names' Linda Michelle (actual name Lindsay but I prefer if you call me Linda much better). Martha Erin plans returning to edit Wikipedia between August 2010 and November 2017; I prefer waiting until mid Autumn of 2012 at the very least or September of 2015 (after we finish University of Wisconsin La Crosse Issues). But however can we prove that we would never do the work of vandals while on Wikipedia?

And also informing that 12.210.198.245 shall be retired as of Sat November 1st 2008-in other words my sister will no longer need the IP address number that is given to her computer from an ISP serving the area of La Crosse and Winona. And also, is sharing the computer at the same time you edit Wikipedia not very smart?

Linda of MDCCCXLVIII

Until Martha Erin and I return, so long folks. I shall resume MDCCCXLVIII upon my returning. Miss Martha will resume under alternate account-please note, however, the talkpage is protected over there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.198.245 (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me who finds that complete incoherent? --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? seicer | talk | contribs 15:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure all I heard was a lot of quacking. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both registered accounts listed above have already been blocked indefinitely. Tan | 39 15:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

12.210.198.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was able to post here because FisherQueen's 2-week block on the IP expired recently. Since this IP is evading a continuing block on a registered account I've reblocked the IP for one month anon-only. EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's disturbing to think that UW-LaCrosse is producing students who write that way. Why take 5 or 6 paragraphs, when "please block me" would accomplish the same result? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the massive amount of vandalism we get from school-IPs, is it any surprise that users who state they are in schools are a little...off? HalfShadow 18:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reading this, my brain felt like it melted into Nutella. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least Nutella has nutritional value, unlike the above. -t BMW c- 17:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nutella looks like the dessert equivalent to vegemite. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nooooo....Nutella is good, vegemite is inedible. (imo) --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nutella is the hazelnut equivalent of Peanut Butter ... with a little milk and chocolate added in for "health" value. -t BMW c- 23:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just blocked 204.248.24.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) which is registered to the United States Department of Homeland Security. While it's not in the list of IPs that we're supposed to report, I thought it was notable enough to bring up here. Toddst1 (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently some of those boys don't have enough to do. And given that department's purpose, maybe that's a good thing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forward and reverse DNS for that address match, as "sbcp6.dhs.gov". The edits have politically related content, although they're not electioneering.[28]. They read more like something from someone who didn't get that Wikipedia isn't a blog. --John Nagle (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More than that, this one is out-and-out vandalism. Hmm...when the organization who is charged with keeping America safe is doing some attacking, one has to wonder. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Back around the time of the first Gulf War (1991), I recall reading that the first people outside the inner circles of government to know that something was going down were the pizza delivery people in Washington DC due to the sudden increase in late night deliveries to the Pentagon. Thatcher 17:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Officially known as the Domino's Theory. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When blocking a sensitive IP, it's usually good to notify WP:COMCOM by leaving a note at the notification page on meta. - auburnpilot talk 17:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And don't ever forget this useful tool -t BMW c- 17:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just blocked an new user User:Jdeveaux14. He/she created a page now deleted that links to malware. I opened the page and was sent automatically to a malware site that set my anti-virus off. I deleted the userpage that contained the same link. I have attempted to delete the page he created but I can't. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Jdeveaux14. Beware the page will redirect.— Ѕandahl ♥ 19:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I finally got it but the deleted diff still redirects. — Ѕandahl ♥ 19:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been edit warring on multiple articles over the past couple months and is now using rollback to implement his changes. See herehere here and here he is using rollback to remove sourced information added by a user he has been edit warring with because he happens to not agree with the content personally. None of these edits are vandalism, and if you check out the contribs there are dozens more instances where this user has abused the rollback feature. Landon1980 (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the intended use of rollback, user's right should be removed.— Ѕandahl ♥ 19:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Was gonna await feedback from the user in question, but I cannot think of a reason to not remove rollback. ~~

Removed. Tiptoety ^talk 20:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As disappointed as I am with Ibaranoff24 for misusing rollback in the first place (I, after all, did give him rollback several months ago, on the condition that he'd use it correctly), I'm curious to know why it was so urgent to de-rollback him when, as of this time, he hasn't been online for an entire week and hasn't even been given much of a chance to respond to this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but unless de-rollbacking was absolutely necessary (i.e. the user was warned and they continued abusing it anyway), I thought the user was supposed to have at least some time to respond first to explain their actions and avoid making the mistakes again. Maybe I'm missing something, or just haven't participated in many rollback removal threads...I don't know, but at any rate, I'm not going to restore it. Just surprised at the removal rush, that's all. Acalamari 22:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he knew he wasn't supposed to use it to edit war with, and to use it only to remove vandalism. Acalamari, you gave me rollback and explained very clearly when it was appropriate to use rollback. I'm nearly certain you explained to this user as well. If you will look back through his contribs a bit you will see he has been edit warring on multiple articles here the last month or two and has been abusing rollback for quite some time. He was taken to AN3 a couple times here lately for edit warring. Landon1980 (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:PERM: "Misuse of the feature, even if unintentional or in good faith may give cause for it to be removed." Tiptoety ^talk 23:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I first encounter User:ItsLassieTime back in February while editing the Lassie (1954 TV series). At first, she seemed like a good editor, new but ready to learn. I'm the one who welcomed her here, offered advice, etc. After in April, we came to a large disagreement over the Lassie articles (though I honestly can't remember why, and can't find anything specific to point to as the bone of contention). Anyway I walked away from most of the Lassie television articles doing only minor edits to a few film articles.[29] Lassie later claimed I "chased" her away from the article, but as can be clearly seen from its history, she continued to edit the article well into May before she apparently took a wikibreak.[30] She apparently returned to editing sometime in September. On October 2, I also started revisiting the Lassie articles. We came to another conflict over the Timmy Martin article. I tagged the article for issues and removed an inappropriate non-free image ItsLassieTime had added to the article.[31] ItsLassieTime quickly reverted. When I again removed, AGF, ItsLassieTime reverted again claiming "CEASE and DESIST! It is NOT your place to make decisions as to what this article should and should not include. L and R are referenced in the article. DO NOT DELETE THIS IMAGE WITHOUT CONSENSUS!"[32] Suffice to say, it all went downhill from there. She continued reverted when two other editors also removed the image, with similar edit summaries, and finally a 3RR was filed against her after she reverted 5 times.[33] User:Master of Puppets gave her a warning for the report and encouraged her to stop. Attempted discussion on the talk page frankly went to hell in a hand basket very quickly.

ItsLassieTime began throwing out slews of personal insults, and when other editors supported the image removal she accused me of sockpuppetry! Things spread around to the Television project talk page, Master of Puppets page (see User talk:Master of Puppets#ItsLassieTime and User talk:Master of Puppets#Lassie Articles), and two AfD pages I had done for the Ruth Martin (television character)[34] and Paul Martin (television character)[35] articles. ItsLassieTime began making false accusations that I was stalking her, acting down right hysterical despite the claims being completely unfounded and, quite frankly, BS. She also began displaying extremely WP:OWN over the Timmy article, reverting almost any edit I made, including edits to bring the article in-line with the MoS claiming she will do her own formats. This also spread to Lassie film articles, including Courage of Lassie in which another heated "discussion" occured at Talk:Courage of Lassie#CEASE AND DESIST!!!!! and Talk:Courage of Lassie#DO NOT!!!!! where she absolutely refused to allow the Film MoS to be applied. She even went back and removed validly sourced edits I'd made to The Painted Hills months ago. She also AfDed some Shakespearean characters in some kind of retaliatory/pointy action because of the two character AfDs I did (no idea why she did those).[36][37]

Master of Puppets gave her some mild warnings and offered to mediate,but nothing was really done and while he was on a wikibreak, things only got worse. User:Cf38 also attempted to mediate, to no avail. I finally got so disgusted with her attacks and the lack of admin intervention that I delisted every Lassie article from my watchlist except the List of Lassie episodes and its season pages, which I had created. This seemed the only way to get away from her attacks and to bring some false of peace to the world. Alas, today she added a template she had created Template:Baby Boomer Toys to Charlotte's Web. Seeing the template, I felt it was not a good template to have, so I removed it from the article and sent it to TfD. Unfortunately, that again opened the floodgates for ItsLassieTime to begin her wild accusations, personal attacks, and outright lies.[38][39]

I let her get away with all this before and just walked away, but frankly I'm tired of her lies, her defamation of my character, and her manner of throwing massive hissy fits to get her way and chase everyone off articles. I'd really like an admin to look at this situation and deal with things accordingly (and before she even says anything, yes I referred to her as a "psychotic-Lassie fan" because of her over the top reactions to this whole thing and out of frustration from her constant personal attacks). She has also claimed in the current TfD that she has no problems with other editors, but her own talk page shows otherwise, if you look back at the comments she's carefully removed so that only the ones she likes remain. She was warned about being too bold in her edits, for making page moves without consensus[40] and for ignoring established consensus on infobox usage[41]-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, what a complicated situation. In a ten minute walk through Lassie's contribs, it seems at face value that a few things are apparent. First, I really wish she would use an edit summary once in awhile. Second, overreaction is definitely a trend here, a lot of the time in the guise of complaints and admin-shopping. Third, it's not exactly clear that you are totally unfaulted here either, Collectonian - other people have complained about you recently, also. I am unable to come to a clear course of action. Tan | 39 20:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit I shouldn't have let her goad me into edit warring or responding in kind to her personal attacks (though for me, I did keep my tone down far better than she did). And yes, I get complained about. *shrug* I do a lot of vandal fighting and deal with some contentious issues at times. I can even be abrasive and blunt at times. Now, as far as I know, I haven't been reported to AN/I in a long time, unless I was never notified. As for my talk page, there is ONE dispute on there at the moment, and that was after that editor and another got into an extremely heated back and forth and I, foolishly, asked them both to step back and calm down, so I got attacked for it as well. And, as far as I know, I've never had to resort to lying to attempt to make myself look the victim in any dispute. Either way, that does not mean I have no less right not to deal with such extended and extreme personal attacks repeatedly. If I cross the line, I get warned. I keep crossing it, I would certainly get stronger warnings and maybe a block. She has never really even been warned, but practically indulged and allowed to continue this mess for a lengthy period of time. And now she's taking to calling me "Collie" which would seem to be a sneaky way of calling me something else.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I read about 4 or 5 lines above and I decided not to bother with the rest. Yawn. Collie has a difficult time getting along with people and she's been sneaking around behind me for some time -- ie, reverting my work 2 minutes after I've saved a page that I spent a long time composing, accidentally on purpose creating edit conflicts, following me from one article to the next, nominating for deletion two articles I spent considerable time upon (she was shot down by WP consensus on those), and nasty nasty nasty ... *sigh* It's all so sad. Such a waste of time. So detrimental to WP. Collie can't get along with people. BTW, she has a nasty note about me at the top of her User Page and I wish an admin would remove it and tell her to behave herself. If you notice I have nothing nasty about her on my User Page. I stay away from her but she comes looking for me with an "it's all in the line of WP duties." Good little soldier that she is. I'll let the admins take care of this one. I don't want to get involved. I have enough headaches in my life without all this silly stuff. Maybe I should be banned forever. I don't know. I'm sort of new here and I don't know ALL the back-stage stuff yet. I'd rather go about my editing and trying to do some good work for WP. Is there a way I can hide my "contributions" so she doesn't know where I am or what I'm doing? Thanks! ItsLassieTime (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out this "nasty note"? I was unable to locate it. Tan | 39 20:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already self-edited it.[42] It was the note I mentioned in my initial report, and frankly, considering the pages of insults she's thrown at me, it isn't that hideous (though, of course, I should have bitten my virtual tongue). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Tan -- The note is gone. She must have dumped it. ItsLassieTime (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm inclined to give both editors official warnings to remain civil and to assume good faith in each other. While one side may be more "in the right" than the other, the situation is too complicated and subjective to judge any other way. Also, all either editor would have to do to avoid any further action is simply abide by the warning. However, seeing as I'm the only admin who has taken the time (sigh) to look into both editor's editing history, I'd like to get a second opinion and/or endorsement of this course of action. Tan | 39 20:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I just want her to stay away from me. I notice she's involved in a long long long Arbitration dispute of some sort and I DON'T want to get involved in that sort of thing! When I think of all the time spent on those rebuttals, accusations, evidence, reviews of edit histories, etc. I cringe. All that time could have been used improving articles on WP! ItsLassieTime (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already walked away from all the Lassie articles. What else do you want. You are the one who edited an article anyone could see I edit on, so you came after me this time. And despite all your "OMG she's stalking me" I've yet to see you produce evidence. Note my report above includes evidence to support my statements. You, however, are incapable of proving that I'm "stalking" you because I'm not. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the userid alone, I'd be concerned about WP:OWN by lassie when it comes to Lassie articles. Let's focus on the complaint (and obvious lack of following policy on even minor things like edit summaries) by the SPA. -t BMW c- 23:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto the WP:OWN concern...along with the completely uncivil response to a complaint about their civility..."I read about 4 or 5 lines above and I decided not to bother with the rest. Yawn." Seriously? --Smashville^talk 23:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently been working on articles relating to ancient Babylonian history, but I'm getting increasingly concerned by the behaviour of Ariobarza (talk · contribs). While he is an enthusiastic contributor, he appears to reject the prohibition of original research. He constantly promotes original research and regularly makes edits, or even writes articles, on the basis of his own personal interpretations of sources. His additions are rarely if ever accompanied by citations. He treats Wikipedia as a battlefield, is aggressive, confrontional and accuses other editors of pursuing an anti-Iranian or even "neo-conservative" agenda (it's news to me that there's a neocon viewpoint on ancient history!). When his edits are questioned or criticised, he gets angry and posts long, rambling and often angry rants to article and user talk pages to justify his edits and views. He responds dismissively or with hostility to advice given in good faith and assumes bad faith of others who do not share his POV or question his use of original research. Key diffs:

• Promotion of original research. Numerous examples of articles created on the basis of uncited OR and personal interpretations: Battle of the Tigris (ongoing AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Tigris); Siege of Ecbatana (repeatedly created and deleted via AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Ecbatana); Siege of Halicarnassus (repeatedly created and deleted); Battle of Media (deleted); Siege of Kapisa, Battle of Mylasa, Battle of Pedasa, Siege of Pasargadae Hill, Battle of Pasargadae, Mitradates, Persian Revolt etc (all will need to be cleaned up/merged/deleted as appropriate). Repeated unsourced additions to articles, which other editors have reverted: [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]. He is quite open about pursuing OR (which he calls "connecting the dots") in articles.[48]

• Treating Wikipedia as a battlefield / lack of good faith. Believes it's "up to me to stop [the] hordes". [49] Accuses other editors of pursing "an agenda". [50] [51] [52]. Accuses me of pursing "neo-conservative" agenda (Ariobarza apparently believes this is a westerners vs Iran situation and that he's defending Iranian honour) [53].

• Incivility. Numerous personal attacks against other editors. [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] for just a few examples. Has been warned by other editors and admins to stop this behaviour - [61] [62] [63] - but has continued regardless [64].

• Tendentious conduct on talk pages. Routinely posts long, rambling self-justifications and rants to talk pages (too many examples to list, see [65] for one example).

• Inappropriate canvassing. Canvassed Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs) to participate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Tigris with a characteristic angry rant against myself. [66] (See also #User:Tundrabuggy below.)

I gather that Dougweller (talk · contribs) has been trying to "reform" Ariobarza for some months, but without any success. Given Ariobarza's complete refusal to listen to any outside advice from other editors and admins, his obvious anger management problems and his ongoing use of Wikipedia to promote his personal views, I think a topic ban covering articles relating to Near Eastern and classical history would be appropriate. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A NOTE ALL SHOULD READA topic ban, I'll still edit articles you know. Now the message, ChrisO is lucky I do not have time to make a list of his faults and misconducts, which if I did, it would be longer that this page. So please do NOT remove this message, let it be a reminder to those that come here, so when they come here they get the FULL picture, not only ChrisO's side of events (unfairness is the biggest problem on Wikipedia, for lack of representation) and know that ChrisO were onced blocked, which now he is trying to get me mad, so I can get blocked. And all users will regret agreeing with ChrisO that the Battle of the Tigris did not happen, which as right now I am gathering the sources, thank you.--Ariobarza (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

I can confirm that Ariobarza has been incivil to ChrisO (and others; he called me "Mr. Wall" here), and that Ariobarza has engaged in WP:OR on the articles under discussion. Since I've pointed out to Ariobarza that he has no sources for his claims, I suppose I should regard myself as a participant. I'll leave it to others to take action, if warranted.--Alvestrand (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did warn the user in question regarding the "Bratz dolls" uncivil comment made on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Tigris after looking through that day's list of AfDs as usual. I felt that, instead of coming to ANI, that a RfC for user conduct should have been initiated, as this seems to be a blatant misconduct issue in which multiple editors have failed to resolve. However, since we are here now, I would leave the decision on the action to be taken to whomever. MuZemike (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An RFC might be helpful. I don't think we are about to ban or block this user here and now. To me, Ariobarza's editing seems more confused than malicious. A thread on ANI does not serve much purpose. Jehochman ^Talk 21:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did consider an RfC, but many different editors have offered advice to him over many weeks and months and he has consistently responded by attacking them, dismissing them or ignoring them. I don't believe that Ariobarza is willing to respond positively to feedback. An RfC can serve no useful purpose in that situation. He isn't contributing anything useful, he's creating a poisonous atmosphere by constantly attacking those with whom he disagrees, he's actively degrading articles by pushing OR all the time; why exactly are we letting him continue to edit? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've only really been involved at the Battle of the Tigris AfD, although have been aware of issues on related articles. In my view the comments on that page, both from Ariobarza and from others, sum up the overall problems pretty clearly on the one page. When editors start here they often dive in over-eagerly into articles, perhaps excited by the possibility that their views and thoughts will actually get integrated into content here. Gradually most either drop out altogether when they realise that they can't force their personal views into articles against consensus and/or policy, or stay but become a little more cautious and take on board the limitations imposed by core policies on original research, verifiability etc. Others just continue brazenly on, demanding the right to impose their personal world views and analysis all over various pages. Those editors lose the right to fall back on the excuse that they're new, or that they don't understand. Ariobarza even appears to claim the right to conduct original research and make "discoveries", about matters that are presumably hitherto unknown to scholarship. This latest example means we have a whole article here about a supposed battle that no reliable source appears to have any record of (and even were these sources to exist, they should be found first and the article then built around them, not the other way round of course). It totally diminishes the credibility of this place as an encyclopedic resource of any sort. Maybe strictly it should have been the first step, but I can't see what an RfC would accomplish - Ariobarza is constantly subject to comments from a wide range of editors, but just shouts back at them while asserting to right to do what he wants. --Nickhh (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That has been my experience at Talk:Battle of Opis, which has been one long tedious OR-fest from Ariobarza. He has ignored everything that has been said by other editors and created Battle of the Tigris as a POV-fork of the first article, after he couldn't persuade people to include his OR. His conduct at Talk:Battle of Opis - in particular his constant insistance that he's right and everyone else is wrong or biased - is what leads me to believe that an RfC would not be of any use. Everything's already been said that needs to be said. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I never said I HAVE THE RIGHT TO ORIGINAL RESEARCH. The original research article says if in original research I find a discovery, then I could include it in Wikipedia, IF it is supported by sources. Your making up and jumping to conclusions about what I say, is very offending to me. Shall I say, this cornering and trapping reminds me of a saying... (The few against the many). I am currently minded my own business, so please, if I am going to suffer the same fate as Caesar, better do it now when my gaurd is down, than later. (When ariobarza says stuff like this he is being sarcastic.) OR, you guys can help me find sources for the battle, and not try to hinder progress on Wikipedia by deleting me. Thanks a lot.--Ariobarza (talk) 23:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

The article you are linking to is a(nother) rather badly written and referenced Wikipedia article, not the policy. I've already pointed this out to you here, but you seem to have ignored that. Nor does it even say anything approaching what you are claiming it does in any event. And finally the whole point is that you do not anyway have any sources for claiming that there were such events as "The Battle of the Tigris" or "The Siege of Kipasa". Your attempts to invoke this irrelevant WP article as justification for your behaviour merely serves to highlight the nature of the problem I'm afraid. --Nickhh (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Ahem*, canvassing and forum shopping alert: ChrisO has been canvassing a number of involved editors ([67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73]) to post here and echo his comments. As for Ariobarza, (s)he has already been warned for her inappropriate comments which were made in an apparent moment of frustration, and this is sufficient enough for now. If ChrisO feels otherwise, he should follow due process and initiate and RfC for user conduct which would allow a broader community input. Khoikhoi 23:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Khoikhoi, don't you remember? Ariobarza's already had an RFC a few weeks ago: it just got deleted for some strange reason or other. I think. Best, Moreschi (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Khoikhoi, I notified the people who were already involved in the discussions with/about Ariobarza, so kindly keep your aspersions to yourself. As for Ariobarza, I note that you haven't addressed his continuous promotion of OR (which is the centre of the problem), and it's insufficient to blame "an apparent moment of frustration" for repeated personal attacks on various editors on many occasions recently. Judging from his contribution, he's been behaving like an angry crank for months. We don't need this kind of editor. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tundrabuggy

Following on from #User:Ariobarza above, I am also concerned about the behaviour of Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs). I clashed with this editor earlier this year over his promotion of conspiracy theories on Muhammad al-Durrah. Since then I've disengaged from anything to do with him. Unfortunately he has chosen to do the opposite. He now appears to be wikistalking me from article to article, opposing whatever I support, supporting whatever I oppose, allying with and aiding editors with whom I have an editorial dispute. He has now done this on with least five articles relating to ancient history that he's never edited before I edited them - Cyrus cylinder, Cyrus the Great, Battle of Opis, Kaveh Farrokh and now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Tigris. He appears to be systematically watching my edits and involving himself in any dispute in which I'm involved. He has accused me of "pushing a particular pov" [74] and of being part of a "campaign" [75] to push a "pro-Palestinian nationalist perspective" of ancient Babylonian history [76]. (I've never heard of such a perspective and have no idea what it would look like). Other editors have expressed concern and disagreement with his tactics and comments [77], [78], [79]. Instead of responding to these concerns, he blew them off. [80] He has now turned up on the AfD mentioned above (which I didn't start), where he was specifically canvassed by Ariobarza, the editor who created the article in question. Ariobarza has presented a very hostile view of my involvement to encourage Tundrabuggy to get involved. [81] Tundrabuggy duly turned up to support Ariobarza in the AfD, in which I had !voted to delete the article. This is looking like a systematic feud on Tundrabuggy's part, and it needs to stop or be stopped. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Particularly since Tundrabuggy has contributed nothing useful or indeed informed. From my experience of Battle of Opis he is acting purely to harass ChrisO. It's not acceptable. Ariobarza etc at least have a genuine interest in the subject: I do not think this is the case with Tundrabuggy. Moreschi (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JUst recently I been acting up because of ChrisO, AND I called 4 users Bratz dolls, GET OVER IT! Suggesting from ChrisO's tone, he is saying, OFF WITH HIS (ariobarza's) HEAD. Sure you guys do not need me, its not like it I made 3,000 valid contributions to Wikipedia. Your right ChrisO I should be Quarantined.--Ariobarza (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

(to ChrisO) This is an unfounded accusation against an opposing editor, with whom you're involved in an ongoing dispute. As Tundrabuggy pointed out, "all the articles above are intimately related to each other, and thus to be involved in one is to be involved in them all." ([82]) Khoikhoi 23:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like you guys to take a look at this -- he claims on the article's talk page that his violations of the three revert rule are just, and claims that political commentators are not "reliable sources". He seems to be using IP sockpuppets to do more reverts for him. We've been attempting to mediate with him but it's just not working. An administrator's opinion and maybe a checkuser would be nice. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 21:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd comment and/or take action, but I'm probably a little biased. Tan | 39 21:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been semi-protected... but this article does need some attention. The subject is very much in the news in the US, and (supposedly) her husband has made edits to the Wikipedia article to "correct" it. This could become a very high profile article very fast. Note that this is probably not a "Joe the Plumber" type article, since the subject, as a longtime news anchor in a mid-sized market, was likely notable even without the zillions of stories written about her in the past week. --Rividian (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COI editors/possible puppets

• Joseph M Boy (talk · contribs) has created User:WadeWest for WadeWest (talk · contribs). Joseph M. Boy appears to be related to SolgamesUSA where Wade West appears to be a director.
• The WadeWest (talk · contribs) claims to be Wade West, Barbara West's husband and has edited the article about her.

Getting really strange here. Toddst1 (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was created as a copyvio. Creator has removed the speedy tag and stubbed the article but the copyvio is still in the article history. Can someone delete the first 2 revisions please? Exxolon (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I'll see now if I can add a bit to this micro-stub.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Exxolon (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a good idea for someone with more powers than me to delete Barack Obama and restore it minus the, uh contributions from Hyperkraz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This is a problem for me because the article has over 5000 revisions. If the consensus is that these edits aren't worth the trouble, fair enough. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only see 2 from that user, and they were both reverted. What am I overlooking? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say they're not worth the trouble. There's probably far worse buried in the distant history of the article, like these edits will be in time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Yeah, two extremely nasty edits. Sheffield is suggesting the article be deleted and then all edits restored but for those two to remove them from the edit history. The problem is that when an article has this many edits, only users with certain privileges can delete them. Currently when you try to delete you get the message: "This page has a large edit history, over 5,000 revisions. Deletion of such pages has been restricted to prevent accidental disruption of Wikipedia."--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the value. Anyone could vandalize anything at any time. And even the slanderous nature of the edits only speak to the idiot who wrote them, not to Obama. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure looks like a compromised account. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This User:Lyle123 sock was reported by me to AIV last night just before he started in on what I knew would be a slew of bogus movie articles and sure enough, he did one. It's been deleted, but the sock remains unblocked. Might I impose on someone to block this sockpuppet as soon as possible? Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]