The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – User has been blocked indefinitely by the admin Gwen Gale Also, let it be made of note, that the checkuser has come back positive. Most, if not all of the IPs listed below are that of the offending sockmaster, User:Ibaranoff24. Here is the report: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ibaranoff24‎— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – User:Ibaranoff24 blocked 24hours for violating 3RR on Mudvayne

• See my comment below.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ibaranoff24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Landon1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm bringing this here instead of WP:AN3 because the user has not technically violated the three revert rule, but is gaming 3RR. User:Ibaranoff24 repeatedly reverts my edits, plus another editor's based on the claim NME, The Rolling Stone, etc., are not reliable sources. See the history of the article for a clearer explanation, he has now resorted to personal attacks such as calling User:Prophaniti a liar and using uncivil edit summaries such as "rv idiocy." I have reverted my last edit so not to edit war myself. Any help would be much appreciated. Landon1980 (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Prophaniti started a thread at the reliable sources noticeboard and they were said to definitely be reliable sources. The Rolling Stone and NME are widely used throughout wikipedia and are well-known to be reliable sources. I warned Ibaranoff24, he reverted the warning then reverted my edit. the last attempt to discuss the issue ended with a rude response on the talk page with the edit summary stop it, vandal. Landon1980 (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ibarinoff's threat to ban Prophaniti is also problematic, and seen in the RS noticeboard section.ThuranX (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the diff of Ibranoff24 threatening to ban Prophaniti. I can supply several more diffs of uncivil/rude commentary if needed. Landon1980 (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bluff or an attempt at intimidation. Ibaranoff24 is not an admin, and hence is in no position to ban or block anyone. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add my voice to it too. Ibaranoff24 continues to remove sourced material. The sources have mostly been verified: Rolling Stone and NME are perfectly valid, popmatters and Metal Observer are not the best of sources, but they meet the criteria to be used in the professional review sections for albums: they have an editorial and writing staff. So I don't see a problem using them to back up the other sources we have. All my edits are doing is adding those sources. I'm not changing anything in the opening line, nor the genre section of the infobox. I'm literally just adding extra sources.

Ibaranoff24 has taken a highly hostile, aggressive and even threatening tone. As Landon has said, he has repeatedly warned me I will be banned, and while this carries no real weight it's still hardly pleasant. He has repeatedly called my edits vandalism (how adding in sources is vandalism is beyond me), repeatedly said I am "strongarming my POV", and repeatedly accused me of lying, though about what I still do not know.

He simply seems to refuse to accept reality: adding sources, whether valid or not, is not vandalism. The sources are valid. And he has even stated that I am removing sourced content, which I've not done at all. I'm at a loss as to what is to be done about it. Prophaniti (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is that Prophaniti thinks that he owns the articles he edits, and has repeatedly attempting to enforce his own POV upon articles, including repeatedly removing sourced content. When confronted with these allegations, he denies them and moves the blame to another. The only edits I made were to fix Prophaniti's vandalism. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Adding reliable sources is not vandalism, and you repeatedly calling Prophaniti a liar and a vandal are personal attacks. Also, you do not own my talk page, Prophaniti is more than welcome to comment there. Stop reverting his edits. Your behavior is unacceptable, the personal attacks need to stop. What on Earth makes you think adding sources is vandalism? Landon1980 (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prophanti and yourself undid my clean-up and fixing of formatting. That's clear vandalism. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Also, Ibaranoff, please stop harassing Prophaniti at the reliable sources noticeboard. Landon1980 (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely no harassment took place. Prophanti's edits were reverted because the genres do not need more citations, and "nu metal" is not considered to be the dominating style of the band. Stop twisting things to fit your own reality, the both of you. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Once again, Prophaniti is allowed to talk to me about whatever he wants, stop reverting his edits to my talk page. Landon1980 (talk) 06:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Here Ibaranoff24 is reverting yet another editor on the Mudvayne here he is edit warring with me on my very own talk page, removing Prophaniti's edits. Here he is still making personal attacks by calling Prophaniti and I vandals. Landon1980 (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could go through and yet again explain all the incorrect statements you're making, Ibaranoff, but I know from experience that you would not listen, and I think any reasonable editor or admin who looks at this will see them quite clearly without me needing to explain them. And Landon is doing a fine job with it. So all I will say is thank you to Landon for his support, and that's he's quite correct: your behaviour is on all counts unnacceptable, and if he wishes to stop me talking on his page, he can. You do not own his talk page. Prophaniti (talk) 09:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summaries are clearly over the line, I've posted a warning on the user's talk page not to do it again, and reminded him of the various civility policies. I'll leave the content matter for you to hopefully work out amicably, but if the user continues acting in this aggressive fashion, then a short block might be called for. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to leave him a warning, he has now reverted you just like always, not that it matters. This user has already received multiple warnings for edit warring, civility, etc., and the next step was bringing it here. He reverts anyone that touches the Mudvayne article the last few days, even nominated an article for deletion because Prophaniti was editing it. Oh well, I suppose he knew he could get away with it, he has done a good job of gaming 3RR. Landon1980 (talk) 10:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Landon, I nominated The Metal Observer for deletion because it's not notable. It was even deleted before after a nomination! The new revision's only sources come from the website itself! (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

It comes off as rude, but s/he is explicitly permitted to do that. The user's conduct has clearly been disruptive up until now, hopefully he'll get the hint, but just in case he doesn't, I'll keep an eye on the user. If they cross the line again I'll block them myself. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I haven't done anything wrong. The only disruptive edits are being made by Prophaniti and, whether intentionally or not, by Landon. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Ok thanks. I understand they are allowed to remove their warnings, my point was he has already received multiple warnings in multiple places. Hearing you say you will keep an eye out for future similar behavior is good enough for me. Have a good day. Landon1980 (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lankiveil, Ibaranoff may be allowed to edit his own talk page in hostile ways, but he is NOT allowed to disruptively edit others' talk pages, as he does by deleting one editor's comments, then making a long series of edits to his own message. It obscures the fact that the editor whose talk page it is, was contacted by multiple editors. It's disruptive, and when done specifically to editors you're in a conflict with, incivil as well. ThuranX (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've done no such thing. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

He's allowed to remove messages from his own talkpage (in fact, I'm glad he's done it, because now he can't claim he didn't know), as he did to my message. He's not allowed to do the rest of that stuff you described, and he'll be blocked if he does it again. Sorry if anything I said above was unclear in that regard. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

He still will not quit messing with my talk page. I have asked him over and over to stop. Landon1980 (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are not allowed to remove any message that is not a personal attack or vandalism. I have never "messed" with your talk page. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I beg to differ. Users can remove whatever they like from their talk pages. Please cease edit warring over User talk:Landon1980 - if your post is removed again, do not revert or undo. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a reasonably good buy 14:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what is going on, he is removing another users edits, and has been warned repeatedly. I am not removing his posts, only when I undo his edits that he has also removed Prophaniti's edits within them. Ibaranoff is also still reverting everyone's edits on mudvayne. Ibaranoff removes everything that hits his talk page, it is shocking to see him say that. I suppose Lankiveil's warning was a personal attack/vandalism. Landon1980 (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Landon1980, you fully well know that none of this is true. Everyone who looks at the edits can see that you are lying. So why do you continue like this? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I do not appreciate being called a liar, you have been warned repeatedly to stop with the personal attacks. I can supply several diffs of you removing Prophaniti's comments if you need me to. Landon1980 (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I moved content directed toward me to my talk page. These were again, actual personal attacks and accusations, much as you have been directing towards me. I never made any personal attacks or accusations toward any editor. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • If you deleted others comments from other people's talk pages, even to move it to yours, you broke the rules. Copying it would be OK. Deleting it from someone else's page is not. NEVER mess with other people's comments on their pages. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comment is not directed at you and I suggest you not remove it again. Vandal, liar, childish, and whatever else you have said are all personal attacks. Landon1980 (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is the absolute truth that your edits in this issue have been disruptive, and yet you still deny this, and lie about being "harassed" when I bring the issue up. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• Just now, Landon posted an attack on the deletion page for The Metal Observer, accusing me of nominating the article for deletion as a result of the edit war that Prophaniti started. Clearly, these users are connected on some level. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Will someone please put a full protection on my talk page for the duration of 36 hours? Ibaranoff has been warned over and over again, but reverts any edits I make, no matter where I make them. I cannot comment on my own talk, an article, or even on an AFD without him repeatedly reverting my edits. Landon1980 (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I mean. You make posts like this after you get your talk page protected in order to make it seem as if there's an issue that isn't there. You/Prophaniti really are hopeless. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Ibaranoff24 seems to think that backing up another editor and agreeing that a deletion nomination is the result of an edit war is a personal attack (as he linked to above). Landon was perfectly justified and it was in no way a personal attack. Accusing someone of being a vandal for adding sourced content, that's a personal attack. Accusing someone of being a liar, that's a personal attack. Telling someone they'll be blocked if they don't stop "strongarming their POV" into an article by adding sources, that's a personal attack. Edit summaries like "rv idiocy", that's a personal attack. It should be painfully clear that if anyone has done wrong here, it's not Landon. Prophaniti (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Landon's comments absolutely were personal attacks. You/Landon were accusing me of nominating that article for deletion as the result of spite or whatever. Such accusations are considered personal attacks. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• Ibaranoff24 has now violated 3RR on the Mudvayne article, he has received multiple warnings for this. He reverts anyone and everyone that touches the page. Should I start a report at WP:AN3 or can that be dealt with here? Landon1980 (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Landon, I did not violate 3RR. I reverted the reinsertion of the unreliable Muze source. I am not doing any of the things that you or Prophaniti are accusing me of. It seems that you want me to send you messages, because you continue to make unwarranted attacks and accusations, and outright lie, as you have done in the past. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The source is from NME, and you have been told countless times by countless people that it is reliable. You have received several warnings very recently for edit warring as well. Landon1980 (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the bottom of the page. Read the copyright information. The content was created by Muze, which, as far as I know, is not a reliable source. YOU have received several warnings for edit warring -- but you deleted them so you wouldn't have to listen to reality. Secondly, 3RR is reverting to the same page more than three times within 24 hours, not making three completely different edits to the page in the span of 24 hours. Get your facts and policies straightened and stop making disruptive edits. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You have violated 3RR whether you will admit it or not, there are 4 reversions within 24 hours and you know that. Also why are you deleting and moving my comments on this page. I'm getting really sick of you calling me a liar and a vandal? Landon1980 (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Landon, there was clearly no revision of 3RR. He made three separate edits. 3RR is reverting to the same revision more than three times within the course of 24 hours. No matter how you slice it, you are lying. (65.10.86.155 (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Right, that's about enough of that. Both of you, stop your bickering. You have a few options:

1. seek mediation at MEDCAB. I'm not terribly sanguine about the chances of that, given Ibaranoff's rejection of mediation the last time he was in one of these disputes.
2. leave each other the hell alone
3. Be forcibly kept apart. I'm about five seconds away from proposing that you all be topicbanned from music articles and restricted from interacting with each other to stop this ridiculous disruption. I have a sneaking suspicion that such a topicban will be largely supported.

I'm off to class. I suggest the two of you disengage from this thread and from each other. //roux   18:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ibaranoff did start a mediation for this dispute. Landon and Prophaniti refused to participate. The last occurrence in which a MEDCAB was opened for one of Prophaniti's edit wars, Ibaranoff did participate. Prophaniti, as always, lied about the participation and acted as if Ibaranoff was being unreasonable, which he was not, then Prophaniti proceeded to contribute to the discussion without his username to make it seem as if Prophaniti had more support than he actually did. (65.10.86.155 (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You have got to be joking. The only disruption is with Ibaranoff24, the rest of us get along just fine. Five seconds are up, if you truly feel that I disrupt all music related articles to the point of being banned from them start a thread on it. I don't feel I have been disruptive in the least. If you are correct I'm sure my topic ban will be unanimously supported so why not go for it. I will now add that if I have been disruptive I have not meant to be, but I'm fairly certain you are wrong about this. Landon1980 (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not joking. It does take two to tango, and ending the disruption is the key point. You need to learn to disengage from him and not get sucked into these things. Either choose to learn it yourself, or the community will decide for you. //roux   00:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This thread was started due to User:Ibaranoff24 edit warring on Mudvayne. He has now been blocked for violating 3RR. As far as I'm concerned the matter is over. I see no need for any further comments to be made. If you truly feel I deserve a topic ban from all music related articles start a different thread. So this can be archived as far as I'm concerned. Landon1980 (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Landon, you've been busy! Ooh...looks like you forgot to think of a few things, namely that Ibaranoff made three separate edits to the page rather than reverting to the same revision four times as you claim. Oh well. (65.10.86.155 (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Ibaranoff, like I told you above. You do not have to revert to the "exact same version" to violate 3RR. It can be to a different version and just be reverts of others edits in general. However, in your case, all 4 times you removed the NME source. Which is reverting the same material. Landon1980 (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ibaranoff24 and personal attacks

Ibaranoff24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Let us not forget that WP:NPA is a policy here at WP, and as far as I can tell after having reviewed this thread, the user in question has indeed broken it. As stated on the page of the policy in question, is is disruptive to the building of this encyclodpedia to have someone running around throwing insults. Yes, this user was blocked for 3RR, twice in fact. As a small side note, blocks usually esclate in time if the user fails to abide by policy. My point here is that the block, at least in regards to 3RR, should be more than 24 hours.

Continuing on when what I was originally saying, this user has made quite a few personal attacks, he has been warned against doing such, and yet he has continued. More than that, he's denied having ever made any, in the face of hard evidence. To the point, the user has not said that he would stop making such attacks in the future, and in regard to his block history, and the above, I believe a longer block is justified. At the moment I do not see a constructive contributor.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is just how Ibaranoff is, this is just one of his flaws. We all have them I suppose. No matter what he does, if you call him out on it he says "NO, you are the one" Even when supplied with hard evidence of the allegation he will deny it to the bitter end. He does make some good edits though, he has many constructive contributions. As long as no one challenges any of his edits that is, and in that case be prepared for him to edit war with no matter how many editors involved and brace yourself for some personal attacks. I completely agree with you and I'm in no way condoning his behavior (see above). I doubt anyone will be willing to extend the block. Even though I agree that as disruptive as he has been here recently, and with his previous block for edit warring the duration should have been longer. Landon1980 (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that is not how it works on wikipedia. We do not just let someone go around insulting people just because that's the way they are. They can either learn to play by our rules, or they can leave. If this editor is not going to stop personally attacking people, then he needs to have his block lengthened to prevent further disruption.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, my point was I don't see it happening. Landon1980 (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that is where you are making your mistake. You should not be preparing to editwar with him. You revert once and gain consensus on the talkpage. If he keeps reverting against consensus you have someone uninvolved deal with it. You do not participate in the editwar. //roux   02:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am quite correct on this as well. When you have one editor edit warring with several editors it is more than appropriate for the "several" editors to revert the one disruptive editor. What you are suggesting is overkill in situations like that, a quick report to WP:AN3 works quite well. What do you not understand about not being in a position to tell me what to do? From the looks of your block log I believe I'll get my "edit warring" advice elsewhere. If you have nothing to say other than insulting my vocabulary, and making rude edit summaries such as "cluebat" there is no point in continuing. If you feel I have a problem with edit warring start a thread, this thread is not about me. Landon1980 (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind the fact all I said was "be prepared for him to edit war with no matter how many editors were involved" I never suggested I was going to be edit warring with him. Landon1980 (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still missing the point, and your insults are becoming tiresome. //roux   04:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roux, your 'patience forever' meme is naive nonsense. Landon1980 and others have been behaving perfectly, while one editor's being a continual provocation, and your response is to chastise everyone BUT the offender? You defended Ibaranoff's right to vandalize the comments of a second user on a third user's talk page on the grounds that 'anyone can edit' applies with impunity and without boundary, and now you assert that it's ok for the same provocateur to play other games to cause disruption? Here's a trout slap. ThuranX (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WTF are you on about? I defended nothing that Ibaranoff was doing. Try reading again what I've written. //roux   04:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ibaranoff never "vandalized" anything. Landon1980 and Prophaniti are the only users at fault here. Ibaranoff made absolutely no disruptive edits. These users repeatedly reverted Ibaranoff's clean-up and restoration of sourced material repeatedly deleted by Prophaniti, and then proceeded to lie about Ibaranoff's edits, make personal attacks toward Ibaranoff, and continue to vandalize the article as they pleased. Ibaranoff's edits were perfectly valid and within his rights. Ibaranoff never broke any of Wikipedia's rules. The evidence is in the edits. (65.10.86.155 (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Sock much, Ibanaroff? ThuranX (talk) 04:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not Ibaranoff. And sock puppets make disruptive edits, not contributing to the discussion as I have done. (65.10.86.155 (talk) 04:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Socks do alot more than just disrupt, they also argue in favor the the blocked editor. You aren't fooling anyone, so why don't you just take off the mask before I gather evidence and submit a request for a checkuser. You realize that if you just admit to being a sock, that they might let you off easier for evading your block?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But then again, let us look at the evidence:

• Your only edits, apart from the sandbox edit, are to this noticeboard, defending this editor.
• You sign your posts the same way he does.

True, there isn't much evidence, but the edits speak for themselves. Throw down the veil and stop hiding who you are, you aren't fooling anyone.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user has now proceeded to claim that the other two users who were originally involved in this dispute are the same person, and, when asked to supply diffs in regard to this accusation, has completely blown me off.

To put it simply, he baselessly accused User:Prophaniti and User:Landon1980 of being sockpuppets of one or the other/the same person/sock and master/master and sock.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So now Ibaranoff has evaded his block to further his disruption. I find it extremely unlikely this ip which is saying all the exact same things in the exact same way as Ibranoff is someone other than Ibaranoff. The edits to ANI are the IP's very first edits. One of the last things Ibaranoff said was the claim about not violating 3RR with the same wording the IP used. You are not fooling anyone, Ibaranoff, and I hope you had enough sense for that IP to be an open proxy. Landon1980 (talk) 09:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WQA Link Just a quick note that a related issue arose Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive56#User:_Ibaranoff24 in WQA a very very short time ago... you'll be very interested in the discussion. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has now been blocked as a sock of User:Ibaranoff24. Landon1980 (talk) 11:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To BMW, there are valid points there, but editing while blocked is still not allowed.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 11:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never disagreed with the fact that Ibaranoff was an issue, and the blocked-with-socks is very very very bad. I just wanted to provide some background information, and a link to a past attempt to resolve this dispute. Odd that such a minor article would elicit such major WP:DRAMA. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion on just a 24-hour block? That's fairly desperate. And presumably the original block should be extended. Maybe to a week. And then the user could be renamed Ibaranoff24x7. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the checkuser case, if you want it. Although the IP has been blocked an obvious sock, we need hard evidence, as the user is denying all claims despite the obvious.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 11:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the block evasion should the duration of the original block be lengthened? If so to what?

• support block lengthened to one week. Block would be very much preventative, not punitive. Ibaranoff24 continues to deny any wrongdoing whatsoever despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Even in regards to personal attacks, and violation of 3RR when you can clearly count 4 reversions. Landon1980 (talk) 11:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have re-blocked Ibaranoff24 for 24 hours. I believe this is a sensible middle road between a reset according to WP:EVADE and the lengthened block suggested by various parties. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with 24 hours, a total of 48 hours is what the original block should have been for the second block for edit warring. Have you not read over his talk page, have a look at all the "NO, YOU ARE WRONG NOT ME ACCEPT IT's" Evading such a short block is not a sign this user is here for constructive reasons. I thought a week was lenient considering the circumstances. He still denies violating 3RR and is still making personal attacks. He is accusing me of sock puppetry and refuses to give any evidence that supports his claim when asked. Landon1980 (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry if this throws a spanner in the works, but just a note of caution, because I extended the block for someone in similar circustances a while ago, and it turned out I had been wrong. The fact that the IP mimics Ibaranoff24 is good reason to block the IP, but you have to be careful of joe jobs. Absent a checkuser, or a history of socking from Ibaranoff, we know the IP is either a sock or someone out to frame Ibaranoff (so we block it either way), but we don't really know if Ibaranoff is a puppeteer or a victim of a frame. I am absolutely not a fan of Ibaranoff's conduct yesterday, and I could easily be wrong, and have nothing to back this up, but something feels wrong about this, and I'd be tempted to reduce the block on Ibaranoff back to the original, or at least I'd request a Checkuser. --barneca (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A checkuser has already been requested. See his response here to an admin when told he was violating 3RR. This is a sign he just doesn't get it. Landon1980 (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't notice that link above. I'll comment there. And again, to be clear, I'm not defending his behavior, I'm saying that we should be pretty damn positive before blocking for sockpuppetry. --barneca (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barneca, I know you commented on the RFCU, but I feel that you, and any other involved admins need to comment as well, as Coren has closed the case as not useful, despite the fact how it is noted in the case that such a finding would be useful. We need it confirmed by hard evidence, assumptions based on behavior, no matter how similar, cannot be taken into account, because, as said, someone could be framing this user.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To throw something in here: his behaviour was indeed brought up at the wikiquette alerts board. And the response I got there only served to lessen my faith in wiki proceedure. His behaviour since then is certainly worse, but even then he was breaking wikiquette guidelines. But no one seemed willing to actually do anything about it. I'm just glad that someone finally has acted on things, and that there seems to be some acknowledgement of his unnacceptable behaviour. My personal take on the issue as it stands: Like I say, I'm glad things have finally gone somewhere. I would support any further action taken regarding his behaviour, since this current block is because of the edit warring, not that. But at the same time, I acknowledge I'm a biased editor in the case, since I was on the receiving end of most of his attacks. But there it is anyway. Prophaniti (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There is now a new IP in the same range taking over where Ibaranoff left off on the Mudvayne article. Also, see the latest string of personal attacks on this users talk page. A longer block is definitely called for to prevent further disruption, the personal attacks are getting worse instead of better. I'll supply diffs shortly. Landon1980 (talk) 06:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [2] [3] There are more of these if this is not enough to show a pattern. These are not borderline incivility breeches, they are blatant personal attacks. Landon1980 (talk) 06:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

These are the two new IPs who have begun editing in favor of Ibaranoff's edits.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the IPs are picking right up and also harassing users on their talk pages, I've asked for protection on the Mudvayne page. It's time to end this. Dayewalker (talk) 06:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a week, or more block total. Ibaranoff's socking and attacks on two editors are ridiculous. He brags of being nominated for adminship three times; I can see why those failed, and he's clearly ruined any future chances for himself. ThuranX (talk) 06:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About that, I can only find one RFA in the archives. Which he nominated himself. Landon1980 (talk) 06:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, then. Only makes him look worse. Start creating a proposal for a Community ban. Present all this as a flat, dry recitation of his actions, without editorializing. This looks headed for bigger consequences before he cools off. ThuranX (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the [4] personal attacks keep coming. His newest unblock request is a personal attack as well, I bet that will be successful. Landon1980 (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be composing a summery of events, and a request for a lengthened block in regards with what has happened during the past week, in a bit. I need to switch computers from this old windows 98 operating system to my brother's ibook, which has firefox, and all those other nice toys like javascript.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The checkuser request now contains 12 IP socks all engaged in some sort of disruptive editing. However, I'm nearly certain we have missed one, two, three of them. Landon1980 (talk) 08:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From my email, and I quote:

I've had six featured articles and countless good articles. You do NOT tell me how to edit or accuse me of removing sourced content. My account should NOT be blocked. Prophaniti and Landon repeatedly removed sourced content, changed the article to fit their bias, and frequently vandalize Wikipedia with their nonsense. My edits were fully within my rights. If I were an administrator, I would ban your ass straight up, just for taking the side of these pieces of shit..

For those who may not believe this text, I shall provide a screen capture:

File:Hardevidence.png

I shall be submitting an overview soon, I am currently distracted by socking from this user and others.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I ran the checkuser query requested at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ibaranoff24. Checkuser strongly suggests that the sockpuppets in question belong to Ibaranoff24. Raul654 (talk) 04:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of events

Initially Involved Users

• Landon1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Prophaniti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ibaranoff24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Users who became involved per this ANI thread

• barneca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Daedalus969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SheffieldSteel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ThuranX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lankiveil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Redvers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bwilkins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Apparent IP socks of Ibaranoff24

(as a note, these IPs are listed in order of appearance)

• 65.10.86.155 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 65.2.201.118 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 65.11.137.218 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 65.9.1.128 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 70.149.106.37 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 65.10.86.234 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 70.146.109.106 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 65.10.68.4 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 65.9.1.102 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 65.2.54.200 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 65.10.58.87 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 70.146.109.162 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 65.2.200.221 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

The events started out with a simple edit war, with Ibaranoff24 reverting sourced material from the article Mudvayne, as seen here:[5], [6], [7], [8](also note the personal attack in the edit summery on this last one).

The user Ibaranoff24 was then subsequently blocked for violating 3RR on the aforementioned article.

Not long after Ibaranoff's block, the IP 65.10.86.155 somehow found this noticeboard, and proceeded to defend Ibaranoff's edits. The IP in question argued the same way Ibaranoff did, and signed his or her posts the same way as well, posting a ( before following through with the regular signature. As you are well aware, a ( is not present in the default signature.

This IP was subsequently blocked as a quacking sockpuppet.

A few days later, maybe one or two, I may have time wrong here, a massive amount of disruption was started by all the IPs below the first IP user listed. This disruption consisted of removing sourced information, in light of their own opinion, regarding two articles. The first article was Hed PE, while the second has already been mentioned in this case, but for those not willing to scroll up, it is Mudvayne(as a note, Hed is listed first as that is the first article the IP edited).

For around an hour or less, at least maybe thirty minutes, the IPs noted above continued to delete sourced information on both articles, and when some of them posted messages to talk pages, or notice boards, the style of the messages bore traits in line with Ibaranoff's editing habits. To outline what I consider a significant trait, aside from the prose of the arguments, is that Ibaranoff began his posts with a bullet.

Flashback for a moment, back to when Ibaranoff was blocked for violating 3RR:

I had gone to the editor in question's talk page to see if I could help in solving the dispute. The discussion is still there, you can look, it was not removed, but, to continue on; The editor in question claimed several times that he had been attacked by the other two intially involved users, but, when asked to supply a diffs concerning several attacks, he did not, and instead supplied a single post where Landon thinks that an AFD by Ibaran was made out of spite. The second and third diffs are when Landon removes messages from Ibaran from his talk page(an action which is completely within policy), and when Landon accuses Ibaran of edit-warring.

One thing that I have noticed, and many others have as well, is that even when presented with rock-solid evidence of his edits, he will deny it no matter what. This is as far as I've seen, at least.

As noted far above, the user has also resorted to email-harassment. You can see the quote, and screen capture for yourself. He has emailed me several times calling me a lier, etc.

So far, in regards to personal attacks, this editor has called others vandals, idiots(note the above diff) in edit summeries, liers, and sockpuppets. When asked to support his accusations of sockpuppetry with evidence, the best he can come up with is they don't agree with me(this isn't what he says exactly, it's just the general gist).

As a small last note, this user has also stated that they have been nominated for adminship three times. This is hardly true. He or she nominated himself or herself the first time, which failed. The second two times are users suggesting he or she run for adminship, and are not nominations. He or she uses these three instances to state that they are above another user in a sense.

Proposal

Through all of this socking, personal attacks, email harrasment, and edit warring, not to mention complete denial that he did anything wrong, I do not see a constructive contributor. Aside from the fact that he had five FAs. Sure, it's nice to have articles of good quality, but it is not nice to work in a poisonous environment where one editor is right about everything despite the significant amount of facts presented contrary to what that editor is arguing. My point? Editing the encyclopedia in a constructive manner is as much creating a peaceful environment for others and editing in harmony, then it is getting articles to featured status.

So what if he had five FAs, that is no exuse to treat others the way he has been.

I propose an indefinate block of this user until he can learn to accept the facts and play nicely with others, not to mention learn to play by our rules(re: block evasion, a user is not allowed to edit whilst blocked).— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I probably don't need to say it, but it gets my support, certainly. The above sums up how it has been trying to deal with it all. One other point to note: you mention that the IPs have been editing both Mudvayne and Hed PE. Well this fits in perfectly: Hed PE was the first page I encountered Ibaranoff24 on, and it was much the same thing: I was attempting to add sources for nu metal as the band's genre, and he refused to allow it. In the end I gave up out of sheer frustration and since then he's defended the page rigorously against many other edits. Prophaniti (talk) 10:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• support Landon1980 (talk) 10:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as an uninvolved party. Blatant block evasion through multiple IPs, personal attacks, disruptive editing, etc. Block until the user in question is willing to acknowledge what they've done and accept mentorship. This does not mean other parties are not at fault, but the level of disruption & evasion by Ibaranoff is unacceptable. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure which "other parties" you are referring to, but I think we all handled this well. We spent a great deal of time gathering evidence, etc., especially Daedalus. Not sure who you are referring to, but I don't see anything wrong with any of our actions. Landon1980 (talk) 04:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - It must be something in the water; people have simply been up and losing their damn minds over the past week or so. :-/ - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Betacommand socks

User:DePiep just threatened me by saying, "I wish you a white phosfor [sic."] He/she was referring to white phosphorus. --GHcool (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notified Depeip. Isn't that a component of the rockets used in the conflict? ThuranX (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems more like a joke than a threat to me, but what do I know.--[[User:|Atlan]] (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Atlan, you're right, and you know enough. GHcool phantasises a tshread, and his friend ThuranX raises the dust. Both waive the Israel flag. Jew-1 helps jew-2 to make a row, and/or vice versa. Interestingly, at this same time GHcool is losing the dabate on renaming the article Israeli-Palestinian conflict (into Israel-..., the state. The state that drops WP). Changing his arguments and subject every line. I pointed this out to him. Of course he feels threatened. He is. In fact, he is already been hit. Doesn't want to know. Bad for Wikipedia. -User:DePiep 20:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untruthful behaviour by User:GHcool and his friend User:ThuranX. Smearing my name. User:DePiep 20:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Refactor and redact that. I only know of either of you two by YOUR actions as reported here by HIM. You can add another layer of tinfoil, but there's no conspiracy here. If you want to continue the personal attacks and antisemitism, there are other places for it. ThuranX (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still awaiting refactoring. ThuranX (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the thread at Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this is part of a heated dispute over a fairly minor point -- whether to call the article "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" or "Israel-Palestinian conflict". (Somewhere in Wikipedia someone must have observed that as the matter of a dispute in Wikipedia approaches lameness, so the disputants are inversely passionate over the matter.) Both sides need to calm down & work harder to find a consensus than to give the article the "right" name: this is why we have redirects. And if wishing people "white phosfor" is your idea of humor, DePiep, I suggest you save your humor for other discussions. -- llywrch (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE ThuranX: Both you and GHCool have the Israel flag in your User-page. Why disallow me calling you jews?

RE Llywrch: I did not call it humour. Atlan did.

RE Llywrch: why a fairly minor point? I truly think and write it is to be named different. Why not discuss it (be it minor or major)?

RE Llywrch: Why cool down? Why not read that GHcool is changing topic, every line he/she writes?

RE: ThuranX: What do you mean by refacor and redact?

RE: ThuranX: I am ON topic. Why make it personal? What is personal? Why follow GHCool?

RE: ThuranX: fuck off introducing antismuumitsm.

RE: GHCool: where are you? Israel is throwing white fosfor.

--DePiep (talk)

Your antisemitism is excessively problematic, and you made it personal by bringing MY Judaism into this. I saw this because it was posted here. I didn't look at GHCool's page to see if he's Jewish, that's not how I decide who's right or wrong. Refactor your antisemitic nonsense NOW. ThuranX (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not antisnmuttreiscx. -DePiep (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't even type out the word, thus allowing you to appear to be protesting, while neither admitting your behavior nor denying it. Such mockery is just perpetuating your attitude and behavior. By the ways 'you Jews' is far more likely to be used in an insulting manner than 'jewish editors' is. I note that you had no ability to actually address any of the actual problems raised ,though, nor have you removed your Personal Attacks. ThuranX (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked/stated five questions above (see RE ThuranX's). Not one reply. Your reply is saying excessively problematic. Sure. For someone.

I note that you had no ability to actually address any of the actual problems , you write. Actually, I am still adressing & discussing GHCool's on/offtopic-remarks in the talek. I suggest you help GHCool in reacting in-topic. GHCool needs help. The title should be Israel-Palestinian conflict.

By introducing antisesrlketyrip here you are degrading Wikipedia's quality. -DePiep (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the fuck is "antisesrlketyrip"? As for the questions you asked ,let's see. You use Jew as an insult, and tie to to me acting as part of a Jew Conspiracy, which is a paranoid personal attack, and antisemitism. I did not say anything about a 'minor point', that's another editor, go insult them for an answer. i answered the 'personal' issues: Your bigoted attacks makes it personal. What the fuck is "antismuumitsm"? As for white "fosfor<sic>", you talked about other editors beign attacked by it, whether or not Israel uses it is irrelevant. The title of the article is irrelevant, because your actions on that talk page are the subject of examination here, not the title, which should be worked out on the page (But since you asked, your proposal reflects a viewpoint that an entire nation is making war on individuals, when it's individuals attacking individuals, and the title should reflect such.). Now try to say "antisemitism", instead of mocking it with your smacking of the keyboard. ThuranX (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@llywrch, I personally don't care if its "Israel-Palestinian conflict" or "Israeli-Palestinian conflict." It makes no difference to me whatsoever and I am not passionate about this extremely minor, virtually meaningless point. I simply object to editors "wishing" violence against me (particularly editors who appear to have an irrational hatred of Jews). --GHcool (talk) 06:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IP 192.45.72.26 and user:Icsunonove are the same person. Both edit heavily in topics about South Tyrol, mostly to eradicate the name South Tyrol from wikipedia (Icsunonove: 1 2 3 4 5 6 and dozens more)- (IP: 1 2 3 4). For me, being from South Tyrol this is very annoying especially as it follows in the steps of Mussolinis Italianization campaign. But the real issue here is incivility and POV sourcing.

• That is my IP and my username, and how does correcting wikilinks from South Tyrol to Province of Bolzano-Bozen constitute vandalism or an eradication of South Tyrol, or make someone deserving of being compared to Mussolini? Hmm? I do hope an Admin addresses this serious slander, and what amounts to false accusations of infringing Wikipedia editing rules. That this user admits they have let their personal issues of "being from South Tyrol" allow them to be suspicious of every little edit, this is a big red flag to this user's true intentions on this English encyclopedia. It becomes all the more obvious why he targeted me in the first place. Would I have been on "your side" Noclador, if I would have un-corrected wikilinks on here?! Icsunonove (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lately the aforementioned individual has discovered the article Steinerner Steg (english: Stone bridge) - a little but beautiful bridge in the city of Merano, which the fascist authorities renamed "Ponte Romano" (eng. Roman Bridge) on December 2nd, 1927. Now this had two aims: first to link the old Roman Empire with the beautiful bridge and thus enhance the mythical connection that fascism is a new "Rome" and also to further the fascist claim that South Tyrol has always been a Roman/Italian area (strangely though 90% of the population were German and all locations had only German names,

• "had only German names". Oh dear, how incredibly wrong you are. :) Icsunonove (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and it was all Austrian until 1919 - and to this day over 67% of the people are German). This renaming of the bridge (revoked in 1943 - since 1945 both names are used equally) has led to the following line in a book about Roman bridges: "Meran lies further east, on the western approach of the Brenner Pass to Austria. A medieval bridge here retains the name, the Ponte Romano sul Passirio (Gazzola, 1963b, no. 281)." But the city says otherwise (the full text would be to long); therefore in short: "bridge built in 1616/1617 by architect Andrä Tanner from Brixen; from this time on all official documents referred to bridge only as “Steinerner Steg”; during the Italianization in the 20ties to be exact on December 2nd, 1927 the name “Ponte Romano” was introduced."the whole pdf document (in Italian) published by the city (point 20). So on one side one line by a Cambridge scholar on the other side the city itself - in my opinion the city (and I hail from there and know the story of bridge) is right, but try to tell that to Icsunonove... [9]. this would be a content dispute if the other party was ready to discuss, alas he isn't... He was warned two days ago to stop insulting other editors by administrator user:John

• ...and as the user below stated, my edits to the article were valid, neutral, and very civil. I'm not an expert on this bridge, but I did my best to add clear references to the citations as they were provided. You again show you are for some bizarre reason making this personal, exemplified by how you write above. We don't need a history lesson. I became angry after you pushed this to become uncivil. I just don't have the time that you apparently have to go and try to blacken editors via the noticeboards. It is really people like you, in these petty "ethnic" fights, that turn Wikipedia into some cultural battleground because of personal issues, and for that, you should be permanently banned -- because it is the absolute worst of what we see on this encyclopedia. You insult all our intelligence when you go and revert links blindly as vandalism, or you keep adding text like "austrian province of south tyrol", when there is no book on this planet that records a history of an austrian province of south tyrol. I'll say this, whatever Mussolini did in the past, it looks like people such as yourself are trying to do exactly the same thing but in another direction. So, in the end you are no better; sorry to break it to you. Lastly, you are not even brave enough to admit that you were the one who actually instigated all of this on the Steinerner Steg article. It does take a strong person to admit they are wrong though... Icsunonove (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[10] for saying things like:

• You have no idea what you are talking about. I don't know what makes the people in your province so aggressive. Is it so boring in Merano??
• BIZARRE! LOL
• stop Noclador from adding his non-cited ramblings on here
• Oh, never mind, I should of checked first. Swedish being arrogant
• do you have a learning disability?

he said he had learned his lesson, but it was all my fault ([11]) now to today, as he still can't editwar his POV through he gets more agitated by the minute:

• making redirects from Bozen-Bolzano to Bolzano-Bozen is nuts
• @_@ You trying to drive us nuts, right?
• Why the heck did you revert my edit... That is ridiculous.
• Noclador, what is your problem, why are you being so aggressive?
• You are really falling into this pit of politics, Noclador. Are you going to degrade into someone like Martin Se?? But the insinutations you make, are frankly, discusting. Get yourself out of it Noclador.
• Thanks Noclador, I appreciate your insinuations and accusations, I really do.
• I hope this makes you feel more comfortable dear Noclador. In English, my native language and obviously not yours... I'm quite experienced in researching since I have completed a dissertation for a doctorate. How about you? I respected you as an editor and as relaxed and not "ultra" with regard to these pages. You have however shown yourself to be hypersensitive and indeed insecure over this issue. All you've done is accuse me of POV and vandalism as part of this childish issue that people in Bolzano-Bozen seem to spend the majority of their life brewing over
• With your insinuations and accusations that I'm trying to push POV or discredit the mayor of Merano, I learn today that you are an extremely insecure individual Noclador. I sincerely hope you deal with that in some way, because you were much more relaxed and pleasant before. Good luck with that.
• remove discussions with two people who sound and act like teenagers
• and vandalism mimicking the childish behavior that it seems many people
• How dare you. You come on my talk page and spout these amazingly stupid accusations. You have issues dude. You on the other hand seem to have some political theory made up and are here to play soldier. Grow the heck up. And my "petty naming guerilla war"? Are you smoking something? There is no one interested in wars, except maybe you. If I make an incorrect edit, you can point it out politely at least try to be civilized. Invading the article?!?! I didn't know that this article was your kingdom! You have got some major issues Gun Powder Ma, and I don't need your regards. You should evaluate the BS you just spewed on my talk page, and then check yourself. You obviously are a bit too much into "military history".... holy beejeesuz!
• enthusiastically playing Wiki-soldier.

• YOU instigate such edit wars and make such horrible accusations, and then you don't expect editors to become upset and tell you off? Hmm? Icsunonove (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

in short: he demanded sources, I and User:Gun Powder Ma brought sources, he didn't like them he refuses to discuss, he insults and I'm fed up. I request a 7 day block for user:Icsunonove for continuing grave incivility. --noclador (talk) 04:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• and for your actions Noclador, not words, you should be banned for a month. Icsunonove (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why specifically that number? — neuro^(talk) 08:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So that he has time to cool down. --noclador (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be checked whether the anonymous IP and the user are identical. Is this technically possible? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not even going to bother arguing with these two, and this will be my only reply. These are the type of individuals that go around being ultra aggressive to editors that disrupt their domain and then blame said editors for finally getting pissed off. If there was any sense of maturity in these two, they would also be men enough to point out the things that they were doing (if they can admit to that). I lost my cool, but it is sure hard not to do so with people like this, who will make this long diatribe above accusing editors of making a new Rome. @_@ I am not going to waste my time to go and pull up the evidence of what they've done and the things they've said. I was trying my best to make some neutral edits to a page about a freakin' bridge (Steinerner Steg), and you can see clearly all the criticism I get and the reverts with a blind of vandalism or pushing a political point of view. I'd like for once to see an Admin go and outright ban uses like Noclador and Gun Powder Ma for just flat out making Wikipedia an unpleasant place to work, and also playing this childish "I'm reporting you" game, whenever they get their pants up in a knot. I asked many times what I could do to make my new edits better, and they simply treat this like a military campaign. I'm going to take my own break, regardless, because as I said -- these sort of people simply ruin Wikipedia for others. Noclador accusing me of an Italianization campaign is about the most insulting thing I've ever read on WIkipedia. I have been at the forefront of trying to record all the languages used in this province. I've NEVER tried to remove any language, much less German. If this individual has deep down insecurities because (as he states) he lives in this province, that is something he must deal with. But calling me a fascist (i.e. equivalent to a nazi), should have him permanently banned. Someone simply look at how he was blindly reverting any edit I tried to make in good faith to Steinerner Steg, and you'll see the behavior. I'd love for an Admin to simply do that, because the edits are there in stone. I think the last version I came up with was quite good, and again.. revert.. vandalism. What is this? He simply categorizes me as "the enemy" and tries to accuse me with every edit I make. I couldn't care less about this idiotic proxy battle of Italian versus German. My history shows VERY WELL, I've always pushed for the neutral, multilingual stance. That I can lose my cool with people who turn Wikipedia into a political joke, well, I think many others would agree with this disgust. Icsunonove (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

for the insults of just the last hour please see: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#user:Icsunonove --noclador (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the "so that he has time to cool down" comment, please see WP:CDB. What you are asking for is against policy when presented by itself. — neuro^(talk) 16:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The real truth though is, what Noclador describe as insults are usually editors describing what he is doing wrong on here. Funny. Icsunonove (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems these two have a bit of a history, judging by Icsunonove's removal today of a barnstar awarded to him by noclador over a year ago. Icsunonove is certainly bringing incivility to new and exciting heights here, but this seems like one of those "it takes two to tango" situations. Tarc (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ neuro: It is absolutely justified as Icsunonove fulfills truly all of the Signs of disruptive an editor and in such cases "an angry user who is also being disruptive can be blocked to prevent further disruption."
@ Tarc: ah, nope I must correct you on that - you will not find a single insult directed by me towards Icsunonove, but tons of them against me, User:Gun Powder Ma, who wrote the original article that led to all this and many more against other users that tried to edit articles about South Tyrol (i.e. user:PhJ, user:Gryffindor and many more) --noclador (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you insulted him in he same manner, but you're obviously had a long association with this user, and are currently embroiled in edit wars with him. Reverting with edit summaries of "vandalism" is not helpful, and using WP:TWINKLE in edit wars is, I believe, severely frowned upon. Tarc (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Tarc - I did not have "a long association with this user" The barnstar I gave out to the people who finally agreed on a naming convention for the communes of South Tyrol and since than I did not have any dealings with this user! My last reverts did I label vandalism - AFTER Icsunonove ignored attempts to discuss and find consensus on the talkpage and continued editing against all other editors the article with his POV.--noclador (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You have been proven wrong by the history of the edits on the article and the page. Your behavior is what is completely against Wikipedia policy. But, I guess to come on here and try to accuse me first is your brilliant idea? You can't back down and admit what you were doing was wrong, right? You never insulted me? See what you even just write at the beginning of this section? There is nothing more insulting than your accusations of italianization and mussolini behavior. How would you like it if someone says you are conducting Germanization and that you are linked genetically with Hitler?! Think about that... Icsunonove (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noclador, you are a an excellent fit partnering with editors like PhJ and Gryffidor, THIS IS FOR SURE!! :) You didn't insult me??? Look at what you accuse me of above. You really must be flat out clueless. I can't waste my life arguing with people such as you Noclador. I thank you for teaching me this. And disruptive editor? Look at what you are doing on that bridge page, reverting any edit I make and calling it fascism or vandalism. Look at what you do all over the place and now on the Provincial page. Good riddens dude. Icsunonove (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I broke my promise and am making one last reply before I sign out permanently. If I'm bringing incivility to a new level by removing this guy's name from my user page, so be it. After what he wrote about me above, I have the right to hope not to see his name again. I actually had no problem with Noclador and respected him as an editor in the past. But he apparently has taken a turn into the more divisive ways of one-sided politics. He has a good new partner in Gun Ma, looking at his "free tibet" flags on his user page. *roll eyes* I've noticed they are going wild now also on Province of Bolzano-Bozen; so expect them to cause an edit war there too. These two accusing me of Italianization and fascism and making a new Rome is just the last draw. You can read above that because Noclador lives in this province, he is actually taking this very personally. I've said it again, I've been at the forefront for including ALL names in these provinces. It is a grave insult what he accuses me of, and you better believe it pisses me off. This will indeed be my last post, I do not plan to work on Wikipedia any longer. As well, I hope an Admin goes and see what Noclador and Gun Ma are and were doing. Reverting edits calling them vandalism; labeling people as fascists and pushing Italianization. Then think if you wouldn't also be angry. I sincerely hope people like Noclador GROW UP. He should be utterly ashamed at falling into this ethnic POV trap. Have fun you all... Icsunonove (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is a post I made here which I believe should be included in this noticeboard as well: ":::I don't want you to misunderstand me, I am not saying his conduct is flawless by any means. However, looking at the actual sequence of events that led up to this, it seems he had some provocation. I am not trying to turn this on you and say it is your fault, but you should not declare someone's edits as vandalism when they are in fact a content dispute, even if they are editing after you contest the edit on the talk page. I reviewed Talk:Steinerner Steg and see Iscunonove trying to engage in collaboration in a very civil manner. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] Now you claim a certain IP is this user, but without a check user we cannot say that for certain or treat them as identical, unless you have a diff where one or the other says that is the case. Based on the diffs above it seems Iscunonove was trying to collaborate and work in good faith, but statements such as these [18] [19] [20] [21] upset him. He was trying to work on the article and was actively participating in the discussion on the talk page, and did not become uncivil until the diffs above. It seems his behavior was not entirely unprovoked, and if some users had handled it differently, it would not have come to name calling, demanding bans and resignations from Wikipedia. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)" Theseeker4 (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot this provocative diff [22]. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After Icsunonove called Gun Powder Ma this; Gun Powder Ma responded. --noclador (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

..and WHAT exactly did I call him Noclador?? "Dude"?!? Icsunonove (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, who is this IP? Special:Contributions/96.251.10.234

Please have a look on the history of this user talk page (very interesting): User talk:Moroderen

PhJ (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have the feeling, increasing numbers of Icsunonove's/Taalo's former friends are turning their backs to him. 3 years ago, (at least I had the impression) Rarelibra and Noclador were still friends with him, but obviously they have come to the conclusion that his behaviour is kind of crazy.

I know Noclador by his contributions on the English and German Wikipedia, and he is by no means "nationalist" nor has he fallen into an "ethnic POV trap", quite the opposite: He is very critical towards German conservative positions including some of my contributions. Therefore his statements on this page are very trustworthy.

Regarding the so-called "Ponte Romano" or Steinerner Steg, I think it should be no problem to find reliable sources to prove the the bridge's origin in the 16th century (I mean, historical research). Noclador, just find them ;) -- PhJ (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You should be ashamed of yourself PhJ. You of all people calling others' behavior crazy? That is a personal attack, and your statement that I've had an "increasing number of ... former friends turn their back" is completely false, and you know it. I parted ways with Rarelibra, but that is the only case on here ever. Or, do you have proof that friends turned their back on me, and in (these laughable) increasing numbers? Why don't you back up your words? I'd be pretty embarrassed with myself to make such grand statements in public and not be able to prove them. But, then again, I am capable of shame. What you are insinuating is for your own disgusting purposes, and I think you do not realize how much that says about you. You also prove yourself ignorant in this discussion, because I had no problem what-so-ever with this bridge being from the 16th century. In fact I was attempting to cite the references as accurately (and in a neutral fashion) as possible. Why don't you take some time to see how I was trying to edit that page, without throwing out your slander? That is, if you can. But then again, that is not your purpose coming to this discussion, now is it? It doesn't surprise me that the editors who have shocked me most (you and Gryffindor) come in here to throw stones. You guys know I dislike you, and it is so petty you have to come on here like this, but then it kinda fits you guys, doesn't it? The only thing I agree with you is that Noclador (and he was never a friend) WAS relatively critical and fair in the past. But as Theseeker4 points out very clearly above, it was ridiculous how he came to attack me under some pre-conceived conclusion that I'm on a project to "Italianize". I was being accused of trying to discredit the mayor because I cited references with "according to". I'm sorry, but that is how we cite references in academia and in encyclopedias. Alas, sorry PhJ, but the facts are against you, as usual. I'll always remember you though as the "live and let live" person, one of the greatest hypocritical statements ever made on here. Icsunonove (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A check should be done in that case. If the user has been using his an I.P. and his account to disrupt discussions or barrage users, that would of course not be acceptable and amounts to sockpuppetry. Gryffindor (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, this from an Administrator who never should of been given such privileges in the first place. I have never witnessed an Admin who has so callously abused their powers as much as you Gryffindor. You have been warned so many times by fellow Admins it is indeed impressive. You are another one I bid a fond good riddance to. Hopefully you will be content, and you can try and go back and make pages as you forced them before. You remember, only Trentino-South Tyrol, South Tyrol, and I believe even the Adige River as simply Eisack. I will not forget how you made Wikipedia a hell with regard to this region. It was people such as myself that brought forth the current multi-lingual compromises that brought relative peace and balance to those pages. It is so glaringly obvious how that affects (drives you mad?) people like you and PhJ. You know what? That is your issue and I truly feel sorry for you. I will always be content to know that I worked to bring about sharing. You instead? Icsunonove (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warned for personal attacks. — neuro^(talk) 21:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, you are not aware of Gryffindor's intentions and the history of what went down with regard to articles about this province. Note that he is coming into this discussion for no other reason than to make a personal attack, as did PhJ above. I sincerely hope you warn PhJ and Noclador as well. Thanks, Icsunonove (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what your issue is, but leave me out of it ok? Gryffindor (talk) 02:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note to administrative staff

Again, I would appreciate it if a few Admins can first go and look again at the edit history at Steinerner Steg, as was done by one user already above (Theseaker). I would like to know what I was doing wrong, besides finally getting pissed off at how those users were reverting edits (blindly as vandalism) and making gross accusations of guerilla warfare' (statement by Gun Powder Ma) to Mussolini-Fascist-style "Italianize" articles. @_@ That is outright slander, and I'd like to see the proof. Note that ironically these two are now going all over and adding in all these grand POV statements about this province. Just wait and see the edit wars they will instigate. You can see it coming on Province of Bolzano-Bozen, etc. Second, I'd hope for a clarification towards Noclador about making such horrid personal attacks as he made at the beginning of this post. I thought there were policies against essentially calling people nazis/hitler? I don't think fascist/mussolini is any different. If he has ingrained issues because he lives in this province, that does not need to spill into this encyclopedia. Finally, it would be interesting if some Admin would also focus on the behavior of users (that I admittedly dislike) such as PhJ and Gryffindor popping in to use the Administrator's noticeboard as a soapbox to bash. Is that the purpose of this noticeboard? It would just be refreshing for once to see the slander of above actually be addressed. Ok, a dream of mine has always been for a formal and thorough investigation of the behavior by Gryffindor since he received Adminship. But, that is just asking for a little icing, I admit. :) Icsunonove (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• and in a further grand display of wikistalking :) [23] Noclador is obviously to the point of obsession now. With all the reverts he did on the bridge article, he should of been banned. For making this long diatribe about accusing people of italianization and being like mussolini, he should of been banned. Now, spending hours upon hours of his time trying to justify what he did by trying to dig up past history, again.. he shows his true intent. It looks simply as if Noclador is trying to do a broader attack against an editor, now that his initial "incident" has been proven to been instigated by him and Gun Powder Ma. I can only ask Noclador this: Do you feel somewhat guilty for the slanderous accusations you made above? Do you feel guilty of how you were reverting the article again and again and calling it vandalism, when it has been shown to everyone here that it clearly was not? Is that why you want to try and drive all the accusations towards me, and even though I'm never going to edit on this encyclopedia again, you seem to not even want me to post on here to defend myself against attacks from PhJ/Gryffindor, or notify others what you are doing? That is pretty incredible... Icsunonove (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• AND RIGHT ON CUE: [24] Just as I said. =) Another vindication of the type of behavior we've seen from users like PhJ and Gryffindor for years already, the type of stuff that Noclador has moved towards doing, and his new buddy Gun Powder Ma newly signing up. LOL Also a good reminder of why I need to finally take myself out as an editor here. Wikipedia, I wish you the greatest of luck with such people, who use this encyclopedia as a way to push their own political agendas. I personally feel it is the very worst of human behavior that these editors show us. That they have no shame, is the part that is truly scary. Icsunonove (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Icsunonove has 3x unresolved Wikiquette alerts: one yesterday: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#user:Icsunonove and 2x today Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#user:Icsunonove II, Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#user:Icsunonove III, plus he keeps going and going and the accusations get more ludicrous by the minute ("You know everyone can see now that you and Gun Powder Ma instigated this farce.") --noclador (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've had enough Noclador, please read the message left on your page. Just to note, I could make 30 alerts on someone, and then they would have "30x unresolved Wikiquette alerts". :-) Also, am I getting more ludicrous by the minute by stating that the history of that bridge article does show rather dubious actions by you an Gun Powder Ma? Just, relax, be self-critical for a second, and think about it. :-) I'm not trying to insult you, please realize that, I'm trying to make you think a bit here. Now, I'm tired of this, enough is enough, ok? If you really think I'm out to remove German from BZ, that is really unfortunate -- because you simply couldn't be more wrong. Icsunonove (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And we've had enough, too; for God's sake stick a cork in it. HalfShadow 23:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the nice personal attack HalfShadow. I believe in karma, and I certainly hope when someone in your life makes such horrible accusations as I went through above, that you get the same "put a cork in it" treatment. Very thoughtful, very civil. This was a horrible experience for me, I appreciate your concern. I know all my text must have been difficult for you. Icsunonove (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ciao

Can only try [25], but just as my edits on the bridge article, this is also vandalism. I hope this wonderful new friend of mine also is given maybe more rights and respect on here someday. [26]. I give up.. Icsunonove (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My personal view

Icsunonove is a good guy and what he does in Wikipedia is to balance articles. South Tyrol and Alto Adige are both used in English and, thanks to Icsunonove, we reached a compromise of using both terms. I don't know if the IP and Icsunonove are the same person, but what is sure is that, as far as I know him, Icsunonove is a good editor of Wikipedia. --Checco (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Checco, and it makes it more clear why users such as Noclador, PhJ, Gryffindor want someone like me gone. Because they want only South Tyrol, and never wanted the balance that we brought to the articles. Noclador was the same person who was seen adding edits to articles that stated the old Austrian province of South Tyrol, something that never existed. They were also changing wikilinks from Bolzano-Bozen to Bozen-Bolzano on selected pages. You can see their intention, and childishly calling people fascists because they fix the wikilinks to point to the compromised page Province of Bolzano-Bozen. Then, after they harass, egg on, and infuriate editors who are trying to put that balance into place (or even fix wikilinks!), they cry wolf. I just sincerely hope the Admins don't buy into this, and clamp down on them for once. Icsunonove (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Offer again to Noclador

I've done it many times already, but I'll offer once again to Noclador that we drop this public spat and discuss his and my concerns one-on-one. I'm content to try and convince Noclador he is incorrect with the accusations he made at the top of this page. HalfShadow on the other hand can ____ __ _____ ___.  :) Icsunonove (talk) 07:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Give us a break or not

I don't understand. Does Icsunonove want to give us a break or not (as he announced it)? -- PhJ (talk) 11:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

insincere departure. --noclador (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you two. :) After reading through the false accusations made from the initiation of this post, not to mention the beligerant slander you added PhJ (and you really just couldn't help to jump in, could you?), I've changed my mind. I will defend myself, and don't be surprised if in the end you are both asked to answer for your actions to incite. I'm positive you dislike this approach, and would love to chase editors such as myself away, but .. oh well. ^_- Icsunonove (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minimal response from admins

There seems to be minimal response from admins -- All I'm finding is Gryffindor made a note about the username/ip concern. I think this is a sign there are no clear villains or heros here, and no one wants to continually parse all the back and forth rhetoric. I'd suggest all parties take a break, force themselves to assume good faith, no matter how hard that is, resume the discussion on the appropriate talk page, and be meticulous about only discussing content. If ya'll get stuck, try one of article RFC or other Third Opinion or the like. Gerardw (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments Gerardw. I was guessing the Admins were more concerned with the real-life stalking incident also going on in another incident report. Your comments are dead on, by the way, and echo what Theseeker tried to say. The thing is, I'm afraid they consider this some monumental battle for "South Tyrol", and a certain school of thought. :) I've said multiple times I'll discuss this all one-on-one, but you see the results I get. I could haev easily asked for formal Administrator action against the initial accusations and slander made by this incident report, but.. why stoop to that level.. Plus, I think the truth becomes more obvious just by the first paragraph of this incident report, and looking through the so-called "fascist" edits I've been accused of... @_@ Icsunonove (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Ecoleetage/Eco2 blocked indefinitely for off-Wikipedia harassment of another user SirFozzie (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a matter of grave importance. Ecoleetage (after I opposed his failed RfA) has contacted the principal of my school, warning him that I am not a fit teacher, and that I've been "playing computer games" on school computers. Eco also claimed that I was stalking him. My principal was very confused, but also very supportive and said he was worried about me. As I make no secret of my identity, it concerns me that Eco is not very stable it seems, and is attempting to hurt me in real life. I am a big boy, and can take care of myself, but I teach many minor children, and their safety is uppermost in my mind. I will no longer be editing the project regularly at all, and I need to request assistance in seeing that some kind of restraining order is placed on Felipe (Eco's real name, from what I gather) in real life. He needs to be nowhere near myself, my family, or my students. This is a very disconcerting situation, and something needs done straightaway. I think a permaban on Ecoleetage and any account shown to be a sockpuppet of such is a good first step from the project's perspective. This is an absolute first for me. SDJ 20:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Errr, wow. No comment on the real-life stuff, but as far as Wikipedia goes.. if/when you feel the urge to edit again, you could always retire this account, start up a new one, and tell nobody who you are. Friday (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who supported Eco through his RfA I am incredibly disappointed. Eco's userpage revealed that that is indeed his real name, so I'll affirm that part. I'm only sorry it took this kind of behavior to show me what lies underneath the mask. Agree with permaban and sockpuppet ban; right to vanish/return can sod off. Ironholds (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and I need to request assistance in seeing that some kind of restraining order is placed on Felipe. That is not within Wikipedia's discretion. If you feel you need such a thing you should be taking legal advice. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eco's already retired, so there's no real reason to block his account, though I suppose if we get consensus here, we can consider him de facto banned. Unfortunately, there's no real way to confirm SDJ's statement here. GlassCobra 20:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, GC?!? I just got out of a meeting with my principal, where he spoke with me about this issue. While he was supportive, my own concern, for my minor students especially, led me to post here. Why would I make this up? At what point during the RfA did I do anything to deserve this? SDJ 20:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offense was intended, SDJ, but the need for caution and deliberation is especially great in a situation like this. Hasty actions just exascerbate the situation. GlassCobra 20:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm restoring the talk page Ecoleetage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for reference. seicer | talk | contribs 20:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• How did you connect the online user with the real life name? This seems to be missing from the above. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, this is seriously a problem and for the defenders of Eco, if this is true, will cause us to be very, very ashamed of our dogged support. --David Shankbone 20:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've informed Ecoleetage about this on his now restored talkpage. I note that he has e-mail activated, so someone should probably send him an e-mail informing him of this discussion as well. D.M.N. (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SDJ, can you explain this? I quote: "I have to request that a crat come in immediately, as per the unacceptable level of drama in this discussion involving SDJ's repeated demands to post off-Wiki material and this posting, with SDJ entertaining a request from Arcayne to send off-Wiki communication" On a side note, this RFA is also being discussed above. D.M.N. (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a lie. I asked for permission to post the chats that proved how he acted about WP stuff in chat. He denied that permission. It's as simple as that. Arcayne asked for the logs, and I told him I'd email him explaining the context, but wasn't comfortable posting them. SDJ 21:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SDJ - is there a way we can get independent confirmation of this incident? Perhaps have Principle Storie e-mail OTRS with explicit permission to share and/or confirm the caller's identity on this thread? I believe you, but its best to have our ducks in a row.--Tznkai (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I recommend wiping and requesting oversight on any personal details you have on-wiki for the time being. Better safe than sorry - the safety of family and students first.--Tznkai (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As others have said this is not the appropriate place to discuss off-wiki sanctions. Please have your lawyer or your school's representative contact Wikimedia's office. This kind of thing is best handled privately and with the advice of legal counsel. As for on-wiki sanctions, they are fair game for discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upon some sort of confirmation, I am more than willing to ban and request a CU of Ecoleetage - this kind of crap doesn't fly and pre-empting any sort of transition to on-wiki harassment is more than fair in a significant incident. That is however, all we can from this end.--Tznkai (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a need to verify comments from people (like the principal) or email correspondence, don't overlook OTRS, which may be a useful tool. -Pete (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As of right now, the last edits by Ecoleetage (talk · contribs) were related to his retiring from Wikipedia, so, unless he comes back, there's nothing to do here on Wikipedia. Letting this cool off for a few days seems indicated. --John Nagle (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't Eco be indef blocked, "retired" or not? Grsz¹¹ 21:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because blocks are preventative, not punative? Pedro :  Chat  21:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ecx4 Because while as damning as this appears, we only have hearsay... do I believe the allegations? Yes. Can we prove them? Not without the actual email/communications, which past precident says we don't have access to unless both sides agree.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Please e-mail OTRS to verify the comments, as others have indicated. We can move forward once we receive more in-depth information. SJ, do you want your userpage to be deleted for the time being? Thanks. seicer | talk | contribs 21:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Upon the statemement by Rgoodermote, I believe that blocking Ecoloeetage, and checkusering his account to identify any potential socks is justified. Be aware Rgoodermote, that if you've share any personal info with him, he will find you. I spent the last half hour talking to an assistant administrator here, but Mr. Storie had already left for the day, as has his secretary who took the initial call, and was concerned about it as well. We have a long weekend, so email confirmation would take until Tuesday at least. Perhaps Rgoodermote's note above can serve as enough confirmation, at least for now? I'm very concerned now, both for my privacy, but also for my safety. SDJ 21:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, since someone complained about you in real life, that justifies criticizing them on Wikipedia, running them through CU, etc, even though your initial entry violates NLT? NLT was created so that off line problems stay off wikipedia. It should not be dragged back onto it. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, Ottava? He didn't like that I opposed his RfA, so he tries to get me fired, and you're okay with that? As for NLT, I was basically asking for advice on how to procede to make certain myself, my family, and my minor students were safe. You have no idea how much this has escalated. SDJ 21:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I was a judge at your hearing for whatever you would want to press against him, sure, I would probably grant you it. However, Wikipedia is not a legal recourse. If there is an issue about legal matters, OTRS is the only thing that is acceptable. NLT was designed for just this kind of thing, and you are lucky that there is enough sympathy about (or, just no really really gutsy admin about) that you aren't indeffed until it is settled as per the letter of NLT. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be daft. No way would any admin that wanted to keep their bit block under NLT in these circumstances. tsk. Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No shit. Ottava, when you wonder why people don't like you and have supported bans against you, this is the shit that causes it. Ecoleetage has admitted what he did, so what further proof is needed? Get a clue about things. When your Wikirage leads to real world harrassment, and calling to complain to a person's boss and put their career in jeopardy with who knows what sort of allegations, you have given up all rights to ever edit wikipedia with community acceptance ever again. ThuranX (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous, Ottava. We've had an editor rightfully stunned by a real-world attack on him (that's been admitted by the other party), and your response is to threaten him on legal grounds? Is that how wikipedia protects its editors? Dayewalker (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "threaten him on legal grounds". Clearly, NLT stands for "no legal threats". Your comments appear as absurd as ThuranX's above, and it seems to suggest that you did not actually read what I stated.Ottava Rima (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read what I stated, Spartaz, you would see that I made it clear that no admin -would- block, but that the actions were completely wrong and ANI is not the place for such thing. We have OTRS specifically for dealing with such things if anything. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also supported Eco and his RfA bid. Of course, all I was able to judge him on were his efforts and contributions to the project, and am saddened by the controversy and scandle. In the hopes for a peace to come out of this, I wish the best to all involved... the supporters, the opposers, the neutrals... and everyone who reads this discussion in future archives. What a shame. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eco - more evidence of the broken RfA process

I apologized to Husond on his talk page earnestly, but to me, this is more evidence of the broken RfA system, where accusations are made that nobody else can verify, but that surely would have had a baring on my dogged support of Eco (who confirmed to me privately he did what he is accused of). But seriously - when the hell are we going to fix this system so that people don't over-oppose, and when they have valid strong opposes, the rest of us can judge them? Nobody has come out of this episode smelling great, and I personally feel hurt and betrayed. Stupid RfA process - how can we have a website of super smart people who are so dumb in how they elect the people to run it? --David Shankbone 21:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please sorry to see Ecoleetage great contributor one of the few from Mozambique and actually his RFA had not failed it was clearly in the discretion area at worst when he withdraw due to the drama rather than it failing as the tally was in his side 119/28/3 sad to good contributor leave due to conflicts and it would extremely harsh to block Ecoleetage a noted contributor without any prior block without getting his version of the events .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eco already confirmed to me in an e-mail he called the employer. How would you like your employer contacted because you opposed someone's RfA? --David Shankbone 21:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you somehow verify these allegations? From personal experience, I can totally understand if you are unwilling to share real world stalking issues on-wiki, but are you willing to off-wiki present evidence to any trusted admins who can vouche for you on wiki? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eco here as an intentional sock, because David got the message wrong. I contacted SDJ's principal, only to complain of harassment that I was receiving from him via Wiki. I am NOT stalking him, nor do I have any desire to be in touch with him again. Please delete/protect/block/ban whatever -- I am not returning. Eco2 (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't block editors at their own request. Sorry. The X button at the top of your broswer is they way forward, at least for the moment. Bad times. Pedro :  Chat  21:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But we do block editors who harass other users off-Wikipedia, and then sock to come back and argue about it. Blocked this sock, and will block the main account as soon as I stop edit conflicting. SirFozzie (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SirFozzie. What's most upsetting is his sock's rationale - if he was being stalked on-wiki, he should have come here. This was just disgusting revenge. --David Shankbone 21:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse block I recommend SDJ escalates this issue to the appropriate authorities.--Tznkai (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:::: until we have some form of confirmation - I'll take a confession from a sock who could be anyone as holding very little value. If those sorts of statements come from the main account (which he still have access to?).. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cameron. Can a checkuser confirm that the sock account is actually Eco and not someone impersonating him, which has of course happened in the past? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFA-specific discussion more properly belongs at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Friday (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• To David (Shankbone). I'm confused by your post: are you saying that it's no wonder that Ecoleetage's frustration about his RfA led him to this and that a smoother RfA process would have prevented it?!? I for one am relieved that RfA filters out madmen. If there's any lesson about RfA, it's that people aren't participating responsibly. There was a lot of evidence that Ecoleetage was prone to destructive outbursts but he was very good at making friends (in particular off-wiki) and that was enough for him to quickly garner over a hundred supports despite past incidents that should have disqualified him. What just happened to SDJ is tragic and unacceptable but I hope that those who supported Ecoleetage's RfA will reflect on the fact that they almost made that guy an admin by ignoring all the red flags. (And just for safety I'll sign that comment with an alternate account. Can't be too careful...) Pichpich (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pichpich: No, my point was that this spiraled out of control because people wanted evidence for allegations that were not obvious to on-wiki, and had that evidence been presented (I eventually asked for just one diff), it could have helped all of us make a better decision. Against this backdrop is an RfA community that finds one momentary lapse in judgment a reason to pile on the opposes. Some of us see that, so we start to react in the other direction, defending editors against unsupported and strong allegations with no supporting evidence (such as here). Many of us feel the RfA system is broken for one reason or another. A strange confluence of events created this horrible situation, but most to blame is the system itself, and that we appear to be unwilling to fix (go figure). If you'd like another user's eloquent statement of the problem, here's a diff. --David Shankbone 00:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Sorry I misunderstood what you meant. Nevertheless, I think it's important to realize that not all lapses in judgement are created equal. Forget allegations, the documented past incidents should have been enough for everybody to take pause. We're not talking about a botched CSD nomination or a crappy rationale for a non-free image. The encounters with AniMate and SDJ should have been a deal-breaker for everyone and yet those diffs were met by "out of his thousands of edits, he had 13 bad ones". The biggest problem with RfA is not its structure, it's its participants: people make friends, give each other barnstars (see e.g. this, kid around on irc and then decide that, hey, why should threatening to derail an RfA be a problem? I don't want to single you out David, actually, you seem genuinely interested in understanding how we can avoid such fuck-ups. But I wish people would stop whining about how disappointed they are by Eco and start thinking about why the disturbing incidents didn't stop them from giving him enthusiastic support. Pichpich (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Permanent community ban on Ecoleetage. He's acquiesced to this already, but in order to prevent a 'wait wait i was mad' apology and some puddingheaded admin letting him in again, we need to ban him. This sort of episode cannot be allowed a chance for repetition. this sort of behavior constitutes a clear and present danger to the core community structure of the project, and there can be zero tolerance for attempts to escalate such behaviors to the real world, ever. No slipper slopes of 'it was only call' to ' it was only shouting at him in person' to 'it was only thrown at his feet'. No harassment, of any sort, ever. ThuranX (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Thuran. Eco's contributions to the project have indeed been quite stellar, and I had great respect for him (and his "wrong queue" jokes) up until now, but we've blocked people indefinitely for much less than real-life stalking. We just banned Betacommand (talk · contribs · block log) for less. Endorse community ban, and if appropriate, I will make a formal ban proposal at AN if further support emerges. According to the template at the #top of this page, we're supposed to make ban proposals there. --Dylan620 (Contribs) 02:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Thuran about Ottava, and agree with him and Dylan that the ban needs to be formal. This was possibly the worst thing one of us could do to the other, especially in this economy. Absolute worst (next to murder). --David Shankbone 02:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Really? I knew it was an awful thing to do, but that comment just enticed me to propose a community ban much earlier than I originally expected to. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposing a community ban on Ecoleetage. --Dylan620 (Contribs) 03:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• BTW, the "awful thing" is what Eco did to Dean. --Dylan620 (Contribs) 03:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; the train wreck that was Eco needs to never darken our doorstep again. I get chills thinking about how superlatively he had pulled the wool over a hundred folks' eyes. Another reason why RfA needs some serious fixing. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support community ban. I don't swear very often here, but holy shit, I can't believe I actually gave him the benefit of the doubt on numerous occasions before. Support his permanent expulsion from the community; we just can't have people running around doing this sort of thing. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Support community ban You do not call someone's employer to try and cause trouble because of legitimate on-Wiki activities. And this person might have gained admin rights. Edison (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of real-world harassment

Please forward evidence and details concerning any acts of grave real world-harassment, such as communications with employers, to the Arbitration Committee mailing list. In general, it is not helpful to have extensive discussion of such matters take place on-wiki. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• How do I do this, Brad? I can forward you logs from the previous time I opposed his RfA, as well as those from what led up to me opposing from last night. I'm just not sure what steps to take. And as I said above, Mr. Storie had already left for the day when I went up to the front office, so I can't get official email confirmation of the meeting he and I had regarding Eco's accusations until Tuesday at the earliest. SDJ 21:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forward to the committee such material as you deem probative and appropriate. You can do it c/o me or any active arbitrator, or use the mailing list e-mail address on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As a side note, can we get a CU against Eco2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? seicer | talk | contribs 21:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already asked a member of the Arbitration Committee to have a CheckUser done to confirm this. SirFozzie (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed User:Eco2 is who he says he is. Cool Hand Luke 22:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering Eco/Eco2 has been indeffed, we can wait until Tuesday or later for evidence to come forward. It's not like we're disarming a nuclear weapon at the planet's core here- with apologies to SDJ, is there any point to further discussion right now? Even if that evidence is never submitted, it seems pretty likely that Eco is now and will remain de facto banned- i.e., no admin would be willing to unblock. I further recommend that everyone involved here take a moment to resume their calm. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion and potential oversight of my userpage

I'm considering disappearing this account, but in the meantime I think the least that should happen is that I should have my userpage deleted and oversighted, and my username changed to the less identifiable "SDJ", which I've been signing as lately anyway. The reason I have not dealt with this is in the last several hours is twofold: 1) I was really freaked out, and took some time away fromt he keyboard to chill with some friends and watch a movie; and 2) my connection at the house is completely shot now. I'm at a friend's house, and will be leaving shortly, which is why I'm leaving the request for deletion/oversight here instead of going through the formal channels. I authorize any admin to request oversight of my userpage for me. Someone please just get it done very quickly. I will make a decision within twenty four hours if I wish to disappear this account, and start with a new one, which I would identify to the appropriate channels. Thanks to all who have helped me at various points through this debacle. I have never been through something this disconcerting to my real life based upon totally non-real life activities. Regards, SDJ 03:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just my .02 (shared with a couple people as well, and they said it sounded reasonable). I don't see any problem with deleting talk and user pages for privacy reasons, but oversighting the whole page is probably a non starter for technical and proceedural reasons. Wikipedia cannot be responsible for stuffing the genie of freely revealed information back into the lamp, and the sheer # of revs needed for oversight is probably a bad idea as well. I am cognizant of the privacy issues, however and encourage SDJ to start a new account away from the existing one. It's probably best to let one or more of the Arbitration Commitee members know the new account. SirFozzie (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say I'm sorry to SDJ. This is a terrible situation, and one I potentially could have and in hindsight probably should have prevented. Eco's explanation about the threat he left on my talk page in regards to my then upcoming RfA was clearly false. I knew it and chose to accept it for political reasons. Since Eco had been so supportive of my RfA, I also chose to remain silent on his, though I haven't been very active because of work and an upcoming move. Seeing an unfit candidate passing RfA, SDJ posted something I not only considered posting, but had actually typed up and decided to think about some more. I dropped the ball on this, and hope you don't have any more harassment from this clearly unstable user. I'm taking this situation as a lesson in speaking my mind, especially when what I say won't be popular. Sorry.AniMate^talk 04:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SDJ-you'll probably have to task a trusted admin to dig through your history and e-mail oversight exactly which revs you need oversighted, or have an OS you trust do it directly. Sorry we can't do more, I'll bug I 'crat about the name change if I see one.--Tznkai (talk) 04:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After private discussion with SDJ, all of the relevant issues here have been addressed. For the record, the pages involved were not oversighted, as they do not meet the criteria for oversight and, once the reasons were explained, SDJ understood that. He has asked me to express his appreciation for the support from so many members of the community. I have extended to him best wishes for the future and assured him that, should he wish, the door will be open to him to return to the project under a username of his choosing. He has agreed to let a member of the Arbitration Committee know of any new username he selects to smooth the path for a return. Risker (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←In my previous, more hostile confrontations with Felipe, as noted in his RfA support, he placed effort into finding out details about me, and trying to talk over the phone which I did not feel comfortable with. In recent times I truly believed he had left this behaviour behind, as we were on good terms, but sadly it seems this is not the case. The case detailed above is extremely serious, and it's clear that SDJ isn't making it up. I don't know if the OTRS has been done yet, but if not, I fully endorse a community-wide ban of Felipe. I'm saddened, however, that it's come to this. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 12:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask (general question I guess) if Ecoleetage was "trying to find out details about others" off-Wiki before this incident, why wasn't he blocked indefinitely earlier? D.M.N. (talk) 12:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because simply requesting details is not an offence, on or off wiki. As a one-off, I did not view his behavior as worrying, merely confusing; and, like so many others, when he apologised after realising what it would do to his RfA, I took that apology and tried to make a fresh start. It is only when you bring all of these cases together that the worrying nature of Felipe's behavior truly becomes noticable. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 12:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I totally concur. In my case I may have been lucky enough to be a Scorpio, whom they say do not forget neither the good nor the evil actions of others. I too accepted his apologies and started fresh once, but from the moment he backstabbed me he could be rest assured I would never believe him again. His attempts to bring me back to his pool of supporters were futile, but at least I got some of my stubs expanded. Húsönd 12:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was advised to bring this situation here after posting it to WP:EAR:

Background

In WP:TE, editor Colonel Warden made a revert (18:36, 13 January 2009), undoing my own edit 04:21, 10 January 2009 and a new shortcut added by Inclusionist. Colonel Warden's edit summary indicated he objected to the new shortcut.

I reverted Colonel Warden's edit 19:00, 13 January 2009 , requesing that he join the discussions on the talk page.

His response was to start a new discussion 20:12, 13 January 2009 without addressing the actual discussion on the edits he was reverting here or the related discussion here.

I found his response to be a personal attack that did not actually address the merits of the information he restored, so removed the attack and left an uw-npa1 note on his talk page 20:30, 13 January 2009 .

At issue

Since then, two WP:SPA ip's have begun editing Wikipedia. Their sole edits to date are identical other than the edit summaries, and consist of restoring Colonel Warden's edits to both the article and the talk page. I've reverted these edits, and warned both ip's about our WP:NPA policy.

Since I requested for help on this at WP:EAR, another ip address has reverted (22:21, 16 January 2009) WP:TE, this time without an edit summary, while still another ip has reverted (of 22:26, 16 January 2009) the talk page. --Ronz (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(God, I love irony...) HalfShadow 22:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm not going to add, "Uses sockpuppetry to edit war and harass other editors" to WP:TE, if that's what you're thinking ;^) --Ronz (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I meant; you have someone edit-warring at a page about edit-warring. HalfShadow 22:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the IP's in question are Tor nodes, and have been blocked as such. Given that there's clearly an attempt to sway the article using IP socks, I've gone ahead and semiprotected it for 3 days, which should make things more manageable. MastCell ^Talk 22:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Being disgusted by Ronz's behaviour in removing my talk page comment, I walked away from the article but made reference to the matter here. As Casliber has many correspondents, it may be that other editors have taken an interest in the matter. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did someone mention irony? --Ronz (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

93.81.182.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another tor node that has reverted the talk page--Ronz (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Threw it towards an overeager Heavy. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 01:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In news unrelated to the dispute, does anyone else see the extreme irony with this? NW leaves ANI NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 02:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely a candidate for WP:LAME. The irony level is off the scale. 202.12.233.23 (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the Edit War Room!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alll we need now is a few cream pies, and the scene will write itself... 203.35.82.136 (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, I think John M. Ford already did write the scene, at the end of How Much for Just the Planet?. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but look, isn't this sweet? No only did those nasty anonymous IPs revert the removal of Colonel Warden's edits without his permission and knowledge, now we have an anonymous IP that is one minute kindly requesting Colonel Warden's help and the next minute kindly archiving Colonel Warden's talk page([27][28][29][30]). The amount of unsolicited help that Colonel Warden gets from these completely independent anonymous editors is unbelievable in every sense of the word, isn't it?—Kww(talk) 17:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Doesn't it make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside? On a more serious note, I recommend the punishment for all concerned be a rigorous Ironing. 203.35.82.136 (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  As helpful as that is, if there are legitimate sock puppet concerns (which seem reasonable) those should be addressed and handled appropriately. Regardless of the ironing, the community shouldn't just laugh that off.--Crossmr (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I would like to see others confirm that my suspicions are reasonable ... I certainly have them.—Kww(talk) 15:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Forgive me but I don't see Special:Contributions/68.220.175.168 making any edits to pages discussed above (meaning TE). Could be col' logged out. Protonk (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Didn't try to imply that it was the same anonymous IP, just that the amount and type of anonymous editing was suspicious.—Kww(talk) 20:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It all looks suspicious given the lengths that editors are going to in order to hide their tracks with the edit-warring. However, I think we should AGF here. It's likely just a coincidence. --Ronz (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok. I see what you mean. I'd say AGF for now. Protonk (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I should mention the irony. Tan | 39 16:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – (I think - see comment below.) Black Kite 00:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NWill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be mass-moving articles on films with Spanish titles to their English title. This came to my attention when he or she moved Michael Powell's Luna de Miel – a film made in Spain, with Spanish funding, and released there first – to its UK-release name Honeymoon (ignoring its American-release name The Lovers of Turuel). Whether the other films he or she has moved are being moved to translations of the Spanish name or to actual release names, I don't know, but all these moves are being done without discussion, and as far as I can tell without consensus.

In the case of Luna de Miel, it's been requested that the article be moved back, but it's been pointed out to me that the editor has been here since 2005, has made 25,000+ edits, and yet has never posted to a user talk page, including his or her own – so I'm not optimistic about getting a response. Also, the editor's talk page is full of notices about orphaned images and AfDs, which gives me pause.

Can someone look into this and determine if this editor's actions and unwillingness to communicate are beneficial to the project, and if their moves need to be reverted? I've notified WikiProject Films and its Spanish Cinema task force, but I think this is going to need adminstrator action. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 03:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess. I hate it when people do stuff like this with no explanation before, and none to come after. These need moved back, and I'll probably start a few now. Grsz¹¹ 03:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My lack of knowledge of romance languages is showing: at least some of the films have Italian titles, not Spanish. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It worse than that - a quick glance reveals that many of the films he is moving, (as far as I can tell)were never released overseas, so he'd translating the title and moving the article to that title - but that's original research and misleading because the film was never released under that name. If he persists and will not communicate, he should be blocked - his actions are actively damaging the reliability of articles. --Cameron Scott (talk) 05:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned the user that they need to discuss before acting further. A lack of communication is not helpful at all and creating a ton of work for others is really not appreciated. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's times like these when we need a tool less strong than a block, like limiting edits to 1 every minute or two or moves to a few an hour or a few a day. Throttling people who are making unintentionally-disruptive edits will get their attention yet still allow them to contribute. Should I throw this idea out at WP:PUMP or is it unnecessary? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the move log of User:NWill, it seems as if they've made a fair number of questionable moves in the past. The editor seems rather obsessed with awards, and has moved the titles of a number of awards, changing "TV" in a title, for instance into "Television", or changing an award name from "...Television Series (hyphen) Drama" to "... (hyphen) Television Series Drama". I don't see any particular system behind the changes, nor do I know if the editor was moving things into compliance with policy or out of it. I do know that they've moved these awards away from their actual real-world title into something different. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look extensively, although now I suspect I should have, as I've recently come across some awards links that suddenly go to a redirect. He moved Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Supporting Role - Motion Picture to "Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Supporting Female Actor - Motion Picture" with no explanation. The problem was, the first title is the correct name of the award, not the one to which he moved it. I fixed this one, but I haven't ventured in any further because it gives me a headache just thinking about doing it. This is an issue. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) He did the same with a German film and a series of French films. Gwen has reverted most of these. Dr.K. logos 17:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hope this unilateral campaign stops. Thanks Gwen. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 18:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I'm new to this issue, but it's an area that interests me so I'll be following this user's edits. They seem to have stopped the foreign language moves (at least temporarily). -AKeen (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There are lots more in the history. I've fixed everything back to 15 April 2008 (Sobreviviré) so far, but I'm going out for a while now. Anyone feels like fixing anything before that, be my guest. Note that you probably won't have to fix fair-use rationales in infoboxes, because NWill didn't change them. However, I have removed spurious non-free images where I found them (i.e. two different DVD covers, screencaps from the film that are there for decoration, etc). Black Kite 18:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh and if you do have a go at this, remember to fix the leads! NWill changed them from "Foreignlanguagefilmtitle (English: Englishtitle)" to the opposite. The article's lead in should always match its title. Black Kite 19:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he seems to have changed all the leads. I fixed a few but not all. How odd, I dare say how very careless, he moved these articles to his own, straight (or "literal") title translations (this almost always being the wrong thing to do, since title translations are more often than not heavily tweaked, or given other names altogether, following what is thought to be most fit for a given market), while the true UK/US/English release title was already in the lead. This is where the paths of utter heedlessness and vandalism/disruption meet. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the English "translations" were clearly wrong as well. I'm going to try and clear any remaining ones up now. Black Kite 23:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there were some that he redirected to an English title, despite the film never being released in English, then the redirects from the made-up English title to the article need deleted. Grsz¹¹ 23:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• OK. I think I've reverted everything that needed to be, and I've deleted all the spurious redirects. I've left them in place where there were multiple incoming links, though. I think we can mark this resolved? (I will also keep an eye on the editor from now on). Black Kite 00:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is resolved. Good work Black Kite finalising this. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 01:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

On the issue of fixing the leads, wouldn't it be simpler to just restore the pages to the states they were in before they were moved? You would need to check that there had been no subsequent good-faith edits to the pages, but as far as I can tell that was the case.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 02:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Grsz11, Gwen Gale and Black Kite for their work on getting this mess cleaned up -- what an odd editor! Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 03:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

quick question -- its has been pointed out tha this editor has never posted on another page / or on his talk page own before, but have his other edits been constructiv e? and also dhad anyone ever posted to his own page before (apart from notifacitons that is) Smith Jones (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judging his/her latest edits s/he does more harm than good. The editor keeps switching "original titles" so far.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And as I just saw is moving pages again without discussion.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And still not a peep from the editor. Is there a person behind the moniker? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 23:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I've only glanced at this editor's contributions, but I noticed quite a few page moves relating to TV miniseries which appear to be in line with naming conventions (WP:NC-TV). PC78 (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the edits I looked at inside awards articles seemed fine (although I did not look at a great number of them). The editor's unwillingness to discuss is disturbing, though, and probably the major issue at this point. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the major issue (at this time) is his/her unwillingness to respond and discuss but I also find his/her changes of original movie titles quite destructive.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Not ANI issue Toddst1 (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am a new user, but I am nevertheless outraged that the "List of unusual personal names" page was deleted. There is no reason this page needed to be deleted, a humor banner at the top would have fixed it. This article needs to be reinstated or wikipedia will risk losing its whole reason for existence: an alternative to britannica. Nameless9123 (talk) 03:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't exits to humor its readers. Grsz¹¹ 03:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual personal names (3rd nomination), you could ask for a deletion review. It was close. Among logged-in editors, I counted 6 keeps, 1 weak keep, and 10 deletes. If you add in the non-logged-in editors, it's 8 keeps, 2 weak keeps, and 10 deletes. Since rough consensus is supposed to be a lot somewhat more than 51%, this might be subject to review. Depending on how you count, it was between 50-62% for deletion. But beyond rough consensus, AFD is not completely about headcount, it's about the strength of arguments. I found the arguments on both sides to be valid. I didn't see the article but there are POV issues, but as someone else said, that's true of "Beauty, Terrorism, Pornography, or Christianity." Others suggested it was unencyclopedic and one user said it would make a good user-page. Several editors said the term was undefined or undefinable. One editor called it unencyclopedic. Arguments to keep included that at least part of the article was sourced and the rest could be addressed by editing, that the article had been around for years, which I assume was him implying a historical consensus to keep, that you can define "unusual name" by relying on reliable sources to define the term for you, and that there really isn't a lot of disagreement over whether a name is or is not unusual. Had I closed this, I would have closed it "no consensus" or kept it open/relisted it as there was discussion and a "listing on" announcement in the last 24 hours. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin has added his reasons for deleting the article. Nameless, if this resolves the issue please add {{y}} '''Resolved''' explained and a blank line to the top of this section. If it doesn't resolve the issue, say so and ask for help so this can be resolved. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, without a list of strange names, Wikipedia is certainly doomed to fade into obscurity. I bet the Britannica editors are already compiling their own list, so we better act fast! We're nothing without this page! Mr.Z-man 03:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the free speech thing: see this. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 04:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Various other items in the bill of rights are supported by wikipedia. For example, soldiers are prohibited from being quartered in the homes of wikipedians. Except for vandals, who are sometimes drawn and quartered. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and then cooked to order. Vandals are mighty good eatin' once you crisp up their widdle puddin' haids. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ya know, this "unusual name" idea has some merit. Consider the name "John", for example, which draws snickers because it's a synonym for a loo, and hence kids don't get named "John" any more due to its unusualness. And let's not even get into the high unusuality of "Richard". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take offense! WP:NPA!!!1!!!!eleven!!! 05:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

And who are you? I suggest you change your sig so that it follows policy, I can't even figure out where your post ends and your user name begins, less if that is even your username. Per WP:SIG, it needs to have, at least, a link directing to your talk or userpage.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was User:JPG-GR, an admin, and I take it his first name is the unusual name of "John". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That...or he has a penchant for hookers...--Smashville^talk 21:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to bring up that possibility. A little too much information about an editor. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka (talk · contribs) has made an arbitrary and antagonistic decision to place an attack list here. It was done by Elonka, a wholly involved editor in various pseudoscientific topics, to poison the well of editing. She is singlehandedly interpreting Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist as her basis for doing this, and I do not see where she has the right to do so. I have tagged the thread and asked a really uninvolved admin to delete it. I'd ask that it be oversighted too, but I don't want to case another kerfuffle. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While it might be removed - why would it be oversighted? That's a step too far for me - it doesn't reveal any Personal history, fail foul of WP:BLP etc. Removed - yes, erase - no. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reaching on that one, of course. It's just that the attack list remains in the history of the discussion. Deletion by an admin is sufficient, just not perfect. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if you note my verbiage, I said "I'd ask" not that I was actually requesting it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've been warned that your behaviour is on course for being sanctionable and you... keep on with the exact same behaviour? Well done. Sometimes I think the ArbCom vacated the OM case too rashly. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptre: focus on the issue not on the person, and beware WP:NPA. Now then, can we all discuss the issue of the list with animosity toward none? The list has proven to be disruptive, divise and has had a chilling effect on a conversation that was proceeding apace toward a resolution. I have my doubts that that was Elonka's intent (although measuring intent is at best difficult) but it has been the effect. Let's focus on that, shall we? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptre, vacated what case? I didn't know they vacated a case about Elonka? Or Pseudoscience? I'm confused. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR/Orangemarlin was vacated after you promised to stop being disruptive (and that's not a personal attack; the ArbCom did find you had engaged in personal attacks and the like). To be honest, I don't see what can be done here. The exacta of it being another Elonka thread and another of your ANI threads makes it kind of hard to take this seriously. In any case, I really don't want this to be dragged into evidence of my super-duper-ID-cabal-stalkathon™, so I'll just post this and be on my way. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Whatever its intention, that thread has had no apparent effect other than to spew an additional 23 kB onto an already noisy page. I am not certain that administrator attention is required, but I suspect that the original poster desires that removal be performed by an outside party. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat: let us focus on the issue. Sceptre, that you and OM do not play well together in the schoolyard is well known, but let's assume that recess is over and class is back in session. Focus on the issue.

Another Elonka thread? What are you saying: that she's here so much in some capacity that wee should just ignore the issue? Or is it that as OM raised the issue it should be ignored? In either case, you would be wrong: this issue needs to be looked at seriously and without prejudice. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka is one of our more controversial admins, I'll admit. People complained about her a lot about her capacity overseeing the Israel-Palestine articles (which were, more often than not, instigated by POV-pushers who didn't like her attempting to keep the peace). Such threads tend to get boring after a while. That, and OM appears to have really thin skin. Quite a few things he complains about, most people take in their stride. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the personal comments. STOP! Basta! Ist genug! Alto! Capisce? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My actions at List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts are as an uninvolved administrator, trying to stabilize an article that has been in such severe disputes that it is currently under indefinite full protection (not by me). Several editors have been using the page as a battleground in the pseudoscience wars. I have been attempting to help stabilize the article, by invoking the discretionary sanctions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. That some of the battling editors don't like this, is par for the course in arbitration enforcement matters. A few of the editors (such as Orangemarlin, Verbal, and Jim62sch) are accusing me of being "involved" and therefore forbidden from using admin tools, but their claims are incorrect. I am neutral in the dispute, and have no preference on the article content, as long as it abides by policies. I've never been involved in editing this or any other articles in the topic area, and I have been doing my best to issue warnings evenly to both "sides" in the dispute. Additional administrator attention on the article would be appreciated, though be warned that the flame wars are intense, so put on your asbestos booties before entering.  :) --Elonka 20:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As a completely uninvolved administrator, my inclination would be to remove it. It doesn't serve any majorly useful purpose, and, as can be seen from the discussion page and this thread, serves only to increase the amount of drama, of which there's enough already. Black Kite 20:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I suggested at Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts#Discussion, we can probably just move it to a subpage, as was done at Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log. This kind of list technique has been very helpful in managing a variety of complex and chaotic disputes. It helps administrators identify which editors are on the page, who's under sanctions, for how long, when they were notified, which editors are SPAs, etc. It's also very useful for the "after the fact" discussions, to track exactly what administrator actions were taken, and on whom. For example, months later, an administrator might be routinely accused of "blocking people left and right", but when there's a recorded admin log of exactly what took place at a given article, it's easy to see exactly what actions were taken, rather than relying on biased exaggerations. --Elonka 20:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Elonka's intervention on this article does not seem to have been particularly helpful. A number of administrators and one arbitrator have advised her against some of her pointed talk page warnings. Her idiosyncratic strategy for managing fringe science/pseudoscience articles could possibly be profitably discussed in the current fringe science ArbCom case, which until now has not examined the actions of specific administrators. I don't think most editors will agree that there is a parallel between opposing groups in nationalist-related articles and those editing articles on fringe science or pseudoscience, as Elonka has suggested. It would certainly be going out out on a limb to suggest that those representing the academic community of scientists form an "opposition group". After all articles on science on wikipedia must concentrate on mainstream science, just as the Encyclopedia Britannica does. The article chiropractic is much better managed now by editors like User:Eubulides who have some experience editing this kind of article and are medical experts. Mathsci (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Elonka's intervention has been and continues to be disruptive, and has increased the tension on the article. It has caused multiple problems and solved none. It should not be moved to a subpage, it should simply be removed. Although Elonka may be uninvolved in any content editing on the page (I haven't checked), she is deeply involved with many of the editors concerned (having repeatedly asked for several to be banned, for which she has been sanctioned by outside editors, while defending editors which were later banned). Her input to the debates is welcome, but her self-appointed role as a small-minded county sheriff is unwelcome and unwise. She is very involved and not at all neutral. She hasn't helped solve the problems (that was happening anyway), instead she has added new problems. Removing her from her role here would be removing a problem. I see above she is trying to scare off other admins by saying the flame wars are intense - this is not true, not that I've seen. The only person to have been "flamed" is Elonka herself (justly) for her disruptive actions. At the very least the list should be removed. Verbal chat 21:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have contributed to this talk page discussion and I am an admin. I do not think I have edited the list itself, so I am uninvolved. I do however have a POV. I believe this list would be best deleted, but two AfDs have said otherwise. I am far too busy at present to keep up with this vast discussion. Trying to read and keep up with that discussion over the last few week, does lead me to the view that Elonka's intervention has not been particularly helpful. It has just increased the volume and the noise, when it was possible that issues would get resolved. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bduke, I think you are confusing the list article with the list of editors on the talk page of the list article[31]. It is the list of editors which is causing the issues, not the article List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts which has indeed been to Afd. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not confusing that. I was just giving some background before both explaining to anyone who knew I was an admin why I was not being an admin on the list as Elonka is trying to do, and why I think her intervention on the talk page of the list is unhelpful. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Thank you for the clarification, much appreciated. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a colossally bad idea. Elonka's NOT neutral in re: Pseudosci, and this essentially becomes a 'naughty list' with the undertone of 'all you, I'm watching you, waiting to pounce and punish.' This is a chilling effect for BOTH sides of this already contentious issue. No one is served well by this, and given that Elonka's published a list of who she's thinking about with regards to this title, I say that it represents a permanent conflict of interest for her to use her admin status in resolving anything with regard to any editor listed, ESPECIALLY as connects to Science and PsuedoScience related articles. ThuranX (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ThuranX, I agree with you. I cannot understand why Elonka thinks she is neutral. Elonka, please listen to those that do not see you as neutral -- if you were neutral, why all these comments?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 22:06, 18 January 2009

I've already tried, several times, to explain the concept of perception to Elonka. Either I'm explaining the concept poorly, or she's just not getting it (unwillingly or otherwise). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a member of the list in question, I must say that I take no issue with the presence of said list nor with the involvement of an uninvolved administrator such as Elonka. I truly feel that any disruption that has come to the page following Elonka's arrival is not a fault of Elonka but rather the enormous amount of venom that follows her in the form of "anti-Elonka" editors. Several of the complaining parties have previous grievances with Elonka yet had little to no recent meaningful activity at the List of Pseudosciences and Pseuodoscientific Concepts article and talk page. Since her arrival, these editors have popped up out of the woodwork mainly to complain about Elonka's presence (most of them in an uncivil manner). Elonka has the best intentions to bring peace to an article which was in the middle of edit war turmoil just before she arrived; and though I am not thrilled to be on the list of "Editors notified of restrictions", I do recognize that I that I was fairly warned and that my presence on said list does not imply that I have been disruptive. Could the discussions move forward amicably without Elonka's or another uninvolved admin's presense? Quite possibly. Other than those complaining about Elonka, the majority of the editors have been quite civil and open to listen to each other's thoughts and suggestions. However, with Elonka (and SoWhy) present to monitor the discussions, I for one feel much more comfortable. Perhaps if those who have a personal grievance with Elonka would just chill-out and focus on the content discussion at hand on the page, there wouldn't be a need for all of these pointless histrionics. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you take no exception. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 23:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The administrative list on the list talk page is fine. It sticks to factual assessments of editors involvement in the page. If you have a problem with an item on the list, focus on that. If you dont like Elonka administrating this page, find another uninvolved admin and ask them to add their name to Talk:List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts#Administrators_monitoring_this_page. If other admins are doing the work, Elonka will be left with nothing to do. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise that your last sentence, assuming it was not sarcastic in a way that paints Elonka in a bad light, is simply silly, yes?

The list is not fine only, and this is tenuous, in theory. In reality (as our presence here shows, it has been unhelpful at best. It's effect has been to disrupt, divide and derail helpfull conversation. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 23:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The list is fine? By what standard? Its not helping the encyclopedia. It is harming it. That is the only standard. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Or use admin recall, since Elonka promised to be open to that. Oh, wait, no, she reneged last time there was a COI problem, didn't she? I would not try to administer that page and Elonka should not either due to many past disputes. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no one wants to be impeached, do they? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 23:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thirty-seven good faith editors recalled her. She didn't like the result. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that's more indication of a flaw in the recall process (and really, any other straight voting process) than any fault of her own; that recall proposal was seen as a disruptive ethnic-fuelled vendetta. And you know how powerful voting blocks get; Jimbo almost had to step in during the last Arbcom elections because of vote rigging. (and OM: 50 editors opposed that same recall. Nice try.) Sceptre ^(talk) 23:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Ooops. You missed her pledge. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Ooops. You missed yours. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of "this is not about OM, it is about Elonka's actions" is causing comprehension difficulty? Is there some way we could better explain this so that the comprehension difficulties can be attenuated? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please exemplify by way of diff how Elonka is not uninvolved at this article? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Elonka continues to add names to her attack list here. This is out of hand. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note that, in demonstration of evidence that Elonka has a conflict of interest, and further, the appearance of Vendetta behaviors, at least two of those who supported her Recall are now on that list, Verbal and MathSci. As such, she's making them into bullseye'd targets. Since she has no interest in removing such an attack, nor seems interested in stopping until this is settled, I'm heading over there to remove that attacking hitlist immediately, per BOLD. ThuranX (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Elonka's intervention at the Muhammad al-Durrah article succeeded in remarkably calming down a very troubled article. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point I think Jay is trying to make is that Elonka is *gasp* trying to work for the good of the encyclopedia! Sceptre ^(talk) 00:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But so what? We aren't talking about "intent" we are talking about outcome - Methods that might work at one article might be completely useless at another. --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need to see this as a good-faith attempt by Elonka to resolve part of this thorny dispute, instead of an attempt of undermining NPOV; don't let history repeat itself. At the moment, this is becoming a cesspool of bad faith (which, admittedly, wasn't really helped by some of my comments). Can we all try to steer towards being like Richard Dawkins, not Madalyn Murray O'Hair? Sceptre ^(talk) 00:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is (and this isn't directed only at Sceptre, but also to Levine2112 and anyone else with similar sentiments) Elonka has been playing "uninvolved admin" for four months. There comes a point where you aren't "uninvolved" any more and you are heavily involved. She isn't a neutral party trying to resolve a dispute, but, rather, a heavily involved party and a party to the dispute. --B (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed by ThuranX, re-instated by Jayvdb. I have to say, I don't see what the list is achieving (well, I do - a large amount of pointless drama) by existing here. I don't know of any precedent for this, and without taking sides whatsoever, the fact that Elonka is adding people to the list who she has previously been in dispute with is unhelpful even if the list makes it clear that no aspersions are cast on those in the third section. Black Kite 00:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptre, out of this thread, please. You commenting in a thread started by OM is going to do nothing but stir the pot. No comment on other matters. Moreschi (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• To review a previous such "list of editors" in a different topic area (Israel/Palestine), and see what it looks like after the dispute is finally resolved, see Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah/Archive 9#Conditions for editing. Before my arrival on that particular page, the article had been in a state of more or less constant edit-warring and disruption for a long time. However, once the list was provided to give more structure to the dispute management, administrators were more effective at reducing the chaos, and the article has been stable for months now. This technique is not called for on every article in dispute, but for very complex situations, it really can be quite effective. For an example that's more directly related to this particular ANI thread, anyone reading here can simply scan the list of editors on the pseudosciences article, to get a quick-reference on which voices here at ANI are participating as "involved" or "uninvolved" voices in the dispute. It's a definite time-saver. --Elonka 00:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Re "involved"/"uninvolved": Thanks for the explanation, Elonka! That makes sense! Now I see why the last part of the list can be useful. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't see how this list is a good idea. It should have seemed obvious from the beginning that it would probably spark an edit war. I also have a difficult time seeing Elonka as a neutral problem-solver in this particular dispute. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the list non-neutral in the sense that Elonka is only adding certain names to it? No, she is clearly adding the name of anyone who is active on the article. Has any evidence been presented which shows or suggests that the list is an "attack" list or a "hit" list? No, none, although this has been asserted/assumed many times. Is the level of outrage about the list of names demonstrated both here and on the list talk page justified? No, not even close.

A most illuminating spectacle. Landed little marsdon (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka has spent the last four months as an "involved" person and was using this list to attempt to establish by fiat that she is uninvolved. In other words, she alone is a "neutral" admin and will use the admin tools as she pleases. Heck, she even keeps a list of her involvement at User:Elonka/ArbCom log. Even if her initial involvement was as an "uninvolved admin", that ship has sailed long ago. --B (talk) 02:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to react in the strongest possible way to the actions of Elonka in this diff [32]. She added my name to her "list", after I posted twice on the talk page, criticizing her policing of pseudoscience/fringe science articles. This is a terrible abuse of her administrative position. It shows that she does not listen to criticism and bears grudges. Might she possibly be ill at present? That is the only explanation I can find for her actions, which seem to be uncalled for and highly irrational. I wonder whether she might stop this disruptive behaviour? Mathsci (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not you agree or disagree with the appropriateness of Elonka's actions, this kind of personal speculation about her health or mental state is completely inappropriate. I suggest you redact your comment to reflect that. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have scored through my speculation. If I post two short messages to a talk page (now in a removed section), I do not expect my name to appear on a list of frequent editors of that page. Adding my name was a completely misjudged action on the part of Elonka. Mathsci (talk) 02:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing that, let's try to keep the discussion here cool and impersonal. Regarding your statement that the addition of your name was "irrational", a more appropriate term to describe your view would probably have been "erroneous". "Erroneous" is a comment about the action, "irrational" is a comment about the mental state of the person taking the action. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It did not refer to Elonka's mental state, just the nature of her action; "completely misjudged" seems an appropriate alternative. Has anybody thought of having a quiet word with Elonka - even by email or a text message - to sort these things out? There is a newly created article Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory, formerly a redirect to a BLP that I successfully nominated for deletion, that should be restored to the main article. Mathsci (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my talk page at [[33]]. I'm not certain that "a quiet word" is possible. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of Sceptre's request, I have considered how I would act if this were a Good Faith effort by Elonka. I would act exactly the same, because the outcome of her actions is still the same, and I would say 'we recognize that you tried, but it is failing, and needs to be removed, and I would remove it, as I did. (Only to have it immediately restored, then re-removed by another, then re-restored by yet another editor, then re-re-removed by a third (fifth?) editor.) And I'd still support the removal of the list. ThuranX (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have called it an attack list. Such an assertion in itself implies bad faith. I think it could've easily been solved with a {{discussion top}} tag and a note on Elonka's talk that said "the list really isn't helping", in a more civil way than what was done. Then again, there is a trend in the psuedoscience area to have really awkward wording when pen is put to paper (for example, if the ID article went to FAC now, instead of two years ago, I'd reckon most if not all of the objections to promoting it would be the quality of prose). It's a trait often seen in controversial areas, but the most obvious problem (to an outsider) would be the language, not any sort of bias. Excuse me for rambling on here, but I think a major part of the problem in this instance is the way of communication is all wrong. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware you wouldn't call it bad faith. I'm not you. Consider MathSci's case. He posts twice ABOUT the list, and thus makes the list. that's Gotcha Behavior, and screams vendetta. it's unprofessional, unethical, and questionable judgment. ThuranX (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. The only good faith reason I can think of is Elonka thinking "oh, I forgot about Mathsci when I put the list together". I would expect him to be on a (impeccable) list of psuedoscience-area editors. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No this is not an explanation, because the list was compiled long before I made any contributions. I was aware of the main page because I knew it linked to Einstein-Cartan-Evans theory, a deleted redirect to a deleted BLP. I don't know what you mean by your last comment - perhaps you should remove it. Mathsci (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Elonka (per her revised recall conditions, written post her first set of conditions by which she was actually recalled under) uses these "lists" to then paint the picture that people on these lists are being monitored by her and hence are ineligible to even participate in her recalling. It also needs to be noted that the Community has given admins considerable "powers" (aka the "tools") to do the job that Elonka discusses below. Why on earth does she need more powers - especially those not granted by the Community - is largely beyond me and many other editors. Of course Elonka fails to answer the actual issues but continues to point the finger at all those other people out there. Shot info (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts about the above thread thus far: A few things are visible. First, many of the objections here are coming from editors who are already using the "List of pseudosciences" article as a battleground. A few are tossing around inflammatory terms such as "attack list", or claiming that administrative experience in this topic area equates to "involvement". But let's be clear here: The reason we're even looking at the article to begin with, is because the editors on that article have not managed to solve their own disputes. They (collectively) have been incapable of seeking consensus; they have engaged in incivility and personal attacks, rather than collegial dialog; some have been edit warring and editing tendentiously; some have been gaming the system; and things have gotten so bad at the article that it is currently in a state of indefinite full protection, such that no one can edit it.

We are here to write an encyclopedia. In order to do this, ArbCom has ruled that discretionary sanctions are available to the admin community, provided that a warning is given first. This topic area currently needs those sanctions, and the "list of editors" that is being used on the article's page, is an effective starting point to help the article re-achieve stability.

Administrators who are acting in ArbCom enforcement matters, are understood to be working in highly unsettled areas. (see the SV case). Discretionary sanctions are a major step, yes, but no better means has been suggested to deal with this dispute. If enough other uninvolved administrators were actively managing the page and helping the editors reach a collegial resolution, I (Elonka) would have no objection to standing aside. But as it is, few have volunteered more than momentary assistance. I tried ignoring the dispute at this page for a long time too, but things just kept getting steadily worse. So, I'm willing to roll up my sleeves and try to help this article. I am completely neutral in this dispute, and uninvolved as an editor in this topic area. The goals here are a stable editing environment, and stable and high quality articles. Given this article's history, arbitration sanctions appear to be the most effective tool towards stability. --Elonka 03:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see that this post focuses on the big picture: the goal of administrative intervention is to improve and stabilize the editing environment. The "list" is demonstrably worsening the editing environment, and so it seems a no-brainer to remove it. All the more so since its upside is theoretical at best - any admin newly entering this dispute will of course need to reach their own conclusions about who is "involved", and to what extent, rather than simply relying on a list compiled by Elonka. I don't understand the insistence on keeping the list in the face of evidence that it's actively worsening the editing environment on the article. MastCell ^Talk 04:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in total agreement with MastCell. BTW I do not regard this as a very important article on wikipedia - it's just a kind of curiosity. Mathsci (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason she is insisting on it is obvious - she is not an uninvolved admin, but, rather, a heavily involved user. But the list would codify her status as "uninvolved". On my talk page and on Killer Chihuahua's talk page, she has attempted to use this arbcom finding to say that she should be considered unrevertable. It's a ludicrous proposition, but adopting that list would legitimize it. --B (talk) 04:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On January 16th Elonka started a second private list on User:Elonka/ArbCom log. It seems to imply special powers as an ArbCom enforcer even when asking questions on talk pages. The last entry in the second list is concerned solely with somebody removing their name from her first list. Elonka seems to have stopped adding entries to the second list after her first list was shut down. Mathsci (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok here is my feelings about this, I do not like having lists like this. As I said on the talk page, the list in design makes it look like the editors are disruptive. I mean putting in the list that certain editors have been warned already sounds to someone just looking in that these editors have had discipline of some sort or under arb restrictions. Then the comments that editors are SPA accounts and/or listing their account sign up date. To me this is at least close to don't bite the newbies. Lists like this have caused heated debates all over the place. Comments to User:Elonka have been extensive and by many. [34], [35], [36] Some of the comments lead to questions of whether accusations of WP:Cabal was being charged. During the start up to the RFC for the Guido case, Jimbo himself said that lists like this that marks editors in such a way should not be left up for long, just long enough to get the case together. [37] The set up for the talk page was considered an attack page by some but Jimbo said it wasn't but that it had to be moved to an RFC ASAP. My point is, this list looks like an attack list considering the comments made to some of the users and the comments made directly to Elonka. The difs are conviently located on User:Elonka/ArbCom log. I'm sorry but I feel list like this discourage editors to participate that maybe more neutral than the regular editors at the article. I would also love to know this, when is an administrator considered involved when that administrator has been active in many articles involving a lot of the same editors that she has cautioned, warned, banned etc.? I think Elonka has been involved via her comments to editors and sanctions she has given to be considered no longer uninvolved. Some of these editors that is listed as warned she commented on also at arb page, RFC and of course her recall. I see the list is now deleted with a comment to check the history with a link to it. For consideration of my comments I disclose the following, I did vote at the recall, I have commented on this talk page about this list and voted a couple times on suggestions for a new name for the article. I have not been censored in anyway by Elonka, or anyone else. I just feel very strongly about these kinds of lists anywhere other then lists made by the arbs on their pages, and I still have a little problem with lists being there as I think they mark an editor with a big scarlet red A as a trouble maker, which may not be the case or the reason for these types of lists. Thank you for listening to me, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't mind having my name listed on such a list. Jayjg's observation that the measures applied led to calming of disputes at an article is consistent with my experience at several articles. Signed, an editor such that one could list at least two such lists on which this editor appears, including the list pertaining to the List page about which the present list of comments is listed. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 13:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive behaviour by Elonka

Elonka has given me a fake last warning. This is disruptive. Her behaviour needs to change. QuackGuru (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, no matter what you think of Elonka, YOU are the one who used VERY WP:POINTY edits to bait and provoke her. They were totally unnecessary and showed an absolute lack of Wikipedian spirit. You should be banned for your actions of late. These last two (as well as deleting or striking out other editor's comments!) are ban worthy. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Starting this section was unhelpful. Mathsci (talk) 04:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs: unnecessary provocation, also unnecessary. Her warnings were not only perfectly proper, I simply don't understand why she didn't block you. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A similar list of editors was deleted from a talk page. It is appropriate to remove lists of editors from other talk pages too.[38] See Talk:Quackwatch/Archive 16#Other frequent editors on this page and here. QuackGuru (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I would not call it disruptive per se, but it is clear to me that Elonka is not accepted as an honest broker by a lot of the involved parties, so should not be taking administrative actions here and should not be trying to police the articles in the way she is. Incidentally, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Elonka/ArbCom log. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not being accepted as an "honest broker" by a lot of the involved parties probably has less to do with any negative trait's on Elonka's behalf, and more to do with the well-documented faction-based POV wars in this particular corner of Wikipedia. But, yes, I want to reiterate what Mathsci said: This section was ridiculous. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 12:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Probation

Looking at the various editors arguing here on AN/I and the conflict on List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, I would like to suggest something better. While the list Elonka created did not work as intended, might an Article Probation along the lines as this: Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. The probation did help in reducing some of the conflicts, it gave admin's the tool to stop most problems before they got too aggressive, and it served the community at large as a way to keep track of those who were there mainly to disrupt. Brothejr (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might, if Elonka were to recuse herself from acting as an "uninvolved admin". KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the Arbcom ruling on discretionary sanctions for articles related to pseudoscience serve essentially the same purpose? In any case, I have added a notice of this ruling at the top of the article's talk page.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 12:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When is an administrator considered involved in a disputed area? If the administrator hasn't edited the actual article that is controversial but has been involved in many notices to many editors about multiple articles in multiple areas? In other words, would an administrator be considered involved if they have been sanctioning and responding to editors for a long period of time, three or four months. This seems to be a question others are also asking. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This question needs to be answered! WP:UNINVOLVED says nothing of the sort and using just that as a reference, Elonka IS uninvolved at "List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts". Unless there is some other standard which people are looking at, right now it is incorrect per Wikipedia policy to say that Elonka is involved at this article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNINVOLVED states: "An administrator is considered 'uninvolved' if it is clear that they are able to exercise their tools from a position of neutrality." MastCell ^Talk 21:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not the first time Elonka has done this sort of thing

Apologies if someone else mentioned this and I missed it, but a similar list a few months back here [39]. Elonka included me listed as a frequent editor even though I hadn't edited the article in months but had made some comments critical of her on the article talk page. When I tried to get my name removed from the list, she threatened to ban/block me. I also note that she made a few minor edits to the article that were comparable in scope to mine (formatting and tags) yet she had a clear double standard by insisting that I should be on a Warned/Involved Editors List but that she shouldn't.

I hate to say it, but it sure looks like Elonka has a tendency to use her admin powers to try and crack down on people who disagree with her instead of trying to actually get difficult situations settled down. Since Elonka seems to have changed her mind on admin recall, maybe it's necessary for Elonka to back off from topics and users that she can't seem to handle in an impartial way and find other topics on which she truly can be neutral. --Minderbinder (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody is advertising a Wikipedia administrator account on Ebay. Is this allowed? JohnBeelam23 (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)— JohnBeelam23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Can you post a link please. Theresa Knott | token threats 19:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is on the Japanese Ebay - http://www.sekaimon.com/ItemDetailView.do?sekaimon=true&item_id=13028843567&category_id=1&page_mode=srch JohnBeelam23 (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, because I can't find anything (unless it's on a non-English Ebay). Black Kite 19:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What wonderful reviews that guy is going to get. 'item turned up damaged, with long history of use and was soon blocked. Would not buy again.' Ironholds (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Lawl (Assuming this is real). I'm happy to let the sale go through then indef the account. :P Protonk (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, ADMIN....guess I'll have to wheel war. :) Protonk (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Searching Ebay for "Wikipedia" does bring up "Wikipedia cosplay costume", however. The mind boggles. – iridescent 20:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I suspect that it's probably just a case of adding keywords to try to improve search results, we do have File:Wikipe-tan (Cosplay).jpg. Incidentally, JohnBeelam23's link now gives a "not found"-style page, so it looks like it's no longer there. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious how the japanese ebay is at a website entitled sekaimon.com Wouldn't it be ebay.co.jp? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 12:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – And blocked.

Here? OneOffAccount (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. SPA. Black Kite 20:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway going to slap a block indef to the SPA? D.M.N. (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a little pointless unless it's actively disruptive. Black Kite 20:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this count? _Gb^T/c 21:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Pages deleted. Blocked. Black Kite 21:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone was abusing an admin again? Is the admin ok? First aid applied in time, all that? KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but he's afraid of closets now, for some strange reason. HalfShadow 23:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And wire clothes-hangers. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPA account or not.. secret did feel the need to revert before locking. An admin locking to prevent an edit war shouldn't be reverting anything but blatant vandalism. It appeared that he reverted the two articles to his preferred name and then locked it.--Crossmr (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The revert was probably to keep the article and its edit history together (and where it had been since 2006, with the exception of one quickly reverted move), rather than any preference for either of the titles. —Snigbrook 21:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it's fair in context; the edit reverted made no sense at all - it redirected to a disambiguation page while removing pretty much all the content that the reader was probably looking for - which was one of the entries in the dab list. Almost a circular redirect. And with an egregiously uncivil edit summary, to boot. It was a sound piece of sysoppery. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Not to mention...it was 2 months ago...--Smashville^talk 21:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this user to be a sockmaster. My reasons are because after this article got deleted. The author recreated it which also got deleted. Afterwards, they decided to onsert the same material into an article that was linked to it. After this was reverted by self, another editor started doing the same. This inturn got reverted. I checked the history of the article and noticed that other users had attempted to add the same content.

Evidence

[40] [41] [42]]

Account Creation

On the 18th of Jan

On the 12th of Jan

DFS454 (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try heading with the same over to WP:SSP, where it'll get more expert attention. Cheers. lifebaka++ 06:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done DFS454 (talk) 09:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

74.71.190.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - gross anti-semitism, see Talk:Michael Rosenblum page history for background and previously warned/ blocked IPs. Referred here from WP:AIV. WP:RPP also initiated. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's one edit. Seems somewhat pointless to block for a one-off thing that happened hours ago. Bring it back if there's more. Cheers. lifebaka++ 06:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this diff: [43]

User:Ronz removed my comment from this AfD:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of wiki farms (3rd nomination)

I did not make any personal attacks as stated in Ronz's edit summary. See the diff and the last version of the AfD before the diff.

Also, lengthy discussions are common in AfDs. For example; see the previous 3 AfDs for this article. The last one was decided as "keep" by the way. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The goal in most of the AfDs by many of the spam fighters was, and is, to delete most of the article on "notability" grounds". While it isn't exactly bad, that certianly is an attack.--Patton^t/c 22:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thrust of his argument is that those who seek to remove feature-by-feature comparisons of products which are not themselves notable, are evil, whereas those who love and cherish such articles are fearless defenders of the Wiki. Something tells me he has become a little too vested in having a pet article, as opposed to following policy. We seem to be blazing the trail in deciding which features to compare and retrieving them from the primary sources. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I support the removal of the unnecessary dramatization and slander of individuals on Wikipedia who actually do cleanup (grunt) work on Wikipedia. Not every Pet Article needs to be saved (not in relation to the current AFD), so it would be wise to keep your petty personal remarks to yourself. Kthxbye. seicer | talk | contribs 23:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I also support this removal. I commented at the AfD before Timeshifter and when he made his comment I felt personally offended as I felt that I was one of the spam fighters he was talking about. Although I voted to keep the article I feel that voting to delete spammy articles on notability grounds is exactly the thing that makes Wikipedia a better place. We need more cleanup around here, not less and attack comments such as Timeshifter's only discourage well-meaning and hard-working editors like Ronz from doing a good job. Themfromspace (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you were personally offended. I struck out part of my comment:

"The goal in most of the AfDs by many of the spam fighters was, and is, to delete most of the article on "notability" grounds."

The remaining statement is true though. It is not a personal attack. The spam fighters themselves discuss notability of the entries in the article. Just look at the previous 3 AfDs. But I think I may have overgeneralized concerning the goal of the current spam fighters commenting at the AfD. So I struck out and is,.

There is little disagreement, though, as to the notability of the topic of wiki farms. It is notable, and most of the spam fighters agree. I have no problem with deleting articles where the topic of the article itself is not notable.

I have no problem with deleting spam from external links either. The disagreement is about primary sources, inclusion criteria, etc.. But there is no need to discuss this here. This is WP:ANI. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historian19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is copying bulk content from Encyclopedia Britannica Online into Wikipedia. Examples can be found in the last few days of edit history of Greece, Netherlands, and Morocco. This is easy to detect: take sentences from the bulk insertions and do a google search on them. They show up exactly in Britannica. Hmains (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are the one who brought this in, you should provide the admin the evidence of violation of copyrighted material — Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He did, and the evidence is pretty compelling. If you're using material from a revision that's out of copyright (like eb1911) please cite your sources. Any further submissions of copyrighted, or unsourced public domain material and your account will be blocked. --fvw* 01:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked his contribs and I do not find anything that violate the copyright rules but he was in a some ruff discussion with another user and may engage in 3rr. A warning should hold — Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you did not check thoroughly. [44] and [45]. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiikkiiwriter...If you have read Historian's replies to fellow editors requests, it must be obvious to you that he does not have the basic grasp of the English Language that would allow him to self-create the edits in question. That alone should be a verification of Hmains claim. His involvement in Netherlands is causing havoc to a quality article. Wikipedia has a nettle in its "shoe" and a valid request has been made to remove it. --Buster7 (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This thread requires the attention of an administrator. Both User and Talk for Wiikkiiwriter are blank. The nettle has become a pebble!--Buster7 (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were some bad image uploads too, which I've deleted. This is a well-meaning but rather naive person. They really want to help. They will need a mentor. Any takers? --John (talk) 02:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be very weak with english, to the point where it's not unlikely that he doesn't understand what we're trying to tell him. I do think it's been made clear enough that a short block wouldn't be completely uncalled for if he does it again. Anyone else think as much? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His English is weak enough that he shouldn't be making substantive edits to English Wikipedia. Even edits that don't require strong English have been screwed up -- for instance, changing per capita GNP figures from 2007 numbers to 2008 numbers while leaving other at 2007, and not indicating that a change has been made, or moving the US dollar sign from the left side of a figure to the right side.

Also, note that Wiikkiiwriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who defended Historian19 above, and told him on the talk page that he was "covering his ass", is a brand new account, first edit yesterday to this page Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c}

I don't think there's an issue there, probably just a new user trying to help another user out (though not in the best of ways). They're arguing about the word 'ass' in a post on Historian19's talk page right now. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that almost qualifies as being lame, although it's not an edit war :( seicer | talk | contribs 02:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CC: Good faith edits by an incompetent editor, if that is the case here, can be indistinguishable from vandalism, and are many times harder to see and stay in articles longer, doing damage.

Don't know that I agree about WW. Smells kinda socky to me.Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something smells in Denmark...and it ain't da fish! Too rare and almost an impossible occurrance for these two to find each other. Confrontational attitudes are not needed. Ive seen competent, good faith editors banned indefinitely for much less!--Buster7 (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiikkiiwriter has made 24 edits, 9 of them to this page, only 1 to an article, where the lede of the article Arab was changed from this:

An Arab (Arabic: عربي, ʿarabi) is a person who identifies as such on linguistic or cultural grounds.

to this:

Arab is a hetrogoumous ethnic group widespread thougput middle east and northern africa. allthoug many now has founded thier realt ethnic race. Arab is a term to be used as a generic term of inhibantants of Arab states, thouigh gor people there, they belive they are a part of a large ethnicity

If I AGF, then this is incompetent editing, if I don't, it's vandalistic - and surprisingly similar to the style of Historian19's writing, but unlike WW's writing here and on Historian's talk page.

Just sayin' Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• While I removed copyright material from Morocco and Greece, Netherlands needs more expert help than I can provide. The copyright material has become mixed in with later edits, but still makes makes up several large sections. Help please. Hmains (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a regular on the Netherlands, and one of the editors adding some of the "good" edits later on, I have taken the pain and blame here and reverted it to the last version prior to Historian19's addition of material. Arnoutf (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to give this user a one-week timeout--in addition to his cut-and-paste from Britannica, he's also uploaded images that he claims to have created himself when they are actually copyrighted. I nearly made it indef, but he has some constructive contributions--but I warned him that next time, it will very likely be indef. Feel free to review. Blueboy96 16:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks all admins. It is really a larger problem that just the copyright violations that kept occurring up to the time he was blocked. It was also content changing/ adding info with no reference basis. Various editors have had to revert most of the changes that Historian19 made--this is difficult/time consuming when there are many other subsequent edits. This is the same thing he was doing prior to his original blocks and which various others had to repair. Hmains (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – banhammer engaged

By user:Lava476 [46] on Ryan P.'s page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually quite a few threats, vandal edits, etc. VirtualSteve blocked the editor for 31 hours; I've upped that to indefinite and, since the editor was cursing VS out on his talk page, have protected that too. Problem solved! Tony Fox (arf!) 01:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – take it to WP:DRV if you desire to have a deletion overturned. This is not the forum for this matter

Letter to Wikipedia Arbitration

I have written two books: one about my neighbor Movie Icon Lana Turner ... and the other about lonely misfit dog worshippers, "Is Pet Ownership Destroying the Lives of Americans?" My dog book created a firestorm of anger within the Pet Industry and among dog owners.

I have twice applied for consideration for inclusion in Wikipedia. Both times your reviewer "schuym" has sent me unusually tart (and unhelpful) replies to my Wikipedia requests.

Your reviewer "schuym" presents the appearance of expressing a deep-seated hostility against middle-aged women. Here is what "schuym" wrote to me last month:

"LEAVE ME ALONE Stop posting on my talk page! I will not review your new submission and I will not send it to another editor so leave me alone!"

I am asking your Arbitration group now for nothing more than honest useful feedback. Thank you for your consideration.

Attachment: my Wikipedia submission

---

<advert removed>

Alumnacarole (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete clear hoax. No one is this weird and needy. Oops, wrong forum, sorry.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I start.... well, probably by pointing out that a) Schuym has not made any comments to the complainant indicating any sort of bias; Schuym tagged the article for speedy deletion; it was deleted by User:Fritzpoll as an WP:CSD#A7, quite appropriately. Two print-on-demand books don't assert notability. Thus... this is a deletion review issue, not an admin issue. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Move to close, this isn't an admin issue, not to mention I call bullshit on this whole thing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm a little unclear about the probation and have a few questions if someone would oblige me...

1) Other than the general "Obama related-pages (broadly construed)", is there an actual list of which specific articles are covered under this probation?

2) Is there a specific length of time for the probation?

3) What specifically must happen (or not happen) to get the probation lifted?

4) What additional specific remedies are available to an article when it's put on probation, and how are they different from remedies available to an article not on probation?

Thanks. JBarta (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In order:

1. No. In order to prevent gaming of the system, a list of articles is intentionally not created. If a user is edit warring on any topic about Obama, in any article or talk page, it is taken as part of the probation.
2. No.
3. Nothing. Article probation is mostly designed as a heigtened state of alert for administrators to issue swifter warnings and blocks to stop repeated edit wars. There does not seem to be any compelling reason to allow more edit warring at Obama related topics. Ideally, the concepts of article probation (i.e. Don't Edit War And This Time We Really Mean It!) should apply across all articles. The probation exists more for admins to know to keep a special watch and a short leash on problematic edits; it is not a punishment for anyone. Positive editing and constructive discussions are not stifled or harmed by the probation, only edit warring and tendentious editing (see WP:EW and WP:TE for more info).
4. See Number 3.

This is my interpretation of the situation, I assume other admins will weigh in with their opinions on the matter. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So just to be clear, article probation is nothing more than a notice that the article is being monitored more closely. There are no special remedies and other than heightened awareness and less toleration of undesirable editing practices. There is no difference between the way an article on probation is administered vs. an article not on probation. Is that correct?

I mention this because I'm concerned that minority or unpopular viewpoints may be eagerly shut out in the name of keeping things running smoothly. I'm also a little disappointed that this probation is of unlimited time length with no "exit strategy" if you will. I'm getting the idea that such a probation is a foggy thing determined more by the whims of a majority of editors rather than some actual definable policy. Is that correct? JBarta (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron is correct. Article probation means "We are watching this article more closely than usual, if you're disruptive you may be yelled at or banhammered a little quicker than usual and possibly without warning." The application of administrative actions is left up to the judgement of administrators; there is relatively little difference except in the fact we may take less time to explain why edit warring is bad. Editors who are not being disruptive have nothing to worry about. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's becoming more clear to me, thank-you. I'm still unclear as to the length of time such probation is in effect. Maybe I'm confused because of the term "probation". A usual characteristic of probation is that it's imposed for a certain period of time or until certain conditions are met. Let me approach it this way... I would imagine that topics in the past have been put on, and subsequently taken off probation. If that's true, what were the circumstances that led to the probation being lifted? Or, should I assume that in Wikipedia "probation" is a permanent state? (I'm really not trying to be troublesome... just trying to understand and pin some of this stuff down a little.) JBarta (talk) 05:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the possible exception of the Obama probation, in my memory at Wikipedia, ALL of the other topics put on Article Probation have either been ethnic conflicts OR pseudoscience topics. Since none of these topics seems to have become less, um, conflicted in the real world there is probably little hope of them becoming less in need of probation at Wikipedia. When the Palestinian/Israeli conflict gets solved, it will probably become less necessary to watch the topic as closely. I don't see that happening in our lifetimes.

Now, I am conflicted by the purpose of your question... Is there some action being prevented by article probation that you think needs to occur, but cannot because of article probation? I am at a loss as to what reason an article probation should be lifted... Again, as I stated before, ideally ALL articles should be treated by the standards of article probation; but for practical reasons we can't watch them ALL that well. What would be the compelling reason to allow people to edit war or misrepresent sources or push outrageous points of view ever?!? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Obama article has quieted down significantly since the edit wars and POV campaigns of the election. It turns out that a large part of the disruption was caused by a single group of related sockpuppet accounts, and article probation arguably helped uncover and deal with them faster than had administrators not been minding the article. It is possible that article probation has reached the end of its usefulness. On the other hand, it may be too soon. It is a (twice) featured article about a person who arguably holds one of the few most important and public jobs in the world, so a heightened state of attention may be in order. Certain bad edits like vandalism, race and racism, soapboxing, etc., are bound to continue, and will have to be dealt with summarily if the article is to remain stable. At a minimum I would wait until after the inauguration to consider lifting probation. Yet I share the concern that keeping an article on probation sends a message that moves us away from normal editing process. I would take a wait and see approach. Wikidemon (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the "probation" may augment the already evident "group bias" in the Obama articles by eagerly dismissing persistant unpopular views or positions as disruptive. The "probation" may transmit the message "this is Obama country... go along to get along". I'm sure that's not the intent, but in a way, I fear that's one of the effects. I understand that extreme circumstances require more stringent policy, but when the trouble subsides, I hope we are as eager to roll back the stringent policy as we were to implement it. JBarta (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Sarah Palin-related articles are on essentially the same conditions of article probation as Obama-related articles. Kelly ^hi! 18:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Sanchez is also on article probation. Horologium (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jayron32's take on this, and I would also like to say that I'm not sure what precisely this thread is about. Jbarta's posts imply that article probation is a Bad Thing, something to be removed as soon as possible - like, say, page protection. But page protection, while offering protection against vandalism and edit-warring, also prevents good contributions. Article probation does not have such negative effects. It simply tells editors that they are not going to get away with disruptive conduct so easily, or for so long, as they might at other articles. From my experience at Talk:Barack Obama and Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, I do not think it is time to remove this probation. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It IS a bad thing in that it is a label that says "this article is special, beware". (See my post above regarding the negative consequences of this.) Given that there has not been a sanction in over two months and except for one, hasn't even been a post to the probation talk page in nearly a month, I would say the probation is not needed anymore. (If it was, there would still be a trickle of sanctions at the very least.) There may have been a good reason in the past leading up up to the election to take more extreme measures, but things have quieted down and there is no reason to single the Obama articles out for special treatment any longer. There are plenty of editors involved in the articles and normal remedies and procedures should be the rule as in any other article. JBarta (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could another administrator please take a look at ElectricRush (talk · contribs), especially this discussion and this article creation? He has been spamming user talk pages with invitations to this forum. He also had a link to that forum in his signature. He was asked several times to stop, and he has stopped that spamming, so far as I can tell, but I think that his creation of the article is just a continuation of the problem and warrants the block. Because he seems to think I'm stalking him and "threatening [him] with [my] power," so I'd like another administrator to act here. Thanks, either way (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not spam. He did post to several user’s talk pages but not more than once — Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, given that he has promised to stop adding the link in the discussion you link: [47], and as near as I can tell, he has kept his word and has stopped, I don't really see any reason to block... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check Science Debate Forum. He created that as an article just an hour ago. He said "I'll stop promoting the board" and I believe that creating the article about it is "promoting the board." either way (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've rolled back the pages he spammed it to. (Well, at least the ones where nobody had edited the page since him.) That site is linked from 18 pages, down from 64 before I rolled back the spam. I agree on no block if there are not repeat transgressions. It's worth keeping an eye on it though - if anyone else spams the forum, we can blacklist it. --B (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

either way. It’s a bit funny that you insist to get this user blocked even though he did respect your warrning and did not repeat the vandal act. You as an Admin should know better ;) — Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 02:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But he did repeat it by creating the article just an hour ago. He said he would not promote it further, but he promoted it further by creating the article just one hour ago. either way (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does the page he created have any link with the spamming he is doing to other talk pages? — Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...the article he wrote is about the forum he was spamming to everyone. Additionally, he added a "script" to send out invites to the forum about an hour and a half ago. either way (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiikkiiwriter, what are you doing exactly? Trying to take the Devil's Advocate position without actually informing yourself on the issue at hand is not constructive. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reqluce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Observe the first edit after coming off a one-month block for persistent incivility. It seems this editor is incapable of editing without using profanity of some sort. I have blocked this editor in the past so I would welcome input (or action) from uninvolved admins. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, did some check. He is really using some bad words while editing — Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's allowed to blank his talk page; although I agree the edit summary means we should probably keep a very close eye on him. Looking at the block log, I'd say the next block should be indefinite. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – QUACK! BANG! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TrentZee (talk · contribs) certainly appears to be another sockpuppet of community banned editor PoliticianTexas. Exact same MO, same articles, same changes. He removed the sock tag from his page, and laid low after it was posted. He's returned, I request an admin step in. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specific evidence that TrentZee (talk · contribs) is PoliticianTexas (talk · contribs) (PolTx for short). TrentZee has:

• edited Martin Chavez, an article that in the past few months has been edited primarily by PolTx socks Martinez07 (talk · contribs), Thomasalazar (talk · contribs), Evhs00 (talk · contribs), and BradlyRM (talk · contribs)
• edited Ben R. Luján which was edited by PolTx socks AlbuCrazy (talk · contribs) and Martinez07 (talk · contribs)
• characteristic misspelling "responce": TrentZee diff, LamyQ diff. LamyQ (talk · contribs) is known PolTx sock
• makes abusive edit comments (see edit comment field): TrentZee diff, TrentZee diff, TrentZee diff, DeLaCueva diff. DeLaCueva (talk · contribs) is known PolTx sock

--Uncia (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking. Very obvious sock, thanks for the evidence. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – user blocked for 72 hours, link should perhaps be blacklisted? dougweller (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:66.177.169.53User talk:66.177.169.53 is a single purpose account that has engaged in repeatedly spamming articles concerning serial killer and related articles with a link to a "Murderabilia" website. The IP has been warned repeatedly about this, with a final warning given here, after which the IP returned the link to three articles here, here and here. I'm asking for a block for violating WP:SPAM and ignoring repeated warnings. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's because I edit kids' educational TV articles that I keep finding this type of editor...the probably-too-young-to-be-here, well-meaning-but-in-over-their-head user. First it was my goodbuddy Sim12, and now we have Mayme08. I have just de-watchlisted Betsy's Kindergarten Adventures rather than have my head asplode as I try to explain what's wrong with edits such as this (hint--take a peek at the airdate) and then, when I attempt to explain what the problems are, receive this as a response. I have enough to do in real life--among several other Sisyphean tasks, I'm currently teaching my 79-year-old mother how to use a computer for the first time--so I'm going to have to ask that others deal with this user. Please and thank you...GJC 05:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some format-changing and posted some info on her talk page, but this article should be heavily watchlisted for the next few weeks. I left the episode summaries and the season 2 info she added in. I started a discussion about the episode summaries on the article talk page and tagged the "season 2" with a {{crystal}} tag. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 06:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's safe to still watch it, GJC> I just stopped in and removed more cruft. ThuranX (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – No admin action possible - not an EN WP matter

Note: I would post on the admin's talkpage on Wikipedia but he banned me for just asking a simple question on his talkpage on Wikitionary (more on this later) so I am afraid if I ask him a question on WP then he will ban me from here to.

I made my first ever edit on wiktionary tonight on the normalcy article, which you can see here: [48] Pretty harmless right? Well it is reverted within three minutes by User:EncycloPetey [49]. He later says that my edit was "erroneous". I even had a source to support it, which was old granted but I haven't seen anything to dispute it. He says that my source doesn't count and apparently you can't change anything unless you have admin-approved sources, which was the first I've heard of such a strict policy. If that policy is true, and User:EncycloPetey never gave me a link to the policies of Wikitionary or a link to a help guide even though it was my first edit, then it should be scrapped because it basically means that whoever edits first gets their version set in stone. So I ask User:EncycloPetey how my edit was factually incorrect and why it warranted such a swift reversion? He refuses to answer and keeps putting OR back onto the article. We got into a minor edit war and sure enough after his third reversion he immediately locks the article so only admins can edit. Ahh... the benefits of being in power, but that's not really my main gripe with this admin. He tells me to not post on his talkpage again (I had only posted on his talkpage two times before [50]) because I guess he doesn't like answering for his actions. I ask him again without insulting him or anything and he bans me for a day (I had to look up on my own how long I was suspended for because he didn't tell me). He posts on my talkpage [51] that once the ban expires to still avoid posting on his talkpage and to take it to the Tea Room (I guess I am not worthy of being able to ask simple questions). His rationale for my ban is: "Disruptive edits: Harassment after being asked to stay away". Look at all of my edits and you tell me if they are disruptive [52] [53] (I wasn't logged in at first because I didn't anticipate any problems with my simple edit). So basically this admin made no attempt to compromise, restored OR without explaining why, got into an edit war, blocked the article so he could get the last laugh, was heavy-handed and acted too swiftly by banning me for a day for asking a simple question that he kept avoiding, failed to welcome a new user, and failed to post links to the policies that he said I should follow (I still haven't seen them). Sorry if this is in the wrong place. --Tocino 08:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]