Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Shortcuts WP:ANI WP:AN/I This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Hello. Today I requested that the redirect "Dum Dum Diddle" be deleted per CSD G6, since I created a new version here. However, administrator Nyttend declined the speedy with the explanation here. The problem is that initially the "temp" page was dedicated to another article, "One Man, One Woman", which was previously restored by User:Juliancolton per my request. This is why the page history has to be separated before performing the move, and after the move, a history merge is required. I hope I managed to clarify the situation. Best, Qweedsa (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, could you explain that a bit more clearly? Fences&Windows 22:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the whole reason that I declined, since the request wasn't clear. Nyttend (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can see what he's done. The article on the song One Man, One Woman was created by User:Insaneace1 on 20 March 2007. It was AfD'd in Feb 2009 with a keep result on 14 Feb, but User:LtPowers redirected it to The Album. On 1 June 2010 Juliancolton transfered a copy of the article, including all the history, to user:qweedsa/temp so qweedsa could write an article about the single One Man,One Woman. However, qweedsa couldn't find any sources to establish notability, so he decided to scrub the page content and turn it into an article on another Abba track (from Arrival), called Dum Dum Diddle. The page Dum Dum Diddle already exists as a redirect to Arrival (ABBA album), because User:Insaneace1 also tried to create a page for this track, and an AfD resulted in a redirect to the album.

queedsa wants you to delete the current redirect page, so he can move his article into mainspace. The two reasons that you shouldn't do it are:-

1. It will make an enormous screw up out of the history, as qeedsa's article started out as a different topic, and the current redirect has a previous article in its history
2. IT STILL ISN'T NOTABLE.It was only released in Argentina, it never charted, and the only place that it gets a mention (and the only source for the article) is the sleeve liner notes for the album.

Hope this helps.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elen of the Roads, your comment rightly describes the situation in a clearer way. But I would ask you NOT to distort my nickname (thank you).

It will not make an enormous screw up out of the history, it is nothing but a history separate-and-merge. If I had been a sysop, I could have done it myself, since I am familiar with MediaWiki administrative interface.

Your claim that the subject of the article is still isn't notable is here inappropriate, because this is not an AfD discussion.

Best, Qweedsa (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is Wikipedia's test for whether or not there should be an article on the subject. If you want there to be an article, this is exactly the right place to discuss it. Having reviewed the article and sources, I would agree that the single isn't notable. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Now I see that, according to WP:MUSIC, itself the fact a song was released as a single does not make it notable. So what kind of sources should be provided to let the article exist? Qweedsa (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qweedsa, apologies for spelling your name wrong one time. You would need to either meet the requirements of WP:MUSIC or else of WP:GNG - non-trivial coverage in reliable sources.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of other sources, Qweedsa, you might want to consider adding to the Arrival article the material that's sourced to the album notes. This material would then be attributed to you in the History. If other sources are later found, a stand-alone article can then be written about the single. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've moved the content of the "temp" page to the album article. Thank you for advice — and apologies for wasting your time. Best, Qweedsa (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A handful of editors have for a while now been running delinking scripts across hundreds of pages on the project, which have the effect of removing internal wikilinks to terms that are described as "common". The cited justification is the wording of the wp:overlink guidelines, which does indeed suggest not linking terms that are common, but with a specific exception to that when they are relevant to the topic. The guideline of course does also stress navigability as being a key aim behind wikilinking. I first noticed this a couple of months back, when one of the editors stripped links to France from the article on French wine. Broadly I agree that there is probably too much redundant and trivial linking on articles and I would support most of the removals in most cases, but I have occasionally tried to raise the issue with those editors when I've noticed problems with the effects of these semi-automated removals. Very occasionally I and others have restored the odd link, often in turn to find that one of those editors comes back to remove it again.

Anyway, there does not seem to be any broad consensus for this "campaign" or for the running of scripts, or as to what terms would be seen as "common" or "well known" enough for links to them to be removed on each and every occasion they occur, regardless of context. There has been a lot of discussion on this (see my talk page, WT:LINK). Perhaps the wider issue is something that needs to go to an RfC, but in the short term there does seem to be a need for admin intervention. One editor, Tony1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), recently ploughed through around 60 articles on Australian TV programmes, stripping out not only every link to Australia - which may or may not be a good thing - but also removing links to items in the Categories and See Also sections and hence messing up the format of the page, eg with this edit. I raised this on their talk page, pointing out the mistakes, here. They simply deleted my comment (their edit summary refers back to a previous talk page thread, where they had previously made light of genuine requests from both myself and another editor to be more careful and manually review the results of their script). They have since made no effort to correct their mutiple errors - instead one of the only two article edits they have made since then rather pointedly involved themheading off to a page they surely know I have on my watchlist, the Champagne article, to remove links, at least one of which I had previously restored some time ago.

The other reason that admin intervention of some sort is perhaps warranted is that we seem to be heading down a similar road to the one that ended up here over the delinking of dates, with many of the names involved oddly familiar. N-HH talk/edits 16:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the example you gave is characteristic, this is a total mess. Tony1 should stop until he can get proper consensus for this or at least exercise some common sense and double-checking on these script edits. The crusade against overlinking seems to be removing perfectly valid links (including category links) indiscriminately. Fences&Windows 17:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no problem with the de-linking of common everyday words and places. I have not seen Tony1 de-link a word I think should be linked.  Giacomo  17:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: I don't have problems with most of the removals. There are, despite that, occasional issues about removing for example each and every link to France from pages about things from France - issues that several other editors have commented on over the past few months - but these are not the point either of my post here on ANI. The problem here, as noted in my post and the one example diff provided, is with removals that are manifestly wrong, and which muck up formatting and take pages out of categories, and then with an editor deleting and ignoring comments that bring it to their attention. If Tony won't sort out an obvious problem when I point it out to him - and then makes an edit to another page clearly designed to needle me - I'm going to go and ask for help. Our interactions to date have been largely friendly, albeit based on slightly heated disagreements at times (see my talk page), by the way - this is not a personal spat of any sort. N-HH talk/edits 18:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was Tony was never specifically sanctioned regarding future automated delinking? That would seem to have been an oversight if true. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Tony1 topic banned, an indef from guidelines on date linking, and via Tony1 restricted a 1-year ban from reverting said linking in articles. Curious timing that the latter expired only yesterday, though. Tarc (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, then, it is an oversight. It should have been apparent at the time that any restrictions of this sort would be followed to the letter and not the spirit. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not an oversight -- if you look down a bit in that case, at least one person was banned from any script-assisted editing, so it's plainly a remedy that was considered, but rejected, in Tony's case. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted a whole bunch of his recent script-assisted edits -- while a couple of the ones I reverted were valid, the vast majority left non-links in the See Also sections or unlinked categories. Someone else might want to do a few more of these, as they're kind of messy.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should never use the rollback feature to revert good faith edits! Rollback is for reverting vandalism, you should have used the Undo function or fixed the edits (which I've tried to do by the reverting has made it harder then it would have been). Bidgee (talk) 05:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents... the delinking campaign causes these issues largely because of a dogged insistence on the part of the handful of editors doing the majority of delinking that their opinions are the only valid opinions, and that anyone who disagrees with them is just plain wrong, wants to link everything, and so on. (I'll freely admit that Tony and I have been at loggerheads over this for ages now, stemming back to his unilateral rewrite of the "What to link" and "What not to link" sections of the linking guideline in July 2008.) The reality is that while many people do agree with the notion that there is overlinking - multiple links to the same article, overly simplistic words linked, and so on - there is no established consensus regarding the use of these scripts, the haste with which the scripts are being used, and the insistence that non-linkworthy "common terms" include a wide range of cities, countries, major world events, religions and the like that Tony et al feel readers "should know". Moreover, the list of "common terms" is presented as nigh-on policy, but is actually not even easily accessible by other editors as it is buried in the depths of the delinking script. As I've said repeatedly, there is certainly merit in cleaning up the truly overlinked material. However, the problems we're facing are centred on the opinions driving this campaign, which has seen arguments that (for example) New York City is not a valid link in an article about that city's subway system, and that the article Canada does not warrant a single link to United States. Editors who disagree are told that the delinking is all about "improving the reader's experience", but are also told that readers who want to find these "common terms" are expected to use the search box instead of a link. Sadly, this is at its core yet another MoS-related dogfight, with much fervour on the part of the participants and little or no interest (or even awareness) from the community as a whole. We need to determine a consensus as to what the larger body wants, not just what the MoS gnomes feel like arguing over, and it should be resolved before the actions are taken on such a wide scale, not after. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a fair summary of the problem. We might need an RfC to sort this out, and Tony1 could be heading for a block for disruptive editing, or another sanction against using scripts. Fences&Windows 22:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC would probably be the best approach for a long-term resolution, and I personally would prefer to see some form of restriction on the use of the script; at the very least, the "common terms" list should be discussed and also made easily accessible for input and change by any editor. As for the idea of a block, even without the personal involvement I'd be reluctant to endorse such a move at this point in time as I think that Tony1 honestly feels he is doing the right thing. We do need to develop an understanding of how the larger community wishes to approach linking, instead of leaving it to the handful of editors who have the patience to sift through the guideline discussion pages. Hopefully, by adding more voices to the discussion, we can find common ground and move forward instead of the "all or nothing" approach currently in play. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (Disclosure: I'm a pretty good Wikifriend of Tony, and I was a party in the date delinking Arbcom case) Tony has actually been running these scripts for some time now, and for the the substance of his edits has not been challenged by most editors. If you look through his recent talk page archives, most of the complaints about his link edits are of a technical nature (the removal of categories cited is an example of the glitches). It's fair to say Tony is rushing these edits somewhat, and needs to test the scripts first before using them on articles. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have just woken up to this. I don't know why my last twiddle to the script started unlinking the odd category—I will fix the problem, technically. It's the first time this has ever occurred. The venom expressed above is part of a campaign by two users, CKatz and N-HH, at WP:LINK—put simply, they have tried over some time but have not a hope of gaining consensus to have the guideline changed so that every instance of common English-speaking countries, and world cities such as New York and London, must be linked on every occasion. CKatz, in particular, has been kicking up dust about once every six week—it's quite regular. No, Fences and Windows, what CKatz says here is far from "a fair summary", and you are way out of line talking about blocks. Get your facts right about "topic bans", Tarc and Chris Cunningham—you're patently wrong, and I expect retractions. And your accusation about "timing" is laughably irrelevant to those facts. Where did you get your information from? Please read it properly. SarekOfVulcan, why did you revert "valid" edits? That seems to show a herd mentality. Tony (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC) PS And I had no clear idea from N-HH's post on my talk page yesterday that there was a technical glitch. It was a gigantic post, as usual, wrongly accusing me of edit-warring. I usually remove such posts from him and Ckatz. If the post had been a short paragraph with a diff to an example of the glitch, I'd have taken immediate action. But no, it was the usual diatribe. This page is turning into just what N-HH and Ckatz want: a diatribe—all over a glitch that can be fixed and, in repaired by me in the articles involved (almost all small, marginal and probably not often visited). Tony (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony's post above - "every instance of common English-speaking countries, and world cities such as New York and London, must be linked on every occasion" - is a perfect example of the misrepresentation used as a means of shutting down anyone who complains about the removal of wikilinks. With respect to the spurious claim listed above, N-HH and I are both on record as saying that is clearly not true, and Tony has repeatedly been asked to please stop misrepresenting opposing positions. I find it very frustrating that someone who is himself very quick to make accusations of incivility can be so uncivil in this way. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have a dog in this fight but here is my two cents anyway. Since WP is a globally accessed website, used by millions of users from grade school to Doctoral scholars and all in between with various levels of understanding of he english language I recommend caution when employing the term "Common terms". What is common to you or I may not be common at all to others and I for one find it rather handy to simply click on the link and be wisked away to the related article. To me the bother over do we link or not link is a 2 dimensional argument in a 3 dimensional Wikipedia. Can it be annoying to read through an article with sea of blue links? Certainly, but does it hurt anything? My opinion is that it does not and in my opinion there are far better things to spend ones time with such as expanding the content of the thousands of stubs or creating some of the hundreds of articles that have been created. Anyway, thats all the comment I have and I will leave you to your discussions. --Kumioko (talk) 02:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to conduct such a discussion, which should be at WP:LINK. Please read the title of this section.Tony (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Venom? Hysteria? Diatribes? Please calm down Tony. I don't see any evidence of that from anyone else here. Yes, you could have repaired the glitch, but you didn't. Even when I came to your talk page, with a diff, and pointed out the problem, which affected multiple pages. You just deleted my post, and now admit you did that without even reading it, something that you are now trying to somehow blame me for. And of course another editor had just the day before, on a different talk page, advised you to take more care to review the effects of your scripts. And now you're accusing someone who actually took the time to come and correct your multiple errors of exhibiting a "herd mentality", after I came here asking for help and they responded. Just to correct a couple of points -

• I have never IIRC ever posted to your talk page before this. Even if I had, your proud assertion that you "usually remove such posts [without reading them]" hardly deserves commendation. People can also see that you often come to my talk page, and that I not only read what you say, but that I supply you with substantive answers
• As both myself and Ckatz have pointed out - even in this very thread - neither of us have ever asked for "every instance" of certain cities and countries to be linked. Do you not read those bits either?
• You say there is no hope of changing what wp:link says. How would you know, since you've never asked for any wider community input on your delinking campaign? Plus of course, I don't want it changed. I want it adhered to, eg where is says "Think before removing a link—it may be useful to other readers" and where it says common terms can/should still be linked where they are "relevant to the topic of the article"
• Tarc seems to have broadly accurately summed up the ArbCom ruling against you. What did they get wrong?

Anyway, as you correctly note, and I acknowledged from the outset, this is not the forum for a wider debate about linking per se. It was however the right place to come to get help in correcting outright errors introduced by your script over multiple pages, and to get you to perhaps at least take more care in future to review the impact it has on pages. Problem seems resolved, for now. N-HH talk/edits 05:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's crap like this that makes me seriously wonder if we'd be better off without a Manual of Style. So far, it's one benefit has been to bring an end to the AD/CE edit wars, & its drawback has been to enable one small group to create policy without involving the rest of this community, then force it on a surprised majority thru bots & arrogance, acts that have ignited a larger number of disruptive edit wars. -- llywrch (talk) 06:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A minor point. Revert can be used to reverse the effect of a malfunctioning bot. Regardless of whether Tony's edits are appropriate, we all agree that Tony's edits have the effect of a malfunctioning bot; he's not checking, or he would have noticed the unlinking from within the #See also sections, and the unlinking of categories. (Note that I've opposed Tony on a number of issues in the past, not including this particular one on WP:LINK.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1 was using a script but I see no evidence of him running a bot, but more like using a script and making the mistake of not looking at the changes. Fact is some of the edits broke nothing and most did take out [[]] in some Also see links and categories but with the reverts the articles which didn't have any problems were not checked by the reverter. I took an hour of my time to undo and fix these problems and everyone going "he did it, he should fix it" is unhelpful, rude and goes against what Wikipedia is about. Bidgee (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The MoS is, in general, an enormous benefit to the project. It's editors who use it as a power mechanism who are problematic. There really aren't that many of them, and the project should be able to deal with them without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whom are you accusing of using the MoS as a power mechanism? If it's me, I'll take it up by filing against you in a separate venue. I have seen no retraction of your aggressive behaviour above, nor an admission that is it based on false claims. This page is discredited, as far as I'm concerned: it is being used as a forum for malcontents who want maximal, undisciplined linking, including Arthur Rubin above. Tony (talk) 08:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Malcontents who want maximal, undisciplined linking"?!? Tony, can you please, please, just consider for a moment the possibility that you may have pushed this too far, too fast? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to consider compromising your personal goals - even just a little bit - in order to accomodate other viewpoints? Surely that would better reflect the collaborative spirit than does this name-calling directed against editors who disagree with you, or the repeated attempts to discredit their opinions? --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more; except that they are not "personal" goals, I do discuss other viewpoints, and my view is a compromise. Tony (talk) 09:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you have a point, CC. However, whenever I have been in doubt about the best style to use in an article I simply use my copy of the MLA Style Manual; I find nothing useful in the MoS -- except examples of how not to behave on Wikipedia. While arguing for its deletion it might be one of those proposals akin to requiring an account to edit Wikipedia or ranting against WP:IAR, a serious & well-supported nomination at AfD might be the cluebat needed to reach through certain thick skulls.

And to our threat-making friend: if the shoe fits, don't whine. -- llywrch (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If NHH had actually drawn Tony's attention to the actual errors in Tony's script - as he should have done on his talk page, rather than getting caught up in trying to sort out old scores - I sincerely believe we would not be here now. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, in what way is "I quickly looked at some of these, and noticed that many of them have removed links to items in the "Categories" and "See also" sections, which also of course has messed up the formatting." not drawing Tony's attention to the errors in the script? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sigh. It seems OC followed Tony's lead and didn't read what I wrote. Also, I was not "settling old scores". I was noting - and explaining - a disagreement with him over his edits that same day to the Dubai article, in the first separate bullet point, while letting him know I would back off from any pointless edit war. The notice about script errors was the first sentence in the second bullet point. I then, yes, expanded on that to point out broader and less immediately obvious problems with the script. N-HH talk/edits 14:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any speed reader will tell you that the simple lesson in making sure you point doesn't get missed is to keep it concise, and not to bury it with chaff. The issue NHH raised with Dubai is old hat which he has been banging on for ages, and could have been done en passant at the end if he wasn't content with leaving it at WP:Linking; while the important, if it was indeed important, messed up formatting should have been mention up front and with a diff - yes, links do heighten perception. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • What's speed reading got to do with anything? And the Dubai issue is not "old hat". It was an edit of mine from the day before, correcting what appeared to me to be a previous poor edit from Tony, which he had then reverted again, hence why I approached him about it. I've never edited or commented on the Dubai page before. Nor had I been on his talk page before. Having noted that Tony had been responsible for creating gaps in the infobox links, I then looked at his other recent contributions, and saw the outright errors being put into the TV pages. Hence the "two points" raised on his talk page, bullet-pointed, with the Dubai one first. You know the effort to paint Tony as some kind of victim, and me as being engaged in some kind of political stunt against him by coming here, might actually carry some weight if we choose to ignore the rather salient point that he simply deleted a clear and straightforward message on his talk page alerting him to script errors. Sarek's quoted it above - what's not to understand there? Simply taking responsibility for what happened, rather than saying I didn't express myself properly or whatever, and then raving at everyone who has commented here, would seem to have been the more sensible and less drama-inducing way forward for Tony and others. N-HH talk/edits 14:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re reverts: An use of script without monitoring the changes is functionally equivalent to a bot, and should be treated the same way, except that the user should be warned before blocking, while bots may be "warned" after blocking. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Can it be annoying to read through an article with a sea of blue links? Certainly, but does it hurt anything?"[1] Yes, it does; it hurts the reader's capacity for attention to the high-value links, and even his/her ability to find and distinguish them. It drowns them in the sea of blue. Tony's well-judged (in my opinion) removal of low-value links has the function of making the high-value links much more visible and useful. That's what wikilinks were designed to be: carefully selected for their helpfulness; inviting, and relevant.

I don't see any need for admin intervention here. Tony has stated that he intends to fix the problem, which is not major, as soon as possible. Please give him a chance to do so, rather than rush in to do it for him; his userpage indicates that he's Australian, and it may be a little much to expect editors to work through the middle of the night. Bishonen | talk 23:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

First off, the "sea of blue" term that is so often used in this matter is a bit of a misnomer; the disputes arise over a handful of links here and there, whereas the "SoB story" muddies the water by implying that we're disagreeing over articles that are packed with dozens of links. Secondly, it is clear that there is a real problem in the overall attitude involved in this matter. Tony, for one, has in the course of this one ANI discussion demonstrated a clear disdain for any editors and admins who try to question his methods. Already, he has labelled N-HH, Arthr Rubin, and myself as "malcontents", accused Tarc of misleading ANI readers and being "biased and possibly involved in muddying the waters", and claimed Thumperward's post here was "aggressive, partisan, personalised, uncivil, threatening, and based on false information". That's just three examples from this one incident, and I could easily list numerous similar incidents from related discussions about the issue. At what point do we say enough is enough? --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the point where we find something more useful to get on with? --John (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware civility issues were subject to convenience. Also, given that Lightmouse is now back from an Arbcom-imposed block for script-related issues, it would be helpful to establish a clear understanding of what the community expects in terms of this large-scale script-based work. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

? Don't tell me you're lobbying ANI for a block for that stuff? Are we done here? Bishonen | talk 00:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I've never suggested that; it was someone else who mentioned a block. However, it seems clear to me that some form of resolution is required, or else this just drags on, and on, and on... --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I am very sorry to see how easily ANI can be used for a political stunt by N-HH, Ckatz, and now Arthur Rubin et al. That is exactly what has happened here. We don't want ANI to lose credibility as a forum for dealing with difficult behavioural problems: this could have been solved immediately if the message had been clearly expressed and diffed on my page in the first place. The admins who have leaped in here on the bandwagon should think twice about their actions: they are giving every appearance of partisanship, which degrades this page. Tony (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, you've made all sorts of accusations, none of which you've substantiated. Now, instead of simply responding to the concerns that have been repeatedly expressed, you are trying to sidestep this discussion by claiming it is some sort of coordinated "stunt"? Look, I don't care much if you choose to ignore my concerns; I'm certainly used to that by now. However, there are people who have made observations here who are new to the fray; can you at least consider the possibility that they might have a point? --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ckatz, I think we have a melt-down in process here. Out of sheer nosiness, I took a look at the last 50-100 edits Tony1 made & was gobsmacked by the wild accusations he posted, mostly concerning WP:NPA, on the Talk pages of almost every person who whom he believes was critical about his behavior in this thread. Anyone who considers her/himself a friend of Tony might want to have a quiet word with him about taking a WikiBreak before he loses it & repeats the bizarre exit of a former editor. -- llywrch (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe any uninvolved observer will agree with me: this is not going to end pleasantly. Not for those involved, & I strongly doubt for the rest of Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 04:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, Llywrch, you're well-known as a partisan on the issue of overlinking. You continue to dramatise the issue and attempt to smear me, which is the cynical reason it was brought here in the first place. The place to discuss the wider issues of overlinking is at WT:LINK. I rest my case that this is a political stunt. Tony (talk) 06:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but how is Llywrch "partisan"? Could you please provide links to support this claim; it is possible I missed it, but I really don't recall Llywrch being involved in the discussions regarding this matter at the link guideline page. (Nor do I see Llywrch listed as contributing at the guideline page or talk page over at least the past year.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for goodness sake, what nonsense. Let it go. Lay off Tony and find something useful to do... --Epipelagic (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Lay off Tony"? Sorry, but I must have missed the memo that said long-term editors can do what they want, when they want, in whatever way they want. Maybe we should add that to WP:CIVIL: "If you've been here for a long time, have your way with the place, rules be damned." It is illuminating to note this recent edit to Tony's delinking script: the edit summary for delinking operations now reads simply as "copyedits" instead of "rem gratuitous links". Again, since when is this sort of conduct acceptable? --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony made a mistake with the script, which is easily done, and he's an editor who can be trusted to fix whatever errors he makes (and we all make them). This seems a bit of an over-reaction. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the script error "easily done"? Yes, of course. We've certainly all made mistakes, and we'll no doubt do so again and again. The difference is in how we respond to our mistakes, how we repair the damage and move forward. You say you trust Tony to "fix whatever errors he makes"; I have to be perfectly honest and state that based on my interactions with him over the past few years, I do not share that confidence. I've witnessed too many instances where I have found Tony to say one thing and mean another, too many debates where he has repeatedly misrepresented my (and other editors) positions, too many times when he has simply ignored any concerns raised about his actions and instead attacked the messenger. He's certainly done it again this time, as witnessed by his posts to Tarc, Thumperward and Fences and Windows's talk pages. That is why I find the change to the script to be a direct example of the problematic attitude: instead of actually addressing the concerns raised here and elsewhere over these actions, he's just changed the edit summary to disguise the actions in question. Frankly, the script error appears to have been a catalyst for finally bringing some of these problems into the light and thus up for discussion. --Ckatz^chat_spy 11:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure other people are tiring of Ckatz's personal and political vendetta against me. She knows that writing huge posts further dramatises what was a trivial matter. I won't even bother responding to it. My talk page, and that of other users, has been the usual venting point for both Ckatz and N-HH. I think it should be kept to WP:LINKING, and that it should avoid the personal.Tony (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, let me be absolutely clear. I do feel that you have done a lot of good work on Wikipedia, and I see no reason why that cannot be the case for a long time to come. However, the fact you "won't even bother responding" when others raise concerns about your style is at the heart of the matter here. So, too, is attempting to trivialize these concerns. You claim that this is some sort of "vendetta" (your words, certainly not my motivation) yet you refuse to answer even the most basic of questions. For example, you claimed Llywrch is "partisan", but have not responded to a request to support that claim. You've just said that N-HH uses your talk page as a usual venting point" - but the talk page history says that N-HH's first post (of only two) to your talk page was on June 15, 2010. I, for one, find those sort of actions troubling. --Ckatz^chat_spy 11:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you want to achieve here, Ckatz. Tony acknowledged his error with the script. That apart, I see strong consensus to remove the sea of blue that Wikipedia articles have been for too many years, but if there's disagreement about the extent of it, that's best discussed at WT:LINK. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe that Tony has done a lot of good work however he has also displayed obvious contempt and has also done a lot of contreversial things as a result of his strong beliefs. The problem I see here personally os not just one of wether the edits were valid or not but more importantly how he responded to criticism of them. Once he locks his teeth into something in WP that he perceives as as problems such as date delinking or common term delinking (also evidenced by the previous ban that was levied in him from date delinking). It should be made clear to him that this is not Tonypedia, it is Wikipedia and is a community effort. It is not his sole responsibility to make the project right in his eyes and if consensus determines that he is out of line then he should accept that without bullying them into conformity, insulting them or ignoring them completely. As an example here is a link to one of the articles I pulled up at random that he had edited with his script [2]. In this edit he broke links to categories leaving them stranded at the bottom of the article, changed date formats from one to another for no reason, and removed links to Australia and Sydney. Know the latter could be argued as common terms however using myself as an example I don't know much about Australia or Sydney being from the US and although I have heard of them, after reading the paragraph I fealt myself compelled to click on the Sydney link, but it was not there. Certainly if these were linked a number of times in the article I would agree with tony and say that one is enough, but to not have them linked at all, to me, is wrong. --Kumioko (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ckatz, re Llywrch being "partisan": you need only search the WT:MOS and WT:MOSNUM archives to see that he has been at odds with Tony before (they also had a brief debate at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-02-08/Dispatches, but no fireworks there). Does that make Llywrch less qualified to participate in this discussion? No, but he cannot be labeled a neutral and uninvolved admin in this discussion. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was that Tony did not reverse the error, even when it was pointed out to him - he deleted my message, and then went off to edit other articles. That's why I came here, to get the problem solved. And, as pointed out, I have never posted on his talk page previously, so this "venting" allegation is a little off-beam. Examples of "venting" on others' talk pages are, as also noted, far more easily found in Tony's recent contributions history. As Tarc, Chris Cunningham and others can attest. Equally, this thread has also had the beneficial effect of shining a little light on the wider issues with scripts, and with Tony's attitude to criticism or queries of his behaviour. Can probably be shut off now though. N-HH talk/edits 14:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Tony1, yes I'm involved but if I were posting here solely out of "partisan" interest I would have hardly suggested that a friend talk to you & suggest you take a WikiBreak. Your bullying & intimidating posts I alluded to above are a gift to anyone whose primary motivation would be to block you; instead I made a far friendlier suggestion. (And resisted the temptation to call you "buddy boy" -- which offends you for some obscure reason; it must have some offensive connotation in Aussie slang.) The issue is not that there are duplicate or unneeded links in many articles, but how you handle contrary opinions, how you interact with other users. No one is so valuable to Wikipedia that they should be allowed to respond to criticism as tony1 has done. -- llywrch (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That is just the opinion of a very partisan user. When a user here talks immediately of blocking me for getting something wrong in a script, and calling edits such as diff 19 "a total mess", that is, indeed, bullying. It may suit you to label my objection to it as bullying, but you are partisan. Kumioko, diff 19 you link to has significantly improved the article, and brings it into compliance with the style guides in three respects: dashes, correct date format, and common-term links. The fact that two links in the See also section were erroneously unlinked is a trivial matter to fix once it's pointed out, not "a total mess". Here, it is being whipped up into hysteria by people who want to smear me. N-HH, I have already explained why I missed your point on my talk page. It has been fixed by someone else in all of the articles (after Vulcan went through and damaged many of the edits). I'd have fixed them myself gladly had I been properly apprised of it rather than presented with a long diatribe on my page. That should have been the end of it. But there will be continuing posts to keep the drama boiling over. Tony (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  No, Tony, edits such as diff 19 were not a total mess, having 30 other edits around it with the same blessed mistake was the total mess. Running around calling everyone who criticizes your actions "partisan" is bullying. Stop, please. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I was bullying you? Please, don't be so melodramatic. I'm not 'partisan', I just object to careless editing with scripts and removing valid links. Fences&Windows 21:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was this a bit of a cock up? yes. Is the thing fixed now? I believe it is. Is Tony sufficiently chastened? undoubtedly. We're not well served by speculation whether this might be a politically motivated thread, but it seems to be over and done with. We should move on. --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the technical issue resolved? Well, changes were made to the code, although one of the changes does appear to be aimed at simply obscuring the controversial actions. However, we have to ask if the fundamental behavioural issue has been addressed. Given the general tone of Tony1's recent talk page posts, I would suggest it has not. Even today, after all the comments here regarding his attitude from editors who are not involved in the linking discussions, he's still describing people who question his methodology as "extreme". That doesn't strike me as "chastened" in the least. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the point is not to chasten anyone, it's just to make sure that Tony's scripts don't damage articles.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what else should be done? Obviously, "chastening" Tony in this manner seems to have an adverse effect. The scripts have been fixed. If there are further problems, it may be more productive to continue discussions at another venue, such as Tony's talk page, WT:LINKING, or an RFC(/U). Dabomb87 (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, the problem here is not in removing redundant or unneeded links, but in Tony1's inapproriate response to criticism. Such as this post on Chris Cunningham's talk page, where he began to repeatedly make hostile accusations confusing CC with Fences & windows -- despite CC's repeated protests -- until DaBomb87 stepped in to confirm CC's protests that he hadn't said anything Tony1 accused him of. Then there was this exchange with Tarc where Tony1 started ranting when Tarc addressed him in a friendly manner as "buddy boy"; Tony1 responded by accusing him of "rank rudeness" & rhetorically asked if he had read the policy about civility. And then there is this comment to SarekofVulcan, complaining about SoV's "partisan" involvement & failing to retract SoV's statements. He did all of this without any participation from me. While Tony1 has subsesquently apologized to Chris Cunningham & Fences & windows for his comments to them, he has left both Tarc & SarekofVulcan wondering just WTF was up with Tony1, & likely gun-shy over dealing with him again. (And I won't bother mentioning his interaction with Ckatz or N-HH; some might believe his words to them justified.)

So what are our options here? Maybe someone who is a friend to him could explain just how he is his own worst enemy, because AFAICS no one in this thread wants an article to be "a sea of blue links", but he's acted in ways I've linked to which would have resulted with another editor being indefinitely blocked. And if I discover another interaction where he's acted this badly, despite an apparently conflict of interst, I will block him. -- llywrch (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I react very badly when I feel I'm being unfairly attacked and bullied: it sharply rekindles the pain and misery I experienced when relentlessly bullied as a child. I usually point out to the person involved that I feel they are being aggressive. Tony (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's as may be, but the case is that you have been the one doing the attacking here and on the talk pages of people who have commented, as well as simply making stuff up. You're still at it, with this post to User:Fences & Windows, which accuses myself and Ckatz of "belly aching" and "holding extreme views". At least you seem to finally have rowed back from the misrepresentation of my views as "wanting to link everything", although only to the extent that you now merely claim I used to think that, but have since been persuaded otherwise, which is equally untrue. You also allege that I "do not accept the rules set out in the style guide". Well actually of course I do - especially the bits that say "think before removing a link—it may be useful to other readers", and which says links to common terms can/should be kept where relevant. You seem to have that issue slightly upside down. That's on top of your previous accusations that I vent on your talk page - when I'd never posted there previously to my attempt to notify you of the outright errors your script had introduced. You know, the note you deleted and ignored, which is why we ended up here, even though it's apparently my fault you chose to delete it.

And, for the record, and as the preceding shows, Tony's attacks on myself and Ckatz are as unjustified as the attacks on everyone else. Again, for the record, if anyone cares to see what happens when Tony comes to my talk with questions or points, they can have a look at the threads here, which do include, yes, the retraction of and an apology for one catty comment, but where the interaction is broadly friendly and my attitude responsive. By contrast, if anyone wants to see unsolicited actual "venting" on a talk page, they can also find it on my talk page, in this section, third comment. Finally, as evidence of my "extreme views" - which mostly consist of asking questions - people can look here, where any discussion of wider linking issues should, as agreed, also now take place, now the out-and-out problem raised here has been dealt with. N-HH talk/edits 15:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note It appears that there may be another issue with the delinking script. Tony made a pass through the article Wales here; the changes deleted linked languages (such as Welsh, English, etc) but did not replace them with unlinked text. This left several mangled sentences that had to be manually repaired by myself and another editor. I've left a note for Tony on his talk page, but I'm not aware if he is still online at this time. Given the fact that this script is accessed by several other editors, it might be necessary for someone with good scripting skills to check over it to prevent similar problems until Tony responds. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony blocked

I just blocked him indefinitely, since these uncorrected errors followed so closely on the discussion above. Any admin can unblock without consulting me if they're convinced that he's made changes so that he will not make unreviewed script-assisted edits going forward. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is a problem, given that it appears that Tony1 has run his script again without checking the result - but an indef block against a valued editor for an (admittedly repeated) mistake seems overly harsh. If a block is warranted at all, (which I'm not sure about given that he isn't currently editing, and thus it may not serve any immediate preventative function), surely something shorter would have sufficed? - Bilby (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean indef-as-in-we-don't-want-him-here, I mean indef-until-he-figure-out-how-to-stop-breaking-articles. If that takes an hour, that's fine with me, and a shorter block wouldn't have any point. If, on the other hand, he comes back and says there was nothing wrong with what he did, he needs to be kept from editing a bit longer. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarek, my intention with my post above was to draw attention to the script issue so that someone could review the coding before it introduced additional errors. Would you perhaps consider unblocking Tony for now, given that he's apparently offline, in favour of (say) a one-strike warning and a ban on using the script until it is properly repaired and tested? Perhaps the script itself should also be taken offline now until it is fixed. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the discussion above was sufficient warning, actually. If he wants to commit to not using automated tools as a way to get unblocked, that's fine with me too.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarek, please undo this block now. It's way too harsh for what boils down to a script malfunction. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ckatz's suggestion is a good one. Can the script be disabled and Tony unblocked? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs}

I also think that unblocking, and temporarily blanking and protecting the script is a much more elegant solution than an full block. Courcelles (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The block wasn;t unjustified, but it seems there's a better way to handle it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go for that too. An indef block is likely to lose an editor, while disabling/protecting the script will simply lead to further (hopefully constructive) dialogue. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Work's for me as well. It's a more elegant solution. - Bilby (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reluctant to try to disable the script myself in case I mess something up. I'm not even sure from looking at his contribs which one it is. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SV, I didn't block him for the script malfunction, I blocked for not fixing the script malfunction. Again. If he had fixed the mistake after he made it, there'd be nothing to block for.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone the block as there seems to be consensus to disable the script instead, and I feel this block needs to be overturned asap before it leads to more problems. I'll leave a note on Tony's page asking him not to use the script again until it's definitely fixed. If there's anyone who knows how to disable it, that would be a big help. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've disabled the script [3] - but should point out that the script could be run locally, so anything we do here depends on voluntary compliance with not running the malfunctioning script in the first place. –xeno^talk 18:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In which case can an admin give him a very clear, beyond dispute message that if he runs the script locally he will be blocked, if he attempts to run the script again without fixing he will be blocks, if he runs a different script that screws up he will be blocked.....or whatever people feel is the appropriate message. Because SarekOfVulcan is right, he ran the script AGAIN, AFTER being advised of the problems and WITHOUT fixing the SNAFU. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a much better solution to me too. Although I would add - not that it's directly relevant to the introduction of outright error, or to the imposition/lifting of blocks - that an attempt to remove the main substantive link to "Welsh language" on the Wales page, whether done manually or by script, and whether completed cleanly or not, seems remarkably ill-advised. N-HH talk/edits 20:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SV, I think you acted unwisely. Tony1 has been told by several different individuals that the script was broken & his initial response was paranoid rants at them, not to fix his script. He's not responding to comments, but to his own demons; Wikipedia is not therapy. And if he wants to defend his incivil behavior by citing various childhood injustices, I'll happily match that with my own history of the same ill treatment (as I expect, could many other Wikipedians), but also having lost my mother at the age of 12 & then suffering the injustices inflicted by a toxic & insecure stepmother -- neither of which I have successfully overcome many decades later. Yet despite all of this I manage to either treat other Wikipedians with far more respect than him, or to simply walk away from the dispute. I've walked a mile in his shoes, & I have no sympathy for his poor behavior. To repeat myself, if Tony1 has any friends they need to talk to him or he will be banned from Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, your "if Tony1 has any friends" crack is not a proper way to talk, Llywrch, and is not like you. Please think twice before you hit "save". (Incidentally, Tony has plenty of friends.) Bishonen | talk 22:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

What a sad sad thread. Increasingly real editors and major contributers on Wikipedia, far from being supported and nurtured, are now driven into the ground. Many "for life" administrators and "wantabe" administrators seem to think that content editors are the real enemy, and should be hunted down. Warring against such editors and blocking them is a sign of administrator virtue and effectiveness. Only administrators as a group now seem to control how administrators behave on Wikipedia. The power imbalance with the real content editors has spiralled out of control, and the administrator has become king. How was this allowed to happen? What real content editors, the ones that are still here, now dare raise their heads above the parapets? --Epipelagic (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• IZAK (talk · contribs)

I'd like to bring to attention IZAK's recent behavior and comments made towards other users. It all began in late May at this DRV discussion regarding Jew-related categories. To summarize, Mayumashu (talk · contribs) nominated several categories for speedy renaming, changing Foo-American Jews to American Jews of Fooian descent, presumably with this CFD as a precedent. IZAK then listed the renamed categories at DRV. Nothing problematic... until IZAK begins making baseless accusations towards several users, including Mayumashu, Good Olfactory (talk · contribs) and Cyde (talk · contribs). He accused Good Olfactory of pushing his "POV interpretations and ideas", calling Mayumashu "[Good Olfactory's] reliable partner in speedy deletions", among several other things [4]. Both Good Olfactory and Cyde called his comments out for being over-exaggerated and misrepresenting the situation [5] [6] [7] [8].

Good Olfactory suggests relisting the categories for a full discussion at WP:CFD, where IZAK responds with "First you are party to speeding them then you want to follow normal slower procedures when things don't go your way." [9]. Good Olfactory respond, explaining that none of the admins at CFD are responsible for speedy renaming of these categories, we simply cleaned up after Cydebot, who failed to delete some of these categories after moving their contents, as well as rebutting IZAK's claim of "follow[ing] normal slower procedures when things don't go your way" [10]. IZAK goes on to make several other baseless claims in the DRV, reading the thing may be more worthwhile than my endless diffs.

During the DRV, IZAK engages in discussion on Good Olfactory's talk page, where his baseless accusations, incivility and bordering personal attacks continue, where IZAK goes on to say that the renames of the categories were "causing havoc with your renames that seem utterly un-educated" [11], and he goes on to the point where Good Olfactory redacts IZAK's subsequent uncivil post.

Recently, another CFD regarding these categories came into play, and IZAK went on to continue making accusations towards the same users [12]. Good Olfactory naturally doesn't appreciate these same old accusations [13], where Mayumashu concurs with Good Olfactory's statement. After observing both the DRV and this discussion, I sternly warned IZAK of his comments, as his behavior was simply unacceptable, especially after being told to cease from making these claims. He then goes on to accuse me of stalking him and "advises" me to "make constructive suggestions to the actual discussions focusing on content and facts", among other accusations [14]. I went on to reply with this and initiated this report.

IZAK's behavior has been nothing but troublesome and offensive, and I'd say could be characterized as baiting and battleground mentality. As his recent accusation mentions my username, I would have brought it here to ANI for other admins to review. All involved parties (IZAK, Mayumashu, Good Olfactory, Cyde) will been notified of this discussion. — ξ^xplicit 03:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• By the way, I totally dispute the chronology and the manner in which Explicit lays out the picture. To really understand the present picture read the events as they unfolded at the 2 DRVs (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 3#Category:Jewish people and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 28#Categories:American Jews/Jewish people by fooian descent) and the 2 CfDs (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 10#Category:Jewish people and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 16#Category:American Jews by national origin). Even the way he headed this section about "behavior" when it's about many more serious issues and differences of approach in categorizations of Jews' topics. Events unfolded far differently and nothing was as clear as Explicit says. This is all ex post facto and he re-arranged the scenario to make his case, which is not the way events unfolded, and why they devolved the way that they did. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Cyde Weys here. I'd just like to address one of the points in particular brought up by Mr. IZAK, if I may. My emphasis below in bold. Original caps-lock-is-cruise-control-for-awesome left intact.

"When bots take on a life of their own they are in effect like Frankenstein creatures and only by contacting their creators can there be any hope of finding out who was responsible for the changes. Maybe you can look into that." link

"and then with the help of User Cyde (talk · contribs)'s killer HAL-like "User Cydebot (talk · contribs)" -- something straight out of 2001: A Space Odyssey -- dozens of perfectly fine Jews' categories are terminated (i.e. killed off) [...] aided by his reliable partner in speedy deletions User Mayumashu (talk · contribs) who then deploy the INSATIABLE and UNSTOPPABLE monster killer bot created and run by Cyde (talk · contribs)." link

Cydebot is in no way, shape, or form a killer robot. SkyNet and other killer robots that rebel and destroy their creators are science fiction, not science fact. Why, I can shut off Cydebot at any moment. Here, let me demons__Ac.6:l%5Of@(y0isRH@9QvlO4Y|kl_h()!z) <CARRIER LOST>

I tole you that you should'a used Perl for that, for defensive reasons. But noooo.... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to know that ANI is used for such serious purposes. Bus stop (talk) 04:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very serious purpose. We just had a long-established editor and bot operator run away with himself and attempt to correct his bot's obviously superior intervention here. That will never do... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Hm, yes—my condolences to Cyde, may he rest in peace. Explicit's summary is a good one, and comprehensive. It gets a bit tiring to have IZAK continually make false accusations against me. I've made attempts to discuss things with him a few times, but he always seems to invoke a conspiratorial mindset that I am repeatedly trying to pull a fast one on the category system. (See below, where he attempts to shift the focus to an inquiry of "all the massive changes in other categories [I am] conducting UNDER THE RADAR".) I'd appreciate any assistance in having him stop harassing me on various pages by making false accusations based on bad-faith assumptions about my actions and intentions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Concur. IZAK's response is problematic, on at least the following points.
  1. If a speedy rename is overturned at DRV, with specific instructions to resubmit to a full CfR, then questioning that submission is absurd, and shows bad faith, not just of the renominator, but of the DRV closer.
  2. Having (say) Category:Mexican American Jews, with no "parent" Category:Mexican American or Category:Mexican-American, is also an absurd result. If IZAK wants to be credible, he should nominate Category:American people of Mexican descent for a return to Category:Mexican American. It's quite possible that others have acted badly, but it's clear that IZAK has. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. He again asserts that no one who is not Jewish can understand the weight of his arguments. I'm Jewish, and I don't understand the weight of his arguments. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The difference between origin, descent, and nationality seems to require most of the categories, except African-American be split in 3, if we are to do things cleanly. But that's not really on the table, either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the ball can start rolling. An uninvolved administrator—a Jewish one, at that—reviewed the situation and has found IZAK's behavior troubling, just as those involved has pointed out. This insight, among IZAK's continued bad faith assumptions after the warning I have given him on his talk page, one can only expect that he face the proper sanctions. — ξ^xplicit 20:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't claim to be uninvolved. I've opposed IZAK on some of his template proposals before. I don't recall whether the proposals obtained consensus, but that's too close. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I see, my mistake. Thank you for disclosing this information. Point of the matter is, I don't think anyone has agreed his behavior is anything near acceptable, and his inability to change his behavior, redact his comments, or even admitting to his inappropriate behavior really says more than any diffs brought forward can display. — ξ^xplicit 20:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explicit: I am not on trial. Get that straight. If you want to open an arbitration case go ahead. But make sure it involves the full context of ALL parties concerned. It is a rather absurd claim that someone is an "uninvolved 'Jewish' admin" (there is no such official position on Wikipedia, and it was not requested or required here or anywhere in any case by anyone) when (a) there is no way to prove or know if any user, let alone an admin is "Jewish", (b) users' and admins' religion is totally irrelevant because (c) the only thing that matters is the record, ability and knowledge of a user in editing articles in a WP:NPOV manner over time whose edits are known to be reliable, and in any case, in this case, (d) the above admin admits to having a WP:COI and having been involved with some edits that I long cannot recall. At any rate, (e) this is no way to conduct a discussion at ANI, or anywhere, it's all very unprofessional, roundabout and one-sided. The only thing that is being said is that (f) I write very vigorously, sometimes somewhat bluntly, and I do write a lot for Wikipedia and it's almost very good, and that (g) some people evidently suffer from WP:I don't like it, and instead (h) that they wish to be whispered to in kinder, gentler, softer tones, especially when two parties hold diametrically opposed views as to how to understand and classify subjects, which is more comical than anything befitting a serious discussion between scholars. Finally, (i) Notice who is complaining, and it's not the many dozens of Judaic editors who I work closely with on many topics for years. If you persist, they will all be called upon, in my nearly eight years on Wikipedia I have gotten to know lots of good editors, to have their say on this matter, and they are proven Judaic editors, even though I have no clue who is Jewish or not, and neither should I, or you or anyone care. Thanks a lot. IZAK (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. You have stated that nobody who isn't Jewish would understand your reasoning, so mentioning the religion of editors is appropriate.
2. "Calling" on the "... dozens of Judaic editors who (you) work closey with" would be a WP:CANVASS violation.
3. You have clearly violated WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, as well as lying about the history. The speedy category rename was overturned, per WP:DRV, but the current category names are clearly ambiguous, as noted in the active CFD: Category:Mexican American Jews could me:
   1. American Jews of Mexican origin/descent
   2. American Jews of (former) Mexican nationality
   3. Dual US-Mexican citizens who are Jews
   4. Americans of Mexican Jewish descent
4. Blocks for misconduct can be discussed here.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur, now it is you who is getting vexed and I don't know why. (1) I never said that editors must be "Jewish" to comment on Judaic topics (show me where I have said such a thing) but (2) I have said that editors need to display knowledge of the subject-matter to be taken seriously, isn't that what you would expect when writing and editing articles about your field of mathematics? (3) Nobody called for an "outside" admin who is "Jewish", that is pure bunk. No sensible Wikipedian asks for people of any religion, but the least one can expect is editors who understand the subject seriously. (4) What nonsense are you talking about me "lying", show me where I am "lying" please and apologize for that uncalled for insult! (5) Did you even participate in the now nearly two months long saga of the the two DRVs and the two CFDs? I can't recall any input from you there, only here when you got involved lately on this ANI discussion. (6) In more than close to eight years on Wikipedia I have worked with dozens of good Judaic editors (I have no clue if they are Jewish) and (7) if this ANI is being conducted as a de facto "ArbCom" case I can call, on their talk pages (I have not done so yet) on as many others who know my history to give their outside opinion here. (8) You can't have it both ways, to talk about this as if it was a "mere ANI case" yet in reality conduct an interrogation and investigation as if we are already at the "decision" stage of arbitration. (9) By your own words you prove that this is ultimately only about CONTENT as you drag in issues that relate purely to content and if so, (10) you prove that this is about stopping me as an editor on false pretenses (11) because any editor who edits as long and as profusely and as interactively as I do will never always say the perfect thing at all times, since there is always give and take. (12) Finally, to repeat, again, I REJECT and strongly PROTEST you calling me a "LIAR" (a huge violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and WP:NPA by YOU!!!) and I request an APOLOGY. Show me and PROVE where you imagine I "lied" rather than make false and inflammatory accusations against me. Sheesh. IZAK (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK's response

If I may be allowed a word in my own defense. The bottom line at this point is that a CfD and TWO DRVs have gone in my favor as pointed out above. This has not come easily. I have long familiarity with all the categories in question. Therefore when it came to my attention that massive changes were being made on very tenuous grounds by the three users above, I called a spade a spade, perhaps somewhat bluntly, but in no way meant to insult anyone. On the contrary I take the three opposing users mentioned above very seriously and that is why I confronted them directly. At first they were not so open about why and where they based massive speedy deletions on, but upon drawn out discussions with all sorts of give and take it became clear they were making changes defying WP:CONSENSUS. The long drawn out debates and discussions can be seen starting at this DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 3#Category:Jewish people, that then moved on to this CfD: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 10#Category:Jewish people, and then was followed by this DRV Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 28#Categories:American Jews/Jewish people by fooian descent with all three going in my favor, and now we are at this new CfD: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 16#Category:American Jews by national origin that has just begun and where User:Explicit has decided to come out against...me in the middle, or shall we say fourth quarter of this long and winding process. There have been strong words traded by all sides but the net result has been positive namely a clarification of why massive changes to category names of Jews were being made by two or three editors not normally part of WP:JUDAISM, not that it matters, but it was the arbitrary and near-shady way (no better way to describe it folks) they went about making speedy changes that had to be wrung out them to find out why they were doing what they doing, see especially the illuminating exchanges at the 2nd DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 28#Categories:American Jews/Jewish people by fooian descent. Anyhow, we are in the last quarter of this, so far four part drama, and it is poor form and unhelpful to the larger debate for User Explicit to intervene one-sidedly at this critical moment when he should be standing back and taking note of the issues being debated in a vigorous and frank manner, as the diplomats refer to such exchanges. What really needs deeper exploration, clarification and explanation is what the heck (pardon my French) Users Mayumashu, Good Olfactory and Cyde (with his monster bot that can destroy years of work with the click of a button) are up to not just in the Jews' but in all the massive changes in other categories they are conducting UNDER THE RADAR. This may be a good time to open up this issue that has remained sealed for far too long! Thank you for taking this matter seriously. IZAK (talk) 04:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Those who agree:
  • Yoavd (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those who don't agree this should be on ANI

WTF is this RFC doing on ANI?? Toddst1 (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Firstly, "WTF" is rude. Secondly this is not a "RFC". Thirdly the way it got to ANI was that User Explicit was raking me over the coals on my talk page, so I advised him that he was unfit to do so as an involved party, at which point he was supposed to look at ANI for an uninvolved admin (presumably to rake me over the coals) and more objectively to revue the entire situation, but unfortunately he has decided to retain his role as chief judge, jury, and executioner to depict only me in a one-sided manner only, while there are still massive CFD debates on the go. Sorta like rushing into the middle of the delivery room and telling the mothers to shut up and behave or they'll be reported and wheeled out of the hospital, or something like that. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 06:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WTGDFF is ruder. Or more rude. Either one. HalfShadow 06:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would not hurt if the !votes here were less rude. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From my research, it seems that "WTGDFF" is sacrilege, which is not "rude" but abominable. How low can you go? IZAK (talk) 07:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that we have a policy against sacrilege. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno. Wasn't aware limbo was going to be involved. I'm not really good at bending, but I'll give it a shot... HalfShadow 07:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Policy shmolisy, there is no policy to foist sacrilege either, oh, and doing the limbo befits a bimbo. Hope you guys are taking this in the right spirit and won't fly off on tangents. IZAK (talk) 08:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK, why are you acting like a innocent victim? Cyde agreed that something should be done about your behavior, while Good Olfactory has asked an uninvolved administrator to end your continued harassment he has endured from you. Interestingly, stating that I "decided to retain his role as chief judge, jury, and executioner to depict only me in a one-sided manner only" only adds to the evidence that you continue to assume bad faith towards other users and have failed to provide proof that I've done what you described. And how exactly does this discussion or the one on your talk page negatively effect the CFD in any manner? — ξ^xplicit 06:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explicit: Fantasy: Seems anything I say is misconstrued. If I were to burp you would call it an "atomic blast", if I were to yawn you would call it it a yawning chasm, that's the way it is when wolves smell blood. Now back to the facts and reality: I have had nothing to do with Cyde or Good Olfactory outside of the two recent DRVs once the DRVs and CfD got rolling, and in the past CfD and the present CFD to which they are direct parties, they are not babies and you are doing a magnificent job of WP:LAWYERing for them and projecting them as oh so gentle little fragile lambs, so please stop globalizing my very focused concerns which are legitimate as explained in my comments and research in the two DRV's and the CFD -- and why they lost both DRV's and the CfD and will most likely lose the present CfD as well. This is a nice tactic to distract from a string of their losses, that when you can't win on the issues you go off on tangents acting like you are "innocent victims" when they have defied consensus. We seem to be going around in circles. I have said what I have to say, and do not wish to repeat myself especially since you are intent on twisting my words. Let's see what an impartial admin or two has to say. I am not known for any type of senseless and futile edit warring, but I am known for defending my views and findings. I have cast my CFD vote and explained it. We are now awaiting further user input to the CFD and this is an enormous distraction that will accomplish nothing but create even more divisiveness. I express myself acerbically at times, at other times I am funny and at others I use different writing styles. Good Olfactory hurls insults at me about what I see and don't see, I ignore it, but you don't seem to see it, Cyde is cynical in his comments about me but that's ok to you. But hey, listen, what is this kindergarten? This is all part of normal debating and discussions and it is counter-productive to claim that Cyde is aggrieved when he has created a monster bot or that others know nothing about making massive changes to categories without consensus, but we are going around in circles again. So I am holding off for now. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am an "oh so gentle little fragile lamb". Just sayin'. I think one way you could avoid being misinterpreted is that when you make comments to others that result from some degree of frustration, avoid CAPITALISING CERTAIN WORDS, ← like that. In internet dialogue, it implies shouting and bombasticity. (Or as Cyde put it, you look like you're saying "caps-lock-is-cruise-control-for-awesome".) I've been on the receiving end of this style of writing more than once from you, including in your comments in this ANI report. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So Good Ol, you are just saying you don't like the way I type. Sorry I never took typing lessons, I was too busy studying real subjects. Com'on, get real and make a sensible argument, not that I type in caps or whatnot, one word in ten thousand, or however you choose to misunderstand me. Are you so perfect? Have no complaints been lodged against you? There's lots of stuff in your edit history that proves you are no angel. But I do not wish to get into tit for tat. By the way, would you prefer that I change my user name from "IZAK" to teeny-weeny "izak"??? Would that freak you out less? Would you sleep better at night if it was only little lower-case "izak" typing at you and not "bombastic" (as you violate WP:NPA and WP:AGF calling me that) "IZAK". Kindly do not depict me as "The mouse that roared". Thanks, IZAK (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to block IZAK for one month due to continued lack of good faith, incivility, GAMING, Forum Shopping, etc

• Support 76.237.178.20 (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject this arbitrary motion, quite sweeping and one-sided obviously in the negative spirit of WP:BATTLEGROUND that obviously wishes to escalate rather than reduce tensions and full of outright inaccuracies and provocations (what does "etc" mean?), considering that the involved parties were and are all actively involved in two DRVs and two CfDs, in which they all opposed IZAK, and as a result of which lengthy discussions ensued in the DRVs and the CfDs. Keeping all parties interested in Judaic topics informed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism or via Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism is legitimate and important, not to be derided as being something "negative". In addition, three of the parties opposing IZAK are admins (Good Olfactory, Cyde, Explicit) with enormous powers of their own. If they have disagreements over CONTENT, as they obviously do, and that has evidently driven them to distraction, the correct next step should be to proceed to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and so far that has not begun, they are relying solely on admin powers to solve what should be discussed as in the DRVs and the CfDs or on talk pages. In Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide, see: "Blocking parties during Mediation" where "blocking during mediation" is strongly discouraged and this would be a form of blocking an opponent when you disagree with his views, and all one has to to is take a look at the the 2 DRVs (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 3#Category:Jewish people and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 28#Categories:American Jews/Jewish people by fooian descent) and the 2 CfDs (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 10#Category:Jewish people and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 16#Category:American Jews by national origin) to see that they disagree with IZAK on almost every point. So this proposal is wild and solves nothing. As someone said this is NOT a RFC, which would require some form of mediation between the parties first. Nothing is actually happening at the moment outside of this ANI, and the way this sub-heading is worded proves that someone (who is it in any case?) is merely interested in aggravating the situation which is not the way to go when there is presently not much of anything going on. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Support blocking for WP:NPA, but a month is too short too long. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for Arthur: As you yourself have violated WP:NPA by falsely calling me a "liar" without justification, above, how can you justify yourself by passing judgment against me? IZAK (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion, continued

• Comment I think User ξxplicit's summary is an accurate one, and appreciate the work the user's done to put it together. User:IZAK way of interacting in the DRV and CfD has been rude, in my view, and to have insinuated stuff both untrue and far beyond the matter of renaming or not these pages. Perhaps 48 hours is too short a wait period for the speedy renamings - if User:IZAK had seen the tags and objected then a lot of this could have likely been avoided. But it does not excuse the user's behaviour. Mayumashu (talk) 12:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree with the earlier sentiments that this discussion does not belong here at AN/I. It only creates more feelings of "ill will" and animosity amongst all involved. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 22:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sven nestle who claims to be involved in legal action to appeal the Violence Against Women Act has persisted in legal terminology and with their conflict of interest at Violence_Against_Women_Act, accusing me of stalking and of being a woman (?) or possibly an 'automated deletion tool'. They have defended their legal threat to use civil court to keep material they have added to wikipedia on the site.[15]
As I have become a focal point for this editors issues (and threats - I think?) It is improper for me to block.
User:Georgewilliamherbert has been keeping an eye on this also but I'm opening this again for community input and assistance. (A thread archived yesterday can be read here for further information).
For clarity I have not reverted or otherwise edited Violence_Against_Women_Act since Sven nestle's contributions. I have not deleted anything by him to my knowledge. And I am not female, nor am I stalking this user - I like any other admin view legal threats and COI as serious issues for this project--Cailil ^talk 17:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I made this post they have made further threats to sue wikipedia on GWH's talk page[16]--Cailil ^talk 17:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User was indefinitely blocked by SarekOfVulcan. Netalarm^talk 17:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that. Unfortunately after the Block User:Sven nestle made these remarks [17]. He claims that his contributions are being automatically deleted and is claiming he was defamed and may sue. Should we protect his user page if he's using it to continue to make remarks like this?--Cailil ^talk 18:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It goes on, I have revoked talk page access. User will have to utilise email to retract threats (I think there is a page on emails when blocked, I shall try to find it). If the barrage of legal threats then just takes the email road, I guess the next step is email blocking but I've never seen that before. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, why do such people always tend to misrepresent that the First Amendment and Wikipedia are about? –MuZemike 20:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sad thing is, he's been doing it for over a year, judging from his talk page. How'd he last this long? Tony Fox (arf!) 22:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is he connected to 70.174.180.147 (talk) as they appear to be making the same edits to the same article? —Farix (t | c) 22:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NM. He answered the question for me.[18] —Farix (t | c) 22:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here is that same IP making a legal threat about Huggle.[19] —Farix (t | c) 22:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I giggled at him saying Wikipedia used to be Bugzilla. Bugzilla is still around (part of the Mozilla Foundation) and kicking at http://www.bugzilla.org/. --M^ask? 23:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the IP for 72 hours - if this editor uses the IP again it should be blocked again for legal threats and block evasion. I wasn't sure if it was static or dynamic. Dougweller (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

86.12.9.51 has been persistently adding linkspam to Chris Morris. A look at the edit history of Nathan Barley, where he previously did the same thing, shows that he was behind an account blocked indefinitely for being solely used for advertising.

Chris Morris history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Morris_%28satirist%29&action=history

Nathan Barley history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nathan_Barley&action=history

Talk page of ‘Cookdandbombd’: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cookdandbombd

Discussion in which 86.12.9.51’s ownership of the Cookdandbombd account was acknowledged: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shadowjams&oldid=354279326#Nathan_Barley

The third post down here is a message on his website concerning the edit conflict: http://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,24381.30.html

Mrzoombini (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should warn him on his talkpage by adding "{{subst:uw-spam1}} ~~~~ " for the first warning. If he continues after that issue the level two warning. You can go up to and including "{{subst:uw-spam4}} ~~~~" for a final warning. If he doesn't stop after that report him to WP:AIV. Alternatively, you can make a report to WikiProject Spam if you think the link needs to be tracked. ThemFromSpace 20:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help! Mrzoombini (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite spammy:

• cookdandbombd.co.uk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

• GrahamButteredNuts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• 86.12.9.51 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• Cookdandbombd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• 194.75.224.19 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

I have revertlisted the domain on XLinkBot. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's now back on Chris_Morris_(satirist), re-added by 'Wiger Toods', who is claiming on Talk:Chris_Morris_(satirist) that someone with 'a grudge' must be responsible for its removal. Chips Critic (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Blacklisted. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A look at this user's edits suggests they're not here to contribute positively at all, but what particularly drew my attention was their edits to User:Qotsa37, an editor who has not edited for a few days but whose page is on my watchlist. I guess the two may know each other. Draynah has provided a real name for Qotsa37 at least twice: here and here; should these revisions be deleted? I42 (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can say that Qotsa37 has made at least one HOAX article, B.O.M.B. Fest. I checked out the bands that are coming to this "Fest" via their official websites....and one isn't touring at all and one isn't touring then. Hoax. I would recommend Qotsa37 be blocked for HOAX articles. Checking out Draynah. Checkuser might be a good idea too. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the festival does exist, and at least some of the lineup is kosher (Of Montreal, Lupe Fiasco) - [20]. No sign of 30 Seconds to Mars, but ... Black Kite (t) (c) 22:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Qotsa37 is pure Myspace. Considering deletion. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another blantant hoax by Qotsa37. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...and the hits just keep on coming. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Qotsa37 and User:Draynah pass the "same person" test to me. I recommend a checkuser to confirm, but these "two" seem to be the same person. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...Bombfest 2010 appears to have already taken place. If it's a hoax, they went to a bit of effort. --Onorem♠Dil 22:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check out User:Lilwhiterapper too. Seems to know Qotsa37. Will check on "Bomb Fest". - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've deleted the userpage and the subpages per NOT#MYSPACE. An SPI might be worthwhile on the various accounts but they could just be IRL friends. I've removed the speedy tag from B.O.M.B Fest. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm pretty certain they are just real-life friends. Their behavior seems to show that this is true. But we can let an SPI check this. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 23:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the edits have indeed been a bit dodgy, which is why I have his userpage on my watchlist. My impression is that he's generally here to contribute, but doesn't take it too seriously, and that the two accounts probably do belong to different people who know each other. But what I wanted to raise here was the aparrent outing of Qotsa's real name, which seems to be getting overlooked. I42 (talk) 06:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have moved this back out of the archive because it was not resolved. I42 (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Qotsa37 is back, created by Qotsa37, but with very similar content to that put there by Draynah. I have revised my opinion that the two users are likely separate individuals - this is looking very suspicious. And given that the two users have been editing each other's pages, they wouldn't then seem to be legitimate alternate accounts. I42 (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence the users are the same is provided by Qotsa's edit to his homepage here: he claims credit for creating two pages which were actually created (inasmuch as they were converted from redirects) by Draynah (here and here). I42 (talk) 05:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I've finally got a chance to respond.
  

1. B.O.M.B. Fest is the exact opposite of a hoax. I actually attended the festival, and 30 Seconds To Mars was legit there.
2. Draynah is actually an account of my friend's. I set it up for him and he gave me the password so I could contribute from both accounts (since my parents basically said "cool it" on Wikipedia) and stay under the radar from my mom and dad. Sorry for the confusion, but David's account, Draynah, is a legitimate account that both him AND I contribute from.
3. I didn't intend on CGGC. and Kill Ronan! being hoax pages. Wikipedia's policies say that I can have a limit of non-encyclopedic content in my userspace, and I guess I took that the wrong way. While you're at it, you can delete this because I guess it doesn't fit Wiki userspace standards.

Thank you for your time, and I hope this works some stuff out. (: qö₮$@37 (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that we don't allow shared accounts? Syrthiss (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ohhhhh.... :/ I was not. Okay. I'll stop logging into Draynah if that's the rule. Thanks for the heads up. Qotsa37^Talk 17:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a user who has created many accounts entitled "XXXX (Madden)" and has created userpages for all accounts with a fake autobiography of a player from his Madden NFL game. Here is a list of accounts generated by User:The-Pope, which was taken from WT:NFL#(Madden) accounts:

1. User:Markael James (Madden)
2. User:Marcus Robertson (Madden)
3. User:Jervis Santana (Madden)
4. User:Thomas Harris (Madden)
5. User:Albert Ramos, Jr (Madden)
6. User:Albert Ramos (Madden NFL)
7. User:Albert Ramos, Jr. (Madden NFL)
8. User:Albert Ramos (Madden NFL series)

I think all accounts should be blocked as sockpuppets of each other, and the userpages be deleted as a violation of WP:WEBHOST. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations is that way. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll take that route instead then. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't bother. Obvious socks are obvious. I'll delete the pages and block the users. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already started the request here so a Checkuser can be performed to find additional socks. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate issues resolved. SPI with CU looking for sleepers. Shadowjams (talk) 07:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that these two editors are working to keep the label of "conservative" (or even "right-leaning") out of the lede. They've each made reverts without discussing it on the talkpage. When they finally do post there, it's to say that they don't like it and it's not accurately sourced. I also believe that one of them, Arzel, may be acting out of retaliation for the EAR I recently opened regarding similar behavior at FNC. The other one actually called my edit 'vandalism.' They don't seem to have any true interest in collaborating.

• Politico (newspaper) •• Talk:Politico ••• source of self-criticism

This article reads like a promo piece. I tried to balance with well-sourced criticism. (From the politico.com website, in fact)

1. Arzel (talk)
2. Weaponbb7 (talk)

• diffs: 1 2 3 4 • edit history

The first editor Arzel and I have a history from Talk:FNC ever since I disagreed with him & he got huffy. I know that AN/I doesn't resolve content disputes but I mention the criticism because it's a part of the larger issue of Arzel (&others) fighting those of us who seek to balance these articles. I've made several attempts to discuss the lede change and work to improve it, but they simply revert and use the edit summary instead of the talkpage. I've also revised it three times in an effort to be conciliatory, although neither of them has afforded me the same courtesy. Until he learned of Politico's conservative bias from myself & another editor at a separate mediation discussion, Arzel had never touched the Politico article. He immediately removed the criticism from this article which I had mentioned to illustrate a point. -PrBeacon (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Eye Roll* PRbeacon confuses a consensus against his position with tag-teaming, as i stated before on the talkpage i am not against criticism, but Neutral Wording that does not imply some Republican conspiracy to pretend to be a news blog, This Requires an RFC at most not i fail to see the need for this ANI thread. 02:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• This ANI should be closed and PrBeason should be reprimanded for wasting time. This dispute is the culmination of a mediation regarding Media Matters for America. One of the sources of information which PrBeacon disagrees with is from an editor at Politico. PrBeacon believes Politico to be a conservative organ and during the mediation he has assisted in the attempt to paint Politico as being biased towards Republicans. At the start of the mediation process an ip inserted an uncited claim that Politico admited a Republican bias. This claim was removed by a different editor and then quickly re-added by PrBeacon. After a month of no sourcing I removed the wording as uncited. PrBeacon then quickly re-inserted the section leading up to this ANI culminating in this final version which I removed. Using a very vague wording from Politico which would imply that Politico admits that they are biased towards Republicans (a clear violation of WP:SYNTH) when in fact the source mostly repudiates the source (ironically a criticism from MMfA). PrBeacon is a POV pusher and is attempting to insert language into the Politico article to support his argument against the mediation regarding MMfA. The accusation of "tag-teaming" is laughable at best. A check of my edit history will show very little (if any) common edit history with WeaponBB7. Arzel (talk) 03:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if this is a waste of any admin's time.   Since Arzel disputes the chronology, "At the start of the mediation process an ip inserted an uncited claim that Politico admited a Republican bias."   A review of relevant datestamps shows that is incorrect. And further review supports my case, I believe.

5/06 • Politico criticism added- (by anon-IP)   (this was quickly revertedby another editor)

• my restore of the criticism- "add cite tag and give them a chance" (Based upon previous talkpage discussion)

5/27 • separate RfM started

6/14   • my comments at RfM-   "so far only conservative sources.."

6/16   • A's question at RfM-   "since when is Politico conservative?"

  • another editor's reply-   "no question they're conservative"

at 13:41   • A's reply at FNC-   "discuss in adult manner?"

at 13:48   • A's reply to E.A.R-   "if you're going to attackme.., pls notify"

at 13:50   • A's (first) revert at Politico-   "No citation."

The quick succession of these last three edits is what sparked my suspicion about retaliation. The issue of Politico's bias, in my opinion, surfaced as a minor issue in the mediation. No one else questioned it there. I think Arzel conflated the two when he moved from the RfM to Politico via the other two project pages. For the record, I have no problem with Arzel's most recent revisions [21] & [22] of the criticism I added to the body text [23] earlier. It's too bad that sort of compromise -- or at least cooperation -- didn't happen before.

    Unfortunately I'm not experienced enough to argue the issue of tagteam, i've only seen the (loose) allegation at other ANI threads -- used to question if 2 editors are circumventing the 3RR rule, thereby attempting to draw another editor into violating it.

If admins here deem either or both charges inconclusive then again i apologize. I will reserve comment about the remaining counterclaims. -PrBeacon (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this ANI thread to be a WP:DUCK of Badfaith. This editor has nerve to make Edits to support a unfounded POV (that politico has mysterious ties to Repulican leadership), with a Cherry pick a quote from a website to support his view. Throws unfounded acusations agianst two editors of Tag-teaming in an ANI thread complete with diffs and then has the audacity to claim he didnt know what he was doing. I highly doubt this to be a case of WP:CompetenceWeaponbb7 (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editting and personal attacks in the Leviathan article

User:Ishmael bnei Noah Elroi came into the Leviathan article, replaced properly sourced information with improperly sourced information, ignored (and continues to ignore) requests to read WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:NOR; insists that because he knows Hebrew and simply pointed to the Tanakh, he did not need to cite sources. He has engaged in a number of personal attacks (1, 2, 3 (at bottom), 4 (edit summary), ignoring all warnings. He eventually did come closer to naming an actual source besides "Tanakh", but it is a translation that is not freely available (so I believe he is violating copyright laws). He even promoted it. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ho hum, I lost my tail.

Yeah it wasn't intentional, at times Yes I clicked submit (or w/e) over preview.

Yes, I get annoyed when I go <- to fix it and to find that nothing was there.

Yes, I am clinically insane according to the United States Department of Health (WA, OR, PA).

So Yes, expect a flurry of irrational crap to go on, when one is being overwhelmed about the stupidest of things.

Its not the knowing of Hebrew.

Its the stating in the article of a HEBREW source.

That source is not hebrew.

its english. Any ONE can see that.

Unless you mean by the Leningrad Codex, which well then opens up a whole new topic of crap That I'm quite frankly not willing to discuss.

But whatever, I could honestly care less.

It was a series of mistakes by a new user.

And instead of attempting to allow the other end-user work out all the kinks without rolling back like a prepubescent fop every mis-edit.

If given due consideration, I am most certaintly not the first User in this regards that has experienced issues with this particular administrator. It just depends on how well and Just of a job those want to do.

Considering this is an Open source. Obviously in most cases the least amount of 'work' is required.

And I am sure as hell no longer donating.

Got rid of auto add bot sign crap. Browser crashed AGAIN.

Ishmael bnei Noah Elroi (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There, signed!

And as for "Promoting" that apparently must be a mistake.

Amazing one cannot discern a real life NEW USER to (censored)pedia.org.

Why dont you try cutting the snark and reading all of the policies listed in the complaint above about you? If you cant follow our editing policies, there may be other websites out there you'd feel more comfortable editing at. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 01:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Your edit history shows that you are perfectly capable of using proper English without playing the "innocent newbie foreigner" card. So please stop playing games. Rodhullandemu 01:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They can do that when they come back from the block I just gave them for continuing the personal attacks above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it's not WP:TROLL, it's at least WP:COMPETENCE, but I don't believe that for one moment given the history. Indef? Rodhullandemu 01:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet, just 31 hours.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you evens that this will end up as indef. Rodhullandemu 01:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the IP added and subsequently removed drivel that was added below a minute ago, I'm inclined to agree Rod. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not taking that bet. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:A Quest For Knowledge and Bad Medicine (song)

I'd be grateful if admins could take a look at User:A Quest For Knowledge's conduct, specifically at Bad Medicine (song). I believe he has been following my contributions and is looking to create conflict. I recently removed a small section of "Lyrical interpretation" which was all unsourced and, IMO, not accurate. As far as I can tell, AQFK has never edited this article in the past (though he has referred to the song's lyrics in recent edit summaries) but he quickly reverted my change, restoring the unsourced section. He has since added a fact tag and responded to my discussion.

AQFK and I have a history of argument at List of common misconceptions on exactly this point - whether to remove challenged, unsourced material or to leave it in with tags. My reading of policy (WP:V) is that he should not be restoring info, after it has been challenged, without providing a source. He cites the essay WP:BRD as grounds here for restoring unsourced material. For months, and particularly in the last few days, we've been disagreeing at Talk:List of common misconceptions - most recently over material he's repeatedly inserted, against consensus in the discussion, and which I've proposed removing soon if no consensus is reached. See Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions#A_popular_myth_regarding_human_sexuality.

He tried to have me blocked recently - see [24] and the subsequent discussion - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive619#User:Hippo43, and it's clear from his comments to me at Talk:List of common misconceptions, as well as his repeated complaints at my talk page and elsewhere, that he bears considerable resentment toward me. See also User_talk:A_Quest_For_Knowledge#Hippo43, User_talk:Hippo43#Do_NOT_resume_your_disruption, User_talk:Hippo43#Warning_about_disruptive_behavior, User_talk:Hippo43#Your_edit_here_is_a_personal_attack and User_talk:Hippo43#Do_NOT_edit_war_at_Bad_Medicine_.28song.29.

I can't know for sure, but given that this is a carbon copy of an argument we've had in the past, and his recent hostility to me, it looks to me like he is shadowing my contributions to provoke disagreement, knowing I have been blocked for edit-warring in the past. This is the last thing I want. (His recent edit here also suggests he had been checking through my contributions looking for 'ammunition' in his disagreements with me.) I can live with us arguing over content, and his regular unpleasant comments, but I am concerned about him digging through my edits to create fights with me where none exist. --hippo43 (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just an observation - the comments/tone on the Bad Medicine talk page seem perfectly collegial and civil and productive discussion seems to be occurring. Are you sure this report is necessary? WP:3O would seem a good choice instead. Exxolon (talk) 12:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the relative merits of ANI or 3O - you may be right. However, I do believe it's necessary. While the tone at the song article has so far been civil, Quest's actions toward me in the last few days have not, and it's clearly fishy that he immediately appeared at an article I edited, which he had never edited before, and restarted the exact argument we have had in the past. He has displayed a considerable interest in my edits, and I'd prefer if he quit trying to engage me in conflict. I think some admin scrutiny of his conduct would be helpful. --hippo43 (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AIV Backlog

AIV is backlogged, admins are needed, lather, rinse, repeat. Thanks. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User: Pagemonster18

Pagemonster18 was blocked in January 2010 for "repeated addition of unsourced information" by Kurt Shaped Box. After the block expired, Pagemonster18 received two warnings for adding unsourced materials in February 2010. In June 2010, Pagemonster18 has added unsourced materials that were reverted by other editors: Justin Bieber [link], Logan Lerman [link], Liam O'Brien [link], Negima! Magister Negi Magi [link], and Spider-Man (film series) [link]. Can you please investigate? Thanks, Davtra (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notified the user. Please remember to substitute the template {{ANI-notice}} on the talk page of those you mention here. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing that. You were very quick. Davtra (talk) 06:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having not being particularly active on WP recently, I hadn't noticed that Pagemonster18 was continuing to play 'fantasy casting' and add extremely dubious fan speculation (almost to the level of fanfiction) across a wide range of articles (his usertalk too). Had I been aware, I'd more than likely have blocked him/her indefinitely by now, as to be brutally honest, he/she seems to fail to grasp the concept of what this site is actually for and shows little sign ever of wising up and editing constructively. Regardless of whether action is taken against Pagemonster18, I'd recommend that every single edit he/she has ever made be scrutinised for accuracy by someone familiar with the subject matter in question... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Past Sock IP off a 1 year ban creating issues again

User talk:83.241.234.4 has an illustrious history, and although there's been some delay since the 1 year block's expiration, I think there's new concern with the recent string of edits. Shadowjams (talk) 08:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The revert cycle on Omar Amanat is epic. Shadowjams (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least 25 reversions by this IP on 2 separate articles, well over 50, not to mention everything before. Shadowjams (talk) 08:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some reverts. This user needs an immediately block. 2 years this time. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User was blocked for 55 hours for "Disruptive editing" by User:Materialscientist. I have pointed him in the direction of this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My block was a rapid first aid. Any admin should feel free to reblock for longer if necessary. I have briefly looked through their edits and am not keen to analyze them in depth. Materialscientist (talk) 08:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank god we can put a finger in this levy. This was the most persistent page blanking I've seen in a long time, and I'm amazed how long it persisted for. Regent deserves a naive badge of courage for going at it as long as he/she did. In the end it was the right thing to do. I have tremendous respect for that. Shadowjams (talk) 08:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank goodness Material blocked him, I think he should be given a longer block than 55 hours as he hasn't leart anything from his last block, and will comeback and do the same thing again--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have extended it to a year and told the IP that if they return after and start again it will be two years without any further warnings. I'm not particularly interested in telling him how to use the unblock template yadda yadda. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a good resolution, unless someone wants to dig into the old SPIs and see if there's a new connection. The single IP seemed to be content to handle those two articles. I'm not sure the connection, but maybe someone could monitor those possible additional issues, but I don't see a lot of ongoing issues from here. Shadowjams (talk) 09:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agressive message by Direktor

Resolved

 – WP:ARBMAC related sniping. Toddst1 (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if Direktor could abstain from leaving me this kind of messages. I find this user to be quite agressive in general and have no particular interest in pursuing any kind of exchange with him, except possibly during a mediation, in the presence of other parties. Now he is apparently trying to create some kind of conflict with me, possibly with the hope of reporting me here. Having no use for this, I'd like to report his problematic behaviour, which I find uselessly menacing. I sincerely hope that he will now leave it at that and abstain from using this kind of barely-veiled threats. Jean-Jacques Georges ([[User talk:"preemptive report"|talk]]) 10:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be nice if you could notify DIREKTOR of this report. I have done so. He accuses you of meatpuppetry. I haven't checked the merit of that accusation, but that is not an "aggressive message" in and of itself. What exactly is the point of this report? It seems to me you're just trying to beat DIREKTOR to the punch by reporting him here first.--Atlan (talk) 11:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have also notified him, or at least I thought I had. Good guess, I did want to beat him to the punch, since he apparently wants to start some conflict with me (in which I have no interest at all : the point of this report is precisely to prevent him from doing so). We disagree on several issues regarding world war II in Yugoslavia, one of which is currently undergoing a wearisome mediation. In general, I find his attitude to be agressive and objectionable, so I may have over-reacted to his message. Anyway, several users have been exchanging comments with me about the aforementioned subjects. I have thanked them for their appreciative comments and, since they seem to be interested (no idea if they are knowledgeable) I have encouraged them to express their thoughts and opinions on the subject. One of them suggested a mediation about another article Direktor has been concerned with, and I basically answered "fine, go ahead if you like". That's it, and I find it quite unpleasant to be accused of such a preposterous concept as "meatpuppetry" just because I encouraged interested users to express what they think (and I must add that I have no idea what they precisely think). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk)

Classic "preemptive report". As in all threads of this particular type here on AN/I, the user that posts it is actually the one in violation of policy, and that should be the focus here:

• User:Jean-Jacques Georges has endeavored to recruit his personal WP:MEAT "army", trying to enlist User:Theirrulez [25], User:Sir Floyd [26], and perhaps others I am unaware of.
  • Note User:Jean-Jacques Georges' "Yugoslavia articles" thread on User talk:Theirrulez, and Theirrulez's reply "About your plan" on User talk:Jean-Jacques Georges.
  • Note User:Jean-Jacques Georges' "Yugoslavia articles" thread on User talk:Sir Floyd.

• In addition to this, User:Jean-Jacques Georges appears convinced that he is allowed to game the system and throw all manner of insults at whole groups of people simply by avoiding to name them explicitly.
  • during the first (Jean-Jacques Georges/Theirrulez) discourse, User:Jean-Jacques Georges refers to others and myself as "a bunch of insane trolls and clumsy POV-pushers (mostly Titoist nostalgics, I'd say, but sometimes on the opposite side)". Going on to say "There's no need to endlessly argue with cretins." (These comments refer to the Josip Broz Tito article and should be viewed in the context of the recent discussion on Talk:Josip Broz Tito.) The (recently blocked) User:Theirrulez replies with "Tito's fanboys (I can't stop laughing when I read this definition :D) preside the article, raving something about consensus".
  • during the second (Jean-Jacques Georges/Sir Floyd) discourse, User:Jean-Jacques Georges refers to others and myself as "a professional (but clumsy) POV-pusher of profound incompetence (or several of these)", going on to say "My personal opinion is also that some users (...) should not be allowed to participate at all".

The fact is that this is a "preemptive report". In my experience this certainly seems actionable, so I warned the user on his talk pointing out policy. He reported me here. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I don't know DIREKTOR to be someone to make false accusations (at least not deliberately). If you're not guilty of meatpuppetry, than you have nothing to worry about. To counter his accusation with one of your own (accusing him of trying to pick a fight), and barring him from leaving you messages on your talk page, does not seem like the most productive way forward. I don't see anything actionable here, at least not on the part of DIREKTOR.--Atlan (talk) 12:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like the OP hasn't read WP:CANVASS? He appears to think that soliciting people to join his dispute is okay. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been soliciting or "enlisting" anyone, but merely answering to people who had expressed their interest in the subject, and suggesting that they say what they had to say. If Direktor feels insulted at the slightest by anything that I have said, that's his problem. But seeing him refer to my "army" of "meat-puppets" or whatever absurdity he may come up with, confirms, at least in my eye, that he is indeed "someone to make false accusations", and quite deliberately. It is quite easy to verify that these users were the first to contact me, not the other way around.

And yes, the point of this (so far non-conflictual) report is precisely to avoid him prolonging this needless exchange and pick up a fight, which I think he is trying to do.

I am not "guilty" of whatever "puppetry", though I do think that more opinions would be welcome : I have indeed nothing to worry about, except Direktor's abravise agressivity.

Basically, I just want this user to leave me alone and I do bar him from my talk page. "Constructive" exchanges shall be limited to project pages, about which I have no problem. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we should discourage people from asking others "to give me a hand in finding sources, correcting informations [sic]." Some of the later language is not exactly ideal, but I don't think the initial request is canvassing. (Of course, given the tiresome nationalism-inspired conflicts in areas like this, I can see where the notion would come from...) Shimeru 16:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete JS

Resolved

 – The tag you added, it worked ;-) Deleted. TFOWR 13:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete User:Schuhpuppe/monobook.js, the regular CSD template doesn't work there. Thanks. --Schuhpuppe (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleted due to user requested deletion tag. TFOWR 13:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even though the template doesn't expand, the page still gets added to the deletion category. —DoRD (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times and the Holocaust

The New York Times and the Holocaust... now I'm a Holocaust denier

The page is currently protected from editing, but the hostility of one of the editors has just gone way over the top. The content disagreement is clearly outlined on the rambling talk page (if anyone cares). The current version of the article is the result of a massive cleanup i did on the article in January -- look at the series of edits i made then and the summaries to understand my reasons. Content disagreement, whatever. However, I and a few others have been consistently attacked as having an agenda over there by User:Cimicifugia, who wrote the article in the first place. He has been asked to desist multiple times. He has just gone far beyond the pale of what's acceptable; here [27] he accuses me and two other editors who disagree with him of being "Holocaust deniers," "malicious," "hostile," "spoilers." The post at the Judaism project is emotive, prejudicial, deeply hurtful and entire unsupported by facts or evidence (his case of holocaust denial against me comes down to my assertion that he was drawing conclusions that went far beyond the source material used in the article). He writes: "It is not fair to us to be asked to collaborate with what are functionally Holocaust deniers. They are denying the validity and facts of this small chapter of Holocaust history, not working sincerely to produce a good article. I respectfully request they be permanently banned from editing this article." Also [28] this edit summary: "asking for advice re hostile holocaust deniers". I'm livid.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Severe problems at The New York Times and the Holocaust Page

I was trying to get help on the proper way to seek relief from wiki administrators, but as two complaints were immediately posted against me for how I did it, I am going to proceed as best I might. I apologize if this is longer than it is supposed to be or if i have missed a step.

We are having severe problems at the New York Times and the Holocaust article. The topic is a small but for Americans, significant, part of the history of the Holocaust. Like history of the Holocaust in general it is well documented, incontrovertible and not controversial among decent people. It is very well known in the field of Holocaust studies, but unknown by the general public. The information in the article could be based on references from the New York Time’s 100th anniversary apology and especially their full-page, 150th anniversary apology for purposefully burying news of the Holocaust on its inside pages (see [29]; the founding director of the U.S. Holocaust Museum; the founding director of Harvard’s Shorenstein Center of Journalism; the founding director of the Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies; the top academic who has written in detail on the subject, Laurel Leff and other academics. The Time’s itself called its policy to not report adequately on the Holocaust ‘tragic’ and “the century’s bitterest journalistic failure”, that it had significant impact on the failure of the U.S. to rescue Jews from Hitler, and concluded that generations of journalists have learned from it not to underreport genocide.

Unfortunately, this topic has attracted the attention of three malicious editors who are very experienced in all the procedures of Wikipedia: bali ulimate, Phgustaf and loonymonkey. They claim the topic is an original POV by the wiki editor who first introduced it; that it is ‘trivial’; that it is fringe; that the Times apology is ‘just one man’s opinion’; that we can’t use quotes from the founding directors of the U.S. Holocaust Museum, Harvard’s Shorenstein Center of Journalism or the the Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies because they all come from one source (the script for a History Chanel program written by the Newseum called “The Holocaust: the Untold Story”, available in its entirely on the web here [30]); that the New York Times ‘may have dropped the ball a little’ but that the topic is worth no more than a couple of sentences on the New York Times page.

These same wikipedians previously blocked a paragraph on the subject on the New York Times page, where the topic is currently reduced to a few sentences buried in the section ‘criticism of the Times’ next to a paragraph on a minor editor who plagiarized. In short, wiki is being manipulated by these three hostile wikipedians to recreate in a microcosm the burying of information on the Holocaust.

When the original version of this article was posted it needed more work. Instead of collaborating to improve it, these three hostile wikipedians first tried to have the topic deleted entirely. As part of that discussion they suggested at most it should be a stub. When they were voted down on deletion they proceeded to delete the entire article anyway and substitute a polemical and inaccurate stub, which is what appears on wiki now. They have been belligerent, name calling and working together to drive constructive editors off the page and to impose complete control. They have not once replied to constructive attempts to reach consensus. Repeatedly calling for balance, they have not once produced a reference to provide such ‘balance.’ (There are no opposing references they can produce. There is complete consensus on the basic facts of this topic, just as there is consensus that the Holocaust happened.) They have now changed their tactic to a proposal to merge the article back into the New York Times page, which is a transparent ploy to delete it by another name. The page is frozen and there is no possibility of working on an improved version as long as these three wikipedians are playing the role of spoiler.

I am fairly new to wiki. I am frankly having trouble following the gazillion rules, each with subsets and complex definitions. Baliultimate and his cohorts are very well versed and use wiki rules like insults and weapons to hurl at their opponents. There is something very abusive to me and other sincere editors in the way the wiki consensus process is playing out on this page. It is not fair to us to be asked to collaborate with what are functionally Holocaust deniers. They are denying the validity and facts of this small chapter of Holocaust history, not working sincerely to produce a good article. I respectfully request they be permanently banned from editing this article.Cimicifugia (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2010

Another allegation of holocaust denial against me and two others who happen to disagree with him on content. "It is not fair to us to be asked to collaborate with what are functionally Holocaust deniers." Wikipedia is entirely too tolerant of this kind of stuff. I've also been dealing with insinuations of this very thing from other editors who are smart enough not to cross the line. Absolutely poisonous.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could we merge these last two sections together here? The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, though I suspect there's some cunning {{anchor}} magic I've missed out... TFOWR 14:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors' comments

Cimicifugia, I appreciate you may be new to all this, but accusing other editors of "holocaust denial" is hugely, hugely offensive. See WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and - above all - WP:AGF. Would you agree to apologise to all editors to whom you've made that claim for making that claim, and conditionally drop your complaint against Bali ultimate (see below)?

Bali ultimate, would you agree to drop your complaint against Cimicifugia if they in turn dropped theirs, and agreed to avoid "holocaust denier" claims in future?

Cheers, TFOWR 14:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He accused two other people of same. I'm absolutely furious, and justifiably so. He has no evidence to support the disgusting allegation whatsoever.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've amended my request - big bit added - to clarify what I'd like to see Cimicifugia do. As a good faith gesture, and I do appreciate that claims like this are incredibly hurtful, would you be prepared to accept an apology from Cimicifugia if they were to apologise to all insulted parties and undertake not to repeat this? TFOWR 15:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cimicifugia (talk · contribs) posted a couple of {{helpme}} requests about this on their talk page; I gave some generic advice on remaining calm and civil, etc, but I did not look into the specifics; I said that, as the incident was now on this noticeboard, they should comment and respond here.  Chzz  ►  15:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of "holocaust denial," "malice," etc... continue. i don't think it is appropriate to use mediation with what are functionally Holocaust deniers.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 24 hours for persisting in attacks, even after it was pointed out how offensive they were. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be noted that I attempted to intervene in the dispute and help the two editors resolve the dispute peacefully. Cimicifugia was willing to accept neutral intervention, and had asked me for advice on how to properly request intervention. I told Cimicifugia that it was best to talk with the user first before reporting them. I then tried talking to Bali Ultimate explaining that I would attempt to mediate. Bali was unwilling to compromise or talk to me on the matter and told me "You have no standing to mediate anything and you're hereby invited not to return here again to discuss the content issue" also in the editing summary to "Go back to editing Star Trek Articles". I informed Cimicifugia that my attempt to talk with Bali had failed and the only option left would be to report Bali here with a neutral post. By calling Bali a holocaust denier the post was obviously not written neutrally. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Full quote from me to the trekkie who barged onto my talk page with an offer of "mediation." "I suggest you go the relevant talk page and participate. You have no standing to mediate anything and you're hereby invited not to return here again to discuss the content issue best dealt with over there."Bali ultimate (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with an uninvolved editor trying to mediate? Isn't that the basic premise of Wikipedia:Third opinion? Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion is to give a third opinion, not mediate. We have an actual mediation project here.--Crossmr (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEAT & WP:NPA violations by User:Jean-Jacques Georges

(I do apologize for bothering you fellas with this after the above thread, but I should like the matter formally addressed.)

• User:Jean-Jacques Georges has endeavored to recruit his personal WP:MEAT "army", trying to enlist User:Theirrulez [31], User:Sir Floyd [32], and perhaps others I am unaware of.
  • Note User:Jean-Jacques Georges' "Yugoslavia articles" thread on User talk:Theirrulez, and Theirrulez's reply "About your plan" on User talk:Jean-Jacques Georges.
  • Note User:Jean-Jacques Georges' "Yugoslavia articles" thread on User talk:Sir Floyd.

• In addition to this, User:Jean-Jacques Georges appears convinced that he is allowed to game the system and throw all manner of insults at whole groups of people simply by avoiding to name them explicitly.
  • during the first (Jean-Jacques Georges/Theirrulez) discourse, User:Jean-Jacques Georges refers to others and myself as "a bunch of insane trolls and clumsy POV-pushers (mostly Titoist nostalgics, I'd say, but sometimes on the opposite side)". Going on to say "There's no need to endlessly argue with cretins." (These comments refer to the Josip Broz Tito article and should be viewed in the context of the recent discussion on Talk:Josip Broz Tito.) The (recently blocked) User:Theirrulez replies with "Tito's fanboys (I can't stop laughing when I read this definition :D) preside the article, raving something about consensus".
  • during the second (Jean-Jacques Georges/Sir Floyd) discourse, User:Jean-Jacques Georges refers to others and myself as "a professional (but clumsy) POV-pusher of profound incompetence (or several of these)", going on to say "My personal opinion is also that some users (...) should not be allowed to participate at all".

In my experience this certainly seems actionable, so I warned the user on his talk pointing out policy [33]. He promptly took offense, deleted the warning, ordering me not to post on his talkpage in the future [34], and reported me here [35] (in an apparent attempt to post a classic "preemptive report"), and then simply resumed the activities [36]. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I should be much obliged if someone notifies the user that he has been reported, as he has just ordered me not to post on his talkpage. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do know how to make enemies, do you ? This is utterly absurd. The fact that several users have (in the first place) contacted me about current issues being debated, and that I have answered them and suggested that they give their opinions on the various project pages has nothing to do with such puerile accusations.

"Recruiting his own meat army".... This is simply pathetic. Words fail to describe the sheer absurdity of this claim. I have seen a lot of hostility and bad faith on wikipedia but this one definitely takes the cake.

I do not know Theirrulez and Sir Floyd. They wrote me a message, I answered them. End of the story. We seem to be in accordance regarding some issues, but that's it. I have no idea of their personal opinions on more global matters.

And indeed, many "Yugoslav" articles are in a deplorable condition and woefully biased. May I add that I have not read their respective revision histories and have, for the most, part, no idea who wrote them ? Why, oh why, does Direktor feels targeted ? If I am not mistaken, he never edited this or this or this (all insufficient articles, that have nothing whatsoever to do with him).

As for Theirrulez being "recently blocked", may I add that Direktor was also "recently blocked" ? (not that I care at all).

More bad faith from Direktor : the link he provides to "prove" that I "simply resumed the activities" ([37] : does he mean that I have resumed hostile activities against him ?) is simply a correction on a message that I had left earlier on Sir Floyd's page. A grammatical correction. The message was written, as far as I can remember, prior to the pathetic exchange that I had with Direktor.

Moreover, he (deliberately ?) misquotes me : the exact sentences are "A great deal of them look like they were tampered with by a bunch of insane trolls and clumsy POV-pushers (mostly Titoist nostalgics, I'd say, but sometimes on the opposite side)" and "the article looks like it was written by a professional (but clumsy) POV-pusher of profound incompetence (or several of these)." Meaning : these articles are bad, they look like they were written by one or several pov-pushers. Which is what I think.

Indeed, I order Direktor not to post on my talk page in the future. I find this user's attitude unbearable and his arrogance wearisome. What he does here proves further his aggressive intentions towards me. I have no interest whatsoever in any contact or exchange with this user - occasional project pages excluded, of course - and hope this wish will be respected in the future. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I see, JJG talks in general, not acusing any particular editors, but you seem to feel identified with the description he does on a particular way of editing. Perhaps you are acknolledging your own actions on his words... FkpCascais (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's called gaming the system, Fkp. In the given context it is perfectly clear who he was referring to with these obscenities. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. I was referring to several, possible, undeterminated people, as probable culprits for the deplorable state of the articles. If anything, I insulted the articles, which are indeed bad and which, by definition, have much more than one "author". And, also, you misquoted me (see above) in order to make what I say appear more agressive. If you feel targeted and insulted, that is your problem. If you feel the need to fuel our mutual hostility, that is also your problem. Now I consider that this absurd exchange should simply end, for I have no interest whatsoever in it. I think we should simply leave it at that, and simply abstain from talking to each other in the future. Cheers, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that so? These "cretins" then, when did you "debate pointlessly" with them? Please. Despite your apparent assumption to the contrary, people are not stupid. Either way, the posts are there and they're reasonably brief, leave it to the admins to have a quick look at your two threads and make a decision. Appalling behavior, completely unprovoked in any way... I honestly did not expect such animosity from you JJG. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citing you: "Appalling behavior, completely unprovoked in any way" , you must be joking, right? Anyway, you seem to have adopted the tactic of making allways a counter-report any time someone reports you (you did that with me several times), even if necessary to go around looking digging old discussions, just to find some reason. What you are reporting here has been your usual behavior for months. In some discussions we had, you made me go trouth some old archives of talk pages, where I found many interesting stuff about you. Then you and those users just begin doing less that on eachothers talk pages, probably because you found out that is way better to make those comments via e-mail. But you still can´t resist making them as you recently did with LAz21 on eachother talkpages about me. To be honest, I think you just hate to see that you were caught in what you were doing and the worste is that many users became aware of it and started talking with eachother. It really is not their fault and as you already admited, you are starting to be quite famous around, but don´t get too excited about it, because you´re becoming famous for the bad reasons. Even I receved several several anonim congratulations (as seen on my talk page) because I stood up to your behavior, from people that just gave up because, from I understood, they simply don´t want to participate in discussions that include you. The complains on you are numerous, and honestly beleave that you are doing much harm to WP. The problem is not what you defend, but how you do it. You can even be right in some cases (I had real dificulties to find even one edit war or discussion where you were completely right), but all this complains are certainly not all wrong. You should/could really try to change and I definitely hate to see excellent WP contributors like JJG (even you admited that) to think to abandon the WP project because they have no patience neither wish to deal with you. WP is a wanderfull place that allows everybody to be part of an encyclopedia. It is hard to understand that you just prefer to spend most of the time here the way you do. FkpCascais (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is reminiscent of the Gunpowder Plot done in Pantomime. We are at the point where the "doubtful swords" are exchanged for bladders and the participants beat each other about the head and neck. I would have hoped that these participants had learned something from the Draža Mihailović mediation by now, but sadly, no. Some good faith would be a boon, as would sticking to content, not the contributor. Would all concerned be willing to try focussing on content once more? Sunray (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That it may be, but JJG is behaving rather inappropriately, to say the least, in an area that should be regulated by the ARBMAC restriction. Let's look at some of what DIREKTOR has had to face in the last few days: "Glad to see I'm not the only one who finds Direktor's agressivity and arrogance to be unbearable". [38]; "unless one is a hyper-sensitive Tito fanboy". [39]; "labeling him a traitor... is stupid to say the least" [40]; "Yugoslav articles look like they were tampered with by a bunch of insane trolls and clumsy POV pushers" [41]; "There's no need to endlessly argue with cretins".[42];"IMHO, it is useless to argue endlessly with Direktor, or even to discuss with him at all. Sources should be provided if there are some. That's it. And as for the "encyclopedic" nature of the word "regime", his arguments are absurd". [43]; "Direktor, you don't make sense. IMHO, you never do". [44]; "I seriously doubt that you have any knowledge at all besides a few pages glimpsed on google books". [45]; "No, I'd prefer that you stop contributing entirely to wikipedia, but I suppose it's useless to wait for miracles". [46]. Nobody should have to tolerate this sustained campaign of personal abuse. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible rangeblock?

Resolved

 – The range 75.47.128.0/19 had been blocked for 12 hours. If more trouble continues please remove this tag. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 19:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A user, who keeps changing IPs in the 75.47.x.x range, is repeatedly blanking pages. Currently:

• 131.161
• 146.157
• 155.18
• 159.3

have been blocked. Would a rangeblock of a couple of hours be appropiate here, to stop the vandalism? RandomTime 15:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seen it, too. Adding:

• 75.47.156.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (I blocked 'em for blanking at WP:AIV, and being an obvious sock of...
• 75.47.128.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (I blocked 'em for vandalism, with "Not vandalism" as the edit summary.

TFOWR 15:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

75.47.128.0/19 blocked for 12 hours. Hopefully that will slow things down. TNXMan 15:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need help at World Cup ref bio page

Koman Coulibaly blew a call in the US vs. Slovenia game and his page is now under heavy attack. I've fully protected for now but would appreciate some additional admin eyes (e.g. on the talk page) as I'm not able to monitor very much. Ronnotel (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add it. If you see any other pages under attack, ping me on the talk page. SirFozzie (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is back to semi it seems, but it could still use some additional eyes. It is slowly moving into the direction of becoming libel where most of the article is criticizing the subject - either for this match or for past offenses. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's now an article in USA Today regarding the vandalism here if any is interested. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 19:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid media... They seriously took a screenshot of the vandalism and posted it to show people? Anyway, watching page. Netalarm^talk 23:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hemant Karkare and anti-Israel Conspiracy Theories

I would like to bring attention to the article on Hemant Karkare, which is currently sufferring from a massive edit war, possibly by sock puppets (see my post here for the list) led by an anti-Israel editor named User:TwoHorned (He tried to POV-push in the India-Israel relations article before). The focus of the "edit-war" is over WP:FRINGE Conspiracy Theories concerning his death and the 2008 Mumbai attacks (in which a Chabad Lubavich center in Mumbai was destroyed by Pakistani Muslims). The edit-warriors keep inserting many bogus claims made by extremists, one of them is that Israeli-government has been fomenting religious riots in India (see this section of their version). Perhaps intervention would prove constructive in this area. Thanks.117.194.197.61 (talk) 23:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent date changes to cartoon articles -- Need a long term block

This IP (110.54.137.133) has deliberately changed dates to incorrect values, mostly air dates, on cartoon articles since March of this year. Most of those went unnoticed, although almost all were eventually fixed by regular editors. The IP has been warned, and received a 1 week block a little while back. This has only continued. Almost all of their edits are of this variety (a few early on appeared to be legitimate). There is never an explanation or source provided and the user's never engaged in dialogue.

Just to ensure that these are actual errors, I spot checked a few, and those examples follow.

• I Am Weasel IMBD source, diff similar
• List of Johnny Bravo episodes IMDB source diff
• Evil Con Carne source diff (Note that the IP changed the date for the end to match IMDB (the start date does not match IMDB) but IMDB doesn't list the last episode--the Dec 31 date had been there since early 2008 with this addition, and was changed by another IP (187.171.8.1), although it remained in the same month (that other IP might warrant investigating, but it's from a different geographical area))
• Mister Magoo's Christmas Carol Date source diff (VHS tapes in 1984 were pretty expensive, hard to imagine a children's video coming out like that)

As for the early on edits, this edit was in fact correct. It was originally correct in the article but had persisted for a long time due to this edit by a [geographically unrelated] IP [47]. This was early, so I don't know if it was a legitimate correction or just a random change that got it right.

Keep in mind, although I'm using IMDB as a source, these changed long-established dates on here. If this editor's on a crusade to fix erroneous IMDB dates, they haven't said as much or provided any evidence.

I looked for other IP ranges a little bit, but not extensively. The editing history speaks for itself, and the occurrence of some correct changes is odd, but given the absolute lack of communication, these issues have gone on long enough. Shadowjams (talk) 23:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]