User:Carolrubensteinesq has made a legal threat on this User Talk page [1] threatening to subpoena Wikipedia for my information in a civil suit. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for making a straightforward legal threat. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Better be careful, that one is "a member of the New York, Michigan and California Bars". In fact, there's a good chance the user is in one of those Bars right now, this being New Year's. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Next stop Trenton, NJ. Guy (Help!) 13:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Or another Jersey city whose name illustrates what is done with vandals: Hack 'n Sack. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Note: The article in question has been recreated at the unsalted page Scott walterschied. Requested CSD-G4. 78.34.151.178 (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Done And... gone. 78.34.151.178 (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Moet and glass.jpg is currently displayed on the main page, and is not locally uploaded or protected at the Wikimedia Commons. Administrative assistance is requested in uploading the file locally (which cannot be effectuated by non-admins due to a conflict with the filename at the commons and cascading protection for the main page) or protecting the image at the commons. Additionally, it would be useful to more forcefully inform the administrators updating template:did you know of the need to ensure that images are correctly protected before placing them on the main page -- while the edit window for Template:Did you know/Next update contains specific instructions to this effect, they apparently are insufficiently compelling. John254 01:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I told the admins hanging out at IRC; both the wp and commons versions are protected. We need a proper way to handle this though. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

commons:Commons:Bots/Requests for flags/LinkFA-Bot may be of interest. Apparently the bot automates such protection in a rather ingenious manner, exploiting parserfunctions, inclusion & cascading protection.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Can an admin protect the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) from editing for a while, preferably at an older version before the changes started? A group of editors disagrees strongly with the naming guidelines for article titles in plants and performed some 117 edits to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) page over the month of December.[2] When this page, the flora naming guidelines, was protected from editing, the editors moved on to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) page. It would be easier for other Wikipedians using these guidelines, if they guidelines were not the targets of an edit war. And, it would not be much of a burden for the editors concerned to gain concensus, propose the change, then ask an admin to allow the change or do the change. Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I asked specifically for an older version to do away with the undiscussed changed made by this group of editors, which, will, of course, leave it at a bad version, but all of their changes should have been discussed first. --KP Botany (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:PROTECT and m:The wrong version. Protonk (talk) 03:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No, not necessary, my comment alluded to the fact that I am aware of these essays. The content of my post was intended to make that clear, and it did. I am discussing policies and guidelines and this inane referring of editors to generally badly written essays never helps. I have no idea why you referred me to WP:PROTECT. --KP Botany (talk) 03:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I request for your opinions and neccessary actions in the artcle Bukidnon State University which has been the subject of reverts since October 2008. Another concernced user, Kleomarlo (talk · contribs), and I already went to WP:RFPP on seperate occassions but declined since the reverts are too slow. The problems are with Tomorts (talk · contribs) and his anons who re-adds unsourced cheerdance competition data and removes sourced sections and image with appropriate FUR (Although it needs some help in reducing the image size. It would be great if anyone can help with that too). I believe his motivations are this is my work do not ruined it.... which translates to Ownership issues. I already talked to him in my edit summaries and here but judging from his talkpage, I think the discussion is getting nowhere.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Image resized. From his talk page and his article creations (another one of which needs CSDing), it seems like he/she is likely a student having trouble maintaining a neutral point of view and is mostly here to self-promo his/her own group and the school to a lesser degree. I'd revert with progressive warnings and if he keeps up, send to AI/V for blocking. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks.--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

An admin may want to check his image uploads...seems like he's uploading his personal graphic images for the school that he then created articles for the primary purpose of showing off his images?? Not sure that's against any policies or guidelines, but seems like a waste of space. I've CSDed all the "articles" I found, which weren't articles at all, just a text line then his images. They aren't good redirects as they are very general and not just fitting to that school. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The AfD on the Centrist Party article doesn't appear to have been listed properly. I would fix it, but it's several days old now, so I'm not sure if it's okay to just list it on the current day's crop, or if it needs to be completely redone or whatever. It's not my AfD, so any advice or help to the editor who added it would be appreciated. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'd just list it on today's crop, leaving a note to explain on both the AfD and the nominator's talk page. Reyk _YO! 05:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I think it's listed okay now. Cross your fingers that all of Wikipedia doesn't grind to a halt after whatever edits I made filter through the system... it seems to be okay now I think. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

24.160.240.250 is having WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issues with Talk:Joseph Farah. Basically, he wants to hold a discussion about a controversial claim about Farah based on no evidence whatsoever. He has reverted a number of editors who have blanked the discussion in accordance with WP:BLP. Though I considered making a block myself, since I have been discussing the issue with him, I felt it better to recuse myself from it and bring it here. --B (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I was coming here to post the same. Dayewalker (talk) 07:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I contend that my edits don't violate the Talk Page provisions of BLP. I further contend that they certainly don't now that there's another citation of the same issue. I commend you both for recusing yourselves, though. However, accusing me of "having WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issues" at the same time that you're removing my responses from the talk page is disengenuous. I wouldn't have to revert your blanking of my comments if you'd discuss the issue at hand, rather than blanking me. I'm feeling a lack of WP:AGF and WP:No Personal Attacks comming from your direction. 24.160.240.250 (talk) 07:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You reverted multiple times to insert a libelous statement on the talk page of a BLP, against policy and the reverts of several other editors. On at least one occasion, I removed comments of yours because they were inserted with the libelous statement, as if to make a point. I'd think invoking WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT would actually be a good thing here, since it assumes you weren't violating policy on purpose.

To the admin who looks into this case, the IP has also been very uncivil on [[User}Sinneed|Sinneed's]] page, telling him to "grow a pair" [3] and calling him arrogant and condescending [4]. Dayewalker (talk) 07:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. We'll see what happens next. Jclemens (talk) 09:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Can an admin check http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dharmasthala&action=history I have given an offer to discuss at Talk:Dharmasthala, but the other user refuses to discuss and keeps on reverting. Thanks, Kensplanet^T_C 07:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This is completely nonsense. the above user is trying to advertise his language in Dharmasthala article. Dharmasthala is temple for Lingayats(kannadigas). C21K^talk 07:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry..it's not my language. As a Wikipedian, I just want accuracy in articles Kensplanet^T_C 07:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war. You are both to blame, you should both know better than to make silly comments like "revert..If you do not discuss this won't Stop.No admin will block me since I have goven an offer to discuss..I may be wrong..I accept but U have to discuss" and... well, in C21K's case, making almost no comment at all. As for C21K's threat to "start adding kannada script to all churces located in karnataka"... yes, you are both to blame. Just stop edit warring, and if C21K does not respond (which appears not to be the case) it is possible that both of you will be blocked for edit warring. Just stop the edit warring, since I have currently only just woken up I don't know about what I think the best way to go about resolving the nondiscussion issue is. — neuro^(talk) 08:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/User:CABlankenship

This is a relatively more active SSP case, and the case page is getting a bit active and heated. Could use some more eyes. (As usual it is always appreciated to have more admin attention to the WP:SSP backlog in general as well.) Thank you, Cirt (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – BOT operating correctly.

Lightbot has been removing delinking "meters" in the infoboxes of most television stations and has now started on the radio stations. Also is delinking "Square Miles" and "Kilometers" in city/county/state pages, among other forms of measurement. Should this be stopped, should I revert, what should be done? - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 31, 2008 @ 18:36

I have blocked LightBot[edit]

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

Is it supposed to be unlinking hundreds and hundreds of units of measurement? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I contacted Lightmouse about this, but recieved no response. It looks like Lightbot was operating by itself. Are bots supposed to operate without someone to make sure it doesn't go all haywire? - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 31, 2008 @ 18:43

Per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 3, it is supposed to act like that. As for NeutralHomer's question, many bots are completely automated, so the botop does not approve the edits manually. Maxim_(talk) 18:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted some of Lightbot's edits (ones that popped up on my Watchlist...please see my contribs), should I self-revert to Lightbot's edit? - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 31, 2008 @ 18:49

I would advise yes, and I've saved you the trouble of clicking undo again by simply rollbacking them myself. Maxim_(talk) 18:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...I will check to make sure you got them all. I did that when I wasn't sure if the bot should be doing that, but we took care of that here. Thanks for the input and the rollbacks :) Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • December 31, 2008 @ 18:54

Well, it seemed out of its mind to me. Sorry for the mess won't be blocking bots again in the near future. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Since when does approval to use a bot mean that anything the bot does is okay? If fact, even when people tried to indicate support of his actions, they were shot down in those discussions.

Furthermore, approval of such a vague request, with no real guidelines and pretty much open-ended as to what the bot does, is something that should be reviewable either here or somewhere else outside the bot requests. Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing out of the ordinary here. The bot is simply bringing dates and units into compliance with the WP:MOS, specifically WP:OVERLINK and WP:MOSNUM. I will look into its edits in more detail, but as far as I can tell, its doing basically mundane repetive MOS compliance. I see nothing controversial here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, WP:MOSNUM says "the first occurrence of each unit should be linked". It looks to be delinking ALL occurances of units. I will be reblocking, since it looks to be working somewhat out of compliance with the MOS. Its probably a minor glitch. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

What should happen to all edits it has already made? - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 31, 2008 @ 19:34

There was, in fact, nothing in the bot approval to keep him from unlinking whatever he chooses to unlink. That is not in accordance with those pages. Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think I figured out the confusion. WP:MOSNUM says "the first occurrence of each unit should be linked", however WP:OVERLINK says "It is generally not necessary to link... Plain English words, including common units of measurement". We have battling guidelines. One or the other needs to be fixed so that the two guidelines aren't saying the opposite thing!!! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I gotta run for like an hour or so. If anyone thinks I fucked up royally here, please feel free to re-unblock the bot. I just want to resolve the problem with the two guidelines, so that we can be certain there is no ambiguity on what is to be done with the linking of units. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

That "plain English words" part is bothering me, because the bot is changing "meters" to "m". Some people may not know that m=meters. Should the bot delink and change to the "plain English words" not the abbreviation? - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 31, 2008 @ 19:42

The bot is not designed to change the text that the reader sees. Thus it should not change "meters" to "m". If you give me examples, I can investigate. Lightmouse (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

"Common" is a subjective term that we should not leave to Lightbot's handler's disgression. Anything the bot does needs to be explicitly spelled out.

There are in fact actually at least a half-dozen or more different places in the MOS saying that various units of measurement should be linked. Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Gene Nygaard wrote

• "Common" is a subjective term that we should not leave to Lightbot's handler's disgression

'Common' is indeed subjective, but the guidance provides explicit examples. Please click on the [2] at the end of the guidance at Wikipedia:OVERLINK#What_generally_should_not_be_linked. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If I ran programs that run as sloppily and destructively as these bots are allowed to, I'd have been fired long ago. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You say that as if anyone here is more than a volunteer. As my grandma oft said, "you get what you paid for." --Kralizec! (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

That was going to be my next comment. But being paid nothing is no excuse. No one is forced to do this work. If they can't do it properly, they should go away and let someone else try it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue here is with the somewhat fuzzy constraints the bot is operating under. All of its edits appear to be kosher as per the WP:OVERLINK guideline ... but unfortunately that guideline appears to be contradicted by the WP:MOSNUM guideline. While I personally tend to like the WP:MOSNUM rules where only the first usage is linked, I have to feel for Lightmouse (who is generally very responsive to detailed trouble reports) because you cannot make anyone happy when our guidelines appear to contradict each other. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Then he should do some investigation first and ask some questions. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The last time I counted, we had approximately 256 guidelines and 127 official policies ... with many of them contradicting each other. Would we have any bots if they all had to fully comply with this byzantine collection of rules first? --Kralizec! (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This is, what, the 25th AN/I thread on WP:MOSNUM? Why do we even have this nonsense if all it does is result in endless arguments? *** Crotalus *** 22:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

What should the guidelines say?[edit]

So here is the crux of the problem. There is no issue with any editor bringing any article into compliance with Wikipedia guidelines. By extension, there should also be no problem with an editor using an approved bot to do the same; as long as the bot is making edits that someone using Firefox and a keyboard would be expected to make, there is no issue. So let me make clear that my recent block of the bot is not because I have anything wrong with the bot per se. However, before the bot is to continue doing its good work, we should establish exactly what the guidelines should say. There is a clear conflict between at least two three guidelines:

• WP:MOSNUM states clearly that units should be linked at their first occurance in an article only, and not at further occurances.
• WP:OVERLINK states clearly that units should not normally be linked, falling explicitly under the category of "plain English words".
• WP:MOSLINK states "In tables and infoboxes, units should not be internally linked to Wikipedia pages" but says nothing about article body text on the issue.
• <please add additional guidelines here as needed>

Mr. Nygaard notes that there are a half-dozen or so guidelines that also deal with this, I have left a place for the list above to be expanded, please do so.

As far as Baseball Bugs's concern; it appears that Lightbot was exactly in compliance with WP:OVERLINK and the bot was not slopily programed; it is not unreasonable to think that our guidelines would be consistant! That they are not is something that needs to be addressed. Given that this is likely a problem spread across several pages; I think we need a centralized discussion. If there is enough interest here, I will start an RFC to provide that centralized discussion. What does everyone think? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The crux of the issue appears to be the inexact definition of "plain English words" in WP:OVERLINK. So while I may have a good idea as to what a square mile is, my wife would not have a clue [5]. Likewise while my daughter may understand metres, my son has not yet reached that stage of school [6]. If we do not want to make any assumptions regarding exactly which units of measure are "plain English" for our readers, then we should stick to WP:MOSNUM's recommendation to link the "first occurrence" only. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

If you are interested in this, maybe also see this, where there is a discussion about whether to link nationalities in the lead section of bios. Again, the MOS or policy is sort of open to interpratation. Thanks, --Tom 20:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Lightbot's present tear has been unlinking square kilometers. Even in that context there is a big difference between removing the link from:

• 18.4 [[square kilometer]]s → 18.4 square kilometers, or
• 18.4 [[square kilometre]]s → 18.4 square kilometres

on the one hand, and from unlinking the symbol in

• 18.4 [[square kilometer|km²]] → 18.4 km²

Why is there a difference? Because many of the rules of our Manual of Style are built on the premise (an ill-founded one, in my opinion, but nobody listens to me) that English-speakers are too stupid to know what the superscript means in that symbol, so the MoS gives us rules actually prohibiting the use of commonly used symbols such as ft³ and mi². Fortunately, the innumerate people writing our rules don't often venture out into the real world of the articles where people actually use them anyway. Gene Nygaard (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Gene, those symbols are advised against because they are harder to read. Relevant quote: "Avoid the unicode characters ² and ³. They are harder to read on small displays, and are not aligned with superscript characters (see x1x²x³x4 vs. x1x2x3x4). Instead, use superscript markup, created with ." Dabomb87 (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have started an RFC for a centralized discussion of the issue of linking units in articles. I arbitrarily chose the talk page of WP:MOSNUM, but I am also leaving notices on as many relevent talk pages as possible to attract centralized attention to this. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Centralized discussion for linking of units of measurement. Please carry on all further discussion at that location. Thanks. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Kralizec wrote that wp:overlink had an inexact definition of common units. Please look again, wp:overlink provides an exact definition by giving examples. Just click on the [2] at the end of the guidance at Wikipedia:OVERLINK#What_generally_should_not_be_linked. Feet and metres are the most commonly linked items on Wikipedia, so most of this discussion is about those. We don't link plain english terms like river even the first time it appears. Similarly we don't need to link feet or metre even the first time it appears on a page about the height of a mountain or a person. If a conversion is provided, that is double the reason not to link. Lightmouse (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we link river? Shouldn't we say "The Mississippi River is a river in the United States?" --NE2 21:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That is a valid link in a definition article. We don't link plain english terms elsewhere. Lightmouse (talk) 12:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Is OKBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) supposed to do things like this? See it's contribs. --aktsu ^(t / c) 03:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a standard (seemingly correct) addition of an interwiki link... is that a problem?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

To policies I can understand, but in the middle of discussions here (diff above) and at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention? --aktsu ^(t / c) 03:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Bots should not be adding interwiki links to talk pages. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 04:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not a talk page, it's a project page. Furthermore, the two pages are analogous - the interwiki is correct AFAICT.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 05:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

So it won't be archived along with the discussion? Just asking because I can't see any other interwikilinks here, and on the other pages in question. --aktsu ^(t / c) 05:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, it will archive it. I can't think how the archival bot will know the difference, unless it is programmed to notice common features not to archive at the end of the page (I don't know about the latter). — neuro^(talk) 09:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Was my thoughts as well, so I pointed it out here not completely sure if it was an error or not. Anyway, I notified OsamaK (talk · contribs) and he'll probably take a look at it. As the bot probably doesn't need to be blocked (which was my initial concern), should this be marked as "resolved"? --aktsu ^(t / c) 09:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Woh, Slow it down :), Bots don't get blocked for an edit. This mistake came from fawp, since they're using the wrong interwiki, I noted them here. Anyway, interwiki bots are working using a standard program, any programming problem should be directly reported to the pywikipedia team, mostly not the operator. Thank you for noting aktsu, keep going!--OsamaK 13:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Was just concerned when it suddenly started editing a lot of other Wikipedia:X-pages after the one here, without really investigating if those edits were OK or not :) Anyway, glad to help. --aktsu ^(t / c) 13:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Should we be worried about this edit summary? Reyk _YO! 10:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know about worried it's offensive and what-not, but I'm not sure what we would do. We could RBI but that IP hasn't edited in 4 hours, it may be assigned to someone else by now. Protonk (talk) 11:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

  The users 'retirement' implies it isn't going to be an issue. The only way to remove it would be oversight, and this isn't something serious enough for that tool to be used. We cannot guarantee any warning will get to the user involved; another person may be assigned the IP. All-in-all I'd recommend leaving it. Ironholds (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

  You can actually delete single revisions. You delete the whole page and restore every revision but the offending one. No oversight needed. Pretty soon admins will be able to delete individual revisions without taking the whole page down in the interim. Protonk (talk) 11:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

  Oh rly? Didn't know that. I guess Oversight just removes it from the eyes of everyone including admins, then. Do that if you feel it is necessary. Ironholds (talk) 11:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

  Not really, but I also don't even think we should bother deleting it. If this were on an article or project page I would feel differently, but as it stands a vanishingly small number of people will see that history page and all they are likely to draw from it is the exactly what LHvU did. Protonk (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Anyone else savouring the irony of an anti-Semitic sentiment decrying the influence of Jews upon "knoledge"; proof that you really do need to be that stupid to harbour hatred toward another group. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• You don't have to be that stupid, it just helps a lot. Protonk (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• There's also the "should of". Reminds me of the idiot in Porky's who thought the slur for Jews was "Kites". Aryan supremacy. Yah, shoor, yoo betcha. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Using "should of" or "would of" needs to be written into WP:BLOCK as a perfectly good reason for blocking. Spelling mistakes can be forgiven, but not that. Black Kite 11:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Absolutely. -- The Grammar Police 13:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Could someone uninvolved please tell User:Secisek about page move rules, particularly cut and paste (see Archbishop of Armagh and Archbishop of Armagh (Roman Catholic)). I pointed this out but user insists on edit-warring over it anyway. I reverted him twice, but don't wanna look like I'm "edit warring" 'cause you just never know what will happen. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Have explained, briefly but hopefully satisfactorily. I am watchlisting the contributor's page in case further discussion is necessary. I see that User:Wknight94 has corrected the c&p move and protected the articles pending consensus. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

For the past month, I've been involved in a dispute at Threshold (online game), Frogdice and Michael Hartman with an editor or small cluster of editors, at least one of which has a COI. contributions (which resolves to a webserver operated by the subject) began to revert my edits to that group of articles blindly and with offensive edit summaries (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). The redir soon got full protection (per AfD results), and the two articles got semi'd to encourage discussion. Well, a user, contributions, showed up at Talk:Threshold (online game), where he began to make repeated unsubstantiated accusations that I'm a "disgruntled banned player", which he later admits are without actual evidence. Throughout, Cambios also performed repeated reverts with edit summaries along the same lines of the IP, which is one sign that suggests to me that they are one and the same.

I've sought outside assistance from several venues (WP:COIN, WP:EAR and other users who had shown interest in the article previously); this has gotten me some help (the earlier protections) and advice (see here). However, even when applying the advice, Cambios has reverted blindly (see here, and here where even trivial changes to the infobox get reverted). While I'd rather not drive away someone knowledgeable about the game, he's continued to make it very clear that he opposes any changes made by me on a personal basis. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've reverted Frogdice to the less spammy version, after all we aren't an advertising concern, and watchlisted the affected pages. Black Kite 19:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Black Kite. It also appears that I owe Cameron Scott and Patton123 thanks for helping out at Threshold (online game)... though a new IP has come in and reverted one of the latter user's edits without comment. But that revert is more a content dispute. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Mendaliv has not been completely honest with you folks. Mendaliv is a former player of Threshold who for some reason is disgruntled with the game, and has chosen Wikipedia as the form for taking out his anger. He has repeatedly engaged in edit wars with legitimate editors because of his personal animosities towards the game. Obviously, that is not the appropriate way for people to behave on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place for someone to further a personal vendetta against a game they are mad at. That is why people who actually KNOW about Threshold have been working on the entry and have been removing Mendaliv's vandalism. Cambios (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

In the interest of brevity, I'll just say that we've already had this discussion, ad nauseam, at Talk:Threshold (online game). I will however mention that you are still blindly reverting my every edit there, while making other trivial/promotional contributions in the same edits to justify deceptive edit summaries. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been going through this and removing what doesn't belong, which is frankly most of it. This mud was apparently covered as part of a larger article on mmos a few years ago (possibly to the tune of a name drop and not much else, someone would have to get a hold of the issue) and little else. The company itself hasn't received any coverage that has been provided and this article is written almost entirely on primary sources. The whole lot of it looks like promotion to me.--Crossmr (talk) 10:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Frankly this reeks of WP:OWN [7].--Crossmr (talk) 10:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice, Cambios just undid all edits by Mendaliv, Cameron Scott, Rosuav and Crossmr, stating: "Please let people who actually UNDERSTAND the topic work on the page. Having to constantly start over because people hack away without a faint inkling about the subject matter wastes time.". (diff). --aktsu ^(t / c) 11:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

And was blocked edit warring over it. --aktsu ^(t / c) 11:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

And came back with User:Nizevyn, also blocked, have hardblocked the IP mentioned above for a month and semi'd the article for a week. We did try, but some users refuse to Get The Point, sadly. Resolved. Black Kite 19:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else experiencing a problem with the orange new message notification? It keeps popping up for me without any new messages actually posted to my talk page. Tan | 39 16:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

And now my talk page history isn't showing two diffs I recently made. Weirdness. Tan | 39 16:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if it is related, but the past couple days I have had people post to my talk page, but no orange bar shows up, another user had the same problem. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 2, 2009 @ 16:54

It has showed up for me quite a few times when I don't have any messages as well. Nice to know it's not just me. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if this is related either, but sometimes I get the orange bar (correctly) but it isn't clickable... Black Kite 16:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The non-clickable bar has been happening to me intermittantly for a couple of weeks now. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 20:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yesterday, the bar (blue for me, due to customised CSS) popped up once, and I ignored it until I'd finished what I was doing, but as soon as I loaded a new page, it disappeared - that is not normal behaviour, and I , too, would be interested in what causes these problems. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 16:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here's weird for you. This section is appearing in my watchlist, and appearing when I click "edit this page" but it's not appearing if you just go right to WP:ANI or if you look at the page history. Some bizarre goings on... either way (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

And, of course, after I posted that, everything was a-okay. either way (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, I was seeing that too, and it seems OK now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's still going on, as my entry above is not in the article's edit history at the moment. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

?action=purge is your friend. – iridescent 17:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ran into that a second ago on AIV...couldn't see the vandalism edits because they weren't in the history... --Smashville^talk 17:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think the servers may be out of sync which is causing all kinds of problems. See also: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#You_have_new_messages_bar_sticking, Wikipedia:Help_desk#Servers_getting_out_of_sync. Icewedge (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've never seen any bar pop up when someone posts a new message to my talk page. Just a * next to the My talk link. Do you need to turn that on somewhere or something?--Atlan (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It's no longer happening for me, so it's hopefully going to be (or already) fixed now. SchfiftyThree ^(talk!) 20:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hkelkar sparked a huge edit war by pushing a anti-Pakistani point of view yesterday as sockpuppet User:Ontopofcosts. Now, User:Panunkashmir has edited Kashmir conflict (which is what got User:Ontopofcosts blocked yesterday) pushing a pro-Indian point of view, which so I hear is characteristic of User:Hkelkar, as the accounts sole edits. Could somebody look into this? Regards, Inferno, Lord of Penguins 18:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Panunkashmir is  Unrelated to Hkelkar. Different country entirely. I'll keep tabs on this editor, though. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear WIKIPEDIA admins,

I have been following, alongside user BANRAY (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BanRay) and user/admin SATORI SON (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Satori_Son), the case of a disruptive editor, whom registered twice, under the aforementioned accounts (when one was blocked, they created the other - block request situation seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Pep10). Their modus operandi consisted in gluing all sentences into one but, much much worse, removing all links and references, as well as other stuff. An example is posted here: (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=V%C3%ADtor_Gomes&diff=253363654&oldid=243133713)

After both accounts were banned indefinitely (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pararubbas#Blocked and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pep10#December_2008), the "contributor" still edits anonymously from time to time, and i now found another 4 new IP for PEP10 aka PARARUBBAS: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/92.6.202.44) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/92.3.180.254) and (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/82.154.136.129) and (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/82.155.99.187) which i duly report. Mr. SATORI and Mr. BANRAY have also been notified.

Not hoping to get many help here, since most of the times i report vandals, questions/phrases like "Don't know what you are after with this" or "Cool it, both of you (meaning me and the vandal)", but the case is duly reported and clarified with proper situation links. The rest, not up to me...

Sincerely, from PORTUGAL, wishing a pleasant 2009,

VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

There has been an unsourced claim in this article identifying the subject as a realtor of similar name/appearance. It was originally added by an SPA. The account's only edit. The edit included a link giving the subject's (supposedly) current workplace address, workplace phone, cell phone, etc. A few weeks ago, User:Epbr123 changed the article to make the privacy violating information more prominent and the workplace link more conspicuous. Although he did remove other unsourced statements. The named realtor whether or not she is this porn star has no notability as a realtor. There is no justification for including personal information like this. Either the bad edits should be oversighted or the article should be deleted and recreated to make this violation inaccessible. I deleted the info and link but it still sits in the article history. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

agreed, should be oversighted straight away. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the article and recreated it minus all revisions from January 8, 2008 to today. Hard to believe this had been in the article a whole year and no one caught it. Blueboy96 21:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It can happen with low traffic articles. On an obscure bio a while back, the hatnote was found to describe someone with a similar name - who had an article too - as a "child molestor". That'd been there for 18 months too. Black Kite 21:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it appropriate for a user to call another user a "kike" and a "yid" on their Talk page, as is done at User talk:ArabKh? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No. Algebraist 21:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the page is protected, so only an admin can fix it. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Namecalling removed. --barneca (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Amazingly, that isn't what he was blocked for - and only 24 hours, at that. Avruch ^T 22:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to tell, because (due to the annoying server synchrowhatchamacallit problem) I keep getting different versions of the block log even when I purge the cache, but VegaDark actually re-blocked indef an hour or so ago. --barneca (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the situation on the Rick Warren article above by User:Teledildonix314, User:Mike Doughney has repeatedly used personally demeaning language towards me this edit, yet more offensive are his repeated hypocritical threats towards me. He claims that by identifying the person responsible for the situation discussed above as a "vandal" (and I would claim accurately, given the situation) I was "name-calling" (after both he and User:Teledildonix314 had repeatedly called me names) and he has threatened to have me blocked (he seems to believe that it is solely his purgative whom to block). This, despite the fact that he himself is requesting action to be taken against User:Teledildonix314 (see above)! His most recent message to me is posted below.

Now I realize this all sounds rather juvenile, but I assure you that he is the one doing it - I could care less if he calls me names and I have no desire to have him blocked. What ticks me off are the threats - please tell him to stop. Just investigate his comments on the Rick Warren discussion page, along with mine and his for the evidence. I'm sure you will come to a logical and fair resolution. Thanks. Manutdglory (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Rick Warren, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. You have been warned by me twice to cease making abusive comments to other editors in your edit summaries and falsely accusing editors of vandalism. This is your final warning. Stop. Your previous warnings were here and here. Mike Doughney (talk) 07:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I just happened to come across an edit that Manutdglory made to the article which removed sourced information, and reverted the edit, then told him on his Talk page that he should discuss such edits on the Talk page before making them. In response, he deleted my comments from his Talk page without discussion. That doesn't sound like somebody who's interested in collegial editing. Note that I have no prior interest in the article. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I should first mention, in agreement with Little Red, that Manutdglory is apparently initiating an edit war on this article by repeatedly removing sourced information without any discussion whatsoever, and then again removing the same material about seven minutes later, which I then restored. [8] [9]. Earlier edits by this user removed the same material. Open incidents at WP:ANI regarding these matters exist above here and here. Last time I checked, making false accusations of vandalism, personal attacks, and general incivility were at least cumulatively grounds for blocking, hence my series of warnings and final warning as detailed at WP:ANI. The accusation of name-calling directed at me seems to be centered on this edit and frankly, it does appear to me that Manutdglory cannot and will not accept the fact that the personal views of an editor are separate from their edits. Mike Doughney (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Mike, even using someone that clearly has no clue what's going on with the Warren article, like NurseryRhyme is pathetic and immature and you know it. All he had to do was check the history page to see what was going on. "Falsely accusing others?" First of all, why are you asking for administrative action to be taken against User:Teledildonix314 if he is innocent? We all know he is guilty. Secondly, "others" - ah, the only person I accused of vandalism is User:Teledildonix314 and I only started criticizing you when you admitted your personal disdain for Rick Warren, yet still felt compelled to edit his article despite your bias, so where were you going with that comment? And your argument that you could still be an objective editor despite your personal bias was negated when you defended some of User:Teledildonix314's hateful diatribe. Also, I wasn't aware that removing unsourced personal editorials that the user repeatedly reposted (which you yourself did to User:Teledildonix314) from an article qualified as edit-warring - in fact, I believe that is what our goal as legitimate editors is. My objective input is clearly needed in the Warren article to offset your and Teledildonix314's obvious bias. And as you have freely admitted, the only legitimate evidence of "name-calling" (I feel like I'm a 15 year old kid) is you referring to me see here. Manutdglory (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Teledildonix314 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After he made an uncivil commentt on Talk:Rick Warren, I warned him for the attack using HG. Then he went onto my editor review and said that was "no way for an adult to behave" (for those of you keeping score at home, I'm 15). Anyone have an opinion on what to do here? PXK ^T /_C 00:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Another user who has found the "Truth"(TM). Protonk (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

True.:) He's received two warnings after a final warning User_talk:Teledildonix314#January_2009 with the warnings coming from several different editors. After a final warning plus more acting up, the next step is usually a block of some kind. Sticky Parkin 00:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• My read is that the original comment, while wild eyed and somewhat antagonistic, wasn't too bad but that the comment made to your editor review was pretty well unacceptable. Protonk (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I'm trying to figure out what kind of "love toy" a "teledildo" would be. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It's Teledildonics, according to a user (a wikipedia user, not a Teledildonics user). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• To me, the user appears to be completely tone-deaf to all aspects of Wikipedia culture and policy. I am not in a hurry to see this user blocked - given the most recent edit, perhaps my lengthy engagement to try to educate him might have had some positive effect. His inability to understand what constitutes a BLP violation versus his insertion of defamatory material into an article I find most troubling and certainly solid grounds for a block if he puts it back in. Mike Doughney (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Tone-deaf? Maybe the Teledildonics are drowning out the sound. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, for the love of- is there any way we can topic ban him from me? He sent me another tone deaf message on my talk. PXK ^T /_C 00:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Guess I should retract my second sentence above, eh? Mike Doughney (talk) 01:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think someone needs to adopt him. But it sure as hell isn't gonna be me. PXK ^T /_C 01:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I had to revert his edits on my editor review page because of his nonsense. His smearing of my reputation literally hurt my feelings. Willking1979 (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What the actual fuck? Is this guy some kind of idiot savant? (serious, not a personal attack) PXK ^T /_C 01:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Given this last edit to which I think you're referring [10] it sounds to me like it's time for a block. Throwing around all kinds of accusations of threats for simply warning a user about their behavior, after a final warning, is clearly grounds for a block. Mike Doughney (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now he's gone on my ER again and called me a bully for performing normal tasks. This really needs to end. Where are the damn admins? PXK ^T /_C 01:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

They all went to a Julian Year's Eve party and found themselves several days in the future. We'll have to wait. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Report at WP:AIV has been removed, the issue has been thrown back here. [11] Mike Doughney (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought about keeping Teledildonix314's edits on my talk page, but I decided to revert his senseless, baseless comments. Something must be done soon. Willking1979 (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Another editor, Manutdglory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at this article (Rick Warren) who also exhibits a bit of tone-deafness to Wikipedia procedure, culture and policy has been falsely accusing others of vandalism and making other inflammatory comments about other editors, in particular Teledildonix314, in talk here and here, and in edit summaries here and here. He has returned from a bit of a hiatus with another edit with an edit summary claiming he's fixing vandalism by other editors [12] when clearly that is not true. This will only serve to inflame the situation surrounding this article. I have final warned Manutdglory regarding his abusive comments [13]; if this behavior continues I'll be back to open another incident here. Mike Doughney (talk) 07:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Mike, even comparing an established, veteran editor like me to someone like User:Teledildonix314 is a complete joke, and you know it. "Falsely accusing others?" First of all, why are you asking for administrative action to be taken against User:Teledildonix314 if he is innocent? We all know he is guilty. Secondly, "others" - ah, the only person I accused of vandalism is User:Teledildonix314 and I only started criticizing you when you admitted your personal disdain for Rick Warren (he referred to him as a "thuggish slimy weasel" see here), yet still felt compelled to edit his article despite your bias, so where were you going with that comment? And your argument that you could still be an objective editor despite your personal bias was negated when you defended some of User:Teledildonix314's hateful diatribe. Also, I wasn't aware that removing unsourced personal editorials that the user repeatedly reposted (which you yourself did to User:Teledildonix314) from an article qualified as edit-warring - in fact, I believe that is what our goal as legitimate editors is. My objective input is clearly needed in the Warren article to offset your and Teledildonix314's obvious bias. Manutdglory (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I just happened to come across an edit that Manutdglory made to the article which removed sourced information, and reverted the edit, then told him on his Talk page that he should discuss such edits on the Talk page before making them. In response, he deleted my comments from his Talk page without discussion. That doesn't sound like somebody who's interested in collegial editing. Note that I have no prior interest in the article. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

That is obvious, because if you had simply glanced at the article's history or discussion page, you would have seen that I have been attempting to restore the article from User:Teledildonix314's illegitimate comments for 4 days now - you know, the user who this entire report was created for. Manutdglory (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You have not obtained consensus for your edits, or even agreement by one other editor. They will be reverted, by me or others, because you have not obtained consensus, and since you're proposing removing sourced material, that consensus won't be forthcoming. Pasting the same comments into multiple threads here, including the comments of others (mine and Little Red, which you copied from the incident report on me you added below), isn't going to help your case. Mike Doughney (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

My case? What planet are you living on? The only legitimate evidence of "name-calling" is you referring to me. see here Manutdglory (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm seeing a user with some issues, like his WP:AGF detector turned off, but nothing blockable. What kind of admin action are you guys expecting? I hate to send you to yet another forum, but at the time being, it looks like a WP:WQA issue. I actually don't see any personal attacks...we don't block people for feeling overly antagonized... --Smashville^talk 17:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Put yourself in somebody else's shoes for a second

Straight Edge PXK wrote: "What the actual fuck? Is this guy some kind of idiot savant? (serious, not a personal attack)"

If somebody said that about you, how would you feel? Would you feel like they were really trying to give everybody in the situation an equal opportunity to be treated with respect and civility?

I was informed that PXK is only fifteen years old. I'm sorry, i forgetfully assumed they were an adult. Given their age, and a willingness to admit that i was very uncertain about respect and civility when *i* was fifteen, i see now that i should just get over it, forget about such remarks, and avoid lashing back at people in the future (regardless of whether they are fifteen, fifty-five, or one hundred five).

Mike Doughney wrote : "Your regurgitation of what I suppose is Marxist terminology is quite quaint. Again, let me say this very slowly and in small words in a short sentence so perhaps this time you'll understand what I'm saying."

When somebody says something like that to _you_, do you think, "This person is trying to help me"? or do you think, "This person is belittling me!"?

When somebody says your honest efforts to write with civility on a subject which feels very inflammatory is a "regurgitation" of a "quaint" terminology, i wonder how you feel. I wonder whether you would say, "This person is trying to help me, they are concerned for the good of everyone in this situation, they are very friendly."

When somebody tells you that small words and short sentences are necessary, although you were trying very hard to be civil and open to criticism, would you feel like that person was really trying to help you? Do you think that person truly respects you at all?

Manutdglory wrote : "Mike, even comparing an established, veteran editor like me to someone like User:Teledildonix314 is a complete joke, and you know it."

That type of remark almost automatically causes a person to feel as though you are not able to give respect and Assume Good Faith. That sort of remark about a total stranger sounds insulting, and a put-down only serves to antagonize the subject of that insult, rather than causing them to want to proceed peacefully with you toward a polite and civil goal. They might seem like very innocent words which you quickly and probably rather unthinkingly wrote in a moment's haste, but i hope you will see how they make other people feel, and i hope you will understand why i was so immediately provoked to feel hostile toward you.

You called me a 'vandal' repeatedly, you reverted my edits without asking anybody else for consensus, and you implied to other editors that it would be a joke to respect my literacy skills as you would have them respect yours.

I understand that you will probably remove this text from the page, and i would probably feel like doing the same thing upon my initial embarrassment. But maybe if you leave it here for a little while, and it reminds you of how your words affect other people's feelings, it will be useful. Thank you for bothering to read this at all, i know you don't like to hear anything from me. I know you don't want to believe there could be anything respectable about what i say or write, but i am a human being in this world just like you, with a viewpoint and a bit of a need to feel as though it deserved at least the most minimal amount of respect before being dismissed and villified.

I am posting in this thread with my remarks directed to all three of you editors at the same time-- the first three people with whom i have really had any extensive interaction at Wikipedia-- because i feel like it's the only way i can show you some respect and civility while speaking about my frustration and anger. I'm sure i could learn from the mistakes i have made with the three of you this week. I hope you won't just delete this without giving it a moment of consideration.

Teledildonix314 (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

H5+R1A (talk · contribs) and H5andh5 (talk · contribs) If you look at the recent history (today) of Solutrean hypothesis [14] and Pre-Siberian American Aborigines [15] - these two editors (are they 2?) have deleted the same sourced text. H5+R1A (talk · contribs) also edited H5andh5 (talk · contribs)'s page a while ago as though it was his own. I suspect they are the same editor. dougweller (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

There's another user found on the page history that has a username which is almost like the first one mentioned and their userpage states that they "maintain these User ships: H5+R1A and H5andh5". H5andh5 has been on Wikipedia longer than the other two users; it could be likely. SchfiftyThree ^(talk!) 21:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:SSP is down the hall to your left. Hermione1980 21:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Dougweller did so here. --barneca (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon this account while checking WhatLinksHere on an image and blocked it indefinitely as a sock of Florentino floro (talk · contribs). I seem to recall this "case" being treated with somewhat unusual deference (perhaps not the right word) due to BLP concerns, so if anything should be done about the userpage/Talk page (protection, courtesy blanking, deletion etc.) please feel free to do it. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Most admins will be familiar with the long history of disruption caused by this vandal. Most such edits are apparently carried out using proxies and anonymisers. However, following the recent blocking of several more socks, Nishkid64 carried out a checkuser, as a result of which s/he blocked additional sleepers and IPs. The blocked IPs were on the University of Haifa network; presumably the blocked accounts were from these same IPs. Could a note be sent to the university regarding this misuse of their equipment? Since the university should keep a record of who has been allocated these IPs at the relevant times, is there any way in which this could be used to put a stop to this ongoing vandalism? RolandR (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC).

I sent an e-mail to the University of Haifa helpdesk (in English). You might want to do the same. helpdesk at univ.haifa.ac.il Avruch ^T 20:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think further discussion also belongs at Wikipedia:Abuse reports (by IP address), which I assume would be the noticeboard for abuse reports. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone see File:Ivytree.jpg, because I can't seem to see the photo with my computer. If anyone can see the photo, please leave a message on my talk page. Otherwise, I will contact OTRS to get details of the photo's permissions and re-upload the photo. Thanks. miranda 00:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Can't see it. It looks like there wasn't ever a file there either. Or at Commons. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Locally, there was never any such file according to the logs. What seems to be the problem? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You wouldn't be looking for this file, would you? I can't find any record of File:Ivytree.jpg in your Commons upload log either. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you looking for File:Ivyleaf.jpg? It would seem so. — neuro^(talk) 01:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Also known as Alpha Kappa Alpha. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

GOL (groan out load). That one was painful, Bugs. --barneca (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the pain. Just lie back gently on the bed, and I'll set you up with an I.V. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thanks very much. Found the pic that I was looking for. Thanks everyone. miranda 03:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

WhoWatches (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This appears to be a clear SPA account only used to comment at the AdminWatch proposal located here. Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like its only purpose is disruption. You could try at WP:AIV unless someone blocks it here first. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Time to call the Watchmen. hbdragon88 (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I would go to AIV, but it's not vandalism, hence why I've brought it to ANI. D.M.N. (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You might have considered informing me you were discussing me, or talking to me perhaps. I am clearly NOT being either disruptive or vandalizing anything, and I am completely within my rights to communicate WP:Sock#Legit as per Segregation and Security, section 3 to avoid being the target of harassing emails or phone calls merely for entering into discussion with other Wikipedia editors. I will thank you to cease threatening me. WhoWatches (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That is so ironic as to verge on rustiness; Why didn't you just copy over what I said to you when I found that I had been casually accused of "admin abuse" by you, without bothering to let me know? Oh, that would be because I'm an abusive admin, wouldn't it?

nb. Yeah, this account is not violating policy (well, WP:CIVIL a little maybe...) so fine - but it is making what may have been a good sounding board for highlighting problems with some sysops into an irrelavent admin hate mongering page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I know users that disclose alternative accounts yes, but you haven't done that. For all we know, you could be an abusive sockpuppet. (I'm not saying you are, but you could be) D.M.N. (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I see no policies being breached. Tan | 39 19:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Equally, I don't see how the account passes WP:SOCK#LEGIT as it claims. Black Kite 19:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Who was harrasing you with emails or phone calls under your other account? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 19:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• So long as WhoWatches restricts himself to commenting on the talkpage of Tony's user subpage for Adminwatch, there is not a major concern, I think. I agree though that this is not a legitimate use of a sock under Segregation and security, point 3. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

There are people who commented in the AdminWatch MFD who know both my email address and phone number, I consider them within my social/professional circles (thankfully not family at least) and have no desire to deal with any emails/phone calls related to this discussion. I do not have to have already received such to be justifiably worried about receiving them.WhoWatches (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't even have ever bothered commenting to WP:ANI, except that someone put this discussion here and couldn't even be civil enough to speak with me first via my talkpage, nor civil enough to inform me I was being discussed. WhoWatches (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering your rather aggressive attitude towards all editors at Wikipedia, and not just admins, I can't say I blame people for not wanting to contact you on your talk page. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 20:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• While I neither know nor care who WW is a sock of, I don't understand the issue here or what this pointless thread is doing on ANI. The account's sole contributions (with the exception of one post to a user talk page, and replies on this thread) have been in Tony's userspace. If Tony thinks he's being disruptive, Tony is more than capable of telling him to stop (as he's already started to do), and/or complaining himself. Otherwise, what's the problem? – iridescent 21:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think there would be a problem if the account was making his points in a reasonably civil manner, and refraining from throwing around the phrases "admin abuse" and "corruption" like confetti. Apart from anything else, he's not exactly helping his own credibility. And as LHVU says above, he's degenerating a pretty good discussion on the premise of AdminWatch into a slanging match with such claims. Black Kite 21:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• I wouldn't exactly call it pointless. If this user had another account with adminstrator privilages, then I would understand possible need for a alternative account for article-related activities, but this user hasn't disclosed details of his other accounts, privately to any admins. I'm not sure whether to leave it (in case this may be a sock field), or whether a private checkuser is required. D.M.N. (talk) 21:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've blocked the disruptive WP:SPA. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Editor has now requested unblocking under the following rationale: "This block is clearly unjustified and has no reason to happen. I have no desire to receive phone calls or emails regarding the discussion I was in." — neuro^(talk) 09:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Unblock declined. Tan | 39 17:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• There are two issues here: firstly, there is the alleged inappropriate use of a sockpuppet, then there is the issue of WW's disruptiveness. While I believe that the use of the account is not within the accepted framework of alternate accounts, and the initial exchanges were certainly lacking in incivility, they were bordering on the disruptive with repeated insistence on undeleting the extremely negative comments deleted by Tony and by me. I think the penny dropped that no-one wanted to hear his rants, and so the exchanges within the last 24 hours or so have become much more moderate and are probably not what I would consider disruptive any more. Angry yes, disruptive no. Certainly, the edit he made just minutes before he was blocked was a 'hypothetical' situation which certainly appears to be written calmly, lucidly and probably "autobiographically", in that I believe it describes his state of mind at present (just before the block). While xhe remains distrusting of Admins, his exchanges were boring as he was unable to offer concrete examples of 'abuse'. What xhe said rested entirely hypothetical because of his/her paranoia of revealing his/her alter-ego. However, I imagine that Admins who really want to know would have already performed checkuser by now. I believe the block may not have been too well-timed, IMHO. Unfortunately, I am pretty certain that if you unblock him/her now, xhe will be back in the $&^%#$# mode he was in 2 to 3 days ago. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I wonder if this user is any relation to IRDT (talk · contribs)...they remind me of each other... --Smashville^talk 17:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Interesting point - making a big thing out of some alleged and unspecified threats. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
    • If it was IRDT the sock would be block-evading regardless; I think it is a alternate account of a different (non-blocked) editor, but per AGF I'm not going to speculate. Black Kite 17:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • If CU was given out with adminininiship I was in the wrong queue... LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Per practice and the decision of the AC on it, I've upgraded the language on the Sockpuppetry policy to reflect practice here. rootology (C)(T) 17:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to maintain transparency, I got a nice little note on my talk page from this user. I blocked the IP for a day or so. Save the civility comments. Tan | 39 05:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Shall we close this as resolved seeing as WhoWatches is now editing though proxies as described immediately above and here? D.M.N. (talk) 08:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the state of mind of the user in question (clearly in psychological pain about WP), and about their potential to return to do some serious vandalising, as has occurred on the AdminReview talk page since the block—really nasty, frenzied stuff. While I can see why admins become exasperated with people like this, these are the downsides of blocking. Tony (talk) 09:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm having some trouble with User:Shustov at Earthquake engineering.

Useful links:

• Shustov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Earthquake engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:Earthquake engineering#Plagiarism
• User talk:Shustov#USGS info in Earthquake engineering

The article came to my attention on 28 December through a thread started by Shustov on WP:AN on a matter (not related to content or user conduct): Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive180#Blocking Wikipedia article by Google. I glanced at the article and noted some passages which seemed...out of place. A quick Google search revealed that the bulk of phrases and passages in the article section on Failure modes were copied from United States Geological Survey (USGS) documents. I reported this problem on the article talk page ([16]) and watchlisted the article. (Since the USGS is a US goverment agency, its reports are generally in the public domain; the issue here is one of plagiarism rather than of copyright violation.)

On 29 December, I had a brief look at the article history. It's quite thick, as Shustov had a habit of making many, many, many rapid-fire minor edits with few edit summaries. Nevertheless, I surmised that the passages I was concerned about had been added by Shustov, so I dropped him a note about the problem on his talk page, and encouraged him to review and correct his contributions: [17].

Over the following couple of days things took a turn for the worse. Shustov repeatedly denied ([18]) any problem with the passages in question, despite several attempts to explain both the problem and how to fix it: [19], [20], [21]. His responses became mocking and derisive ([22], [23]). I eventually removed the offending text to the article talk page, and explained the problem (again). He has reverted this removal three times now (once while logged in, and twice more while logged out as confirmed ([24], [25]) by Checkuser), and I'm afraid that I don't have any other ideas what to do here.

He has some sort of academic credentials, but seems to be unfamiliar with normal academic standards for verbatim copying of other authors' writing. I'm not getting through, and I fear there may be a language barrier issue at work. In any case, I'm out of ideas. As I've gotten closely involved in this mess, I'd like another admin to have a look at what's going on, and to issue a final warning or block as necessary – or to protect the article (sans plagiarism) until Shustov or another editor can rewrite or properly cite the section in question. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I notice that Shustov has already reverted some of his inadequately-cited material back in after the problem was pointed out to him. That is not compliant with the WP:BRD cycle. Still, I had trouble finding an exact match for anything plagiarized. (I did Google searches on some of the material but only found hits on Wikipedia). For the rules on plagiarism of material out of copyright, see the appropriate section of WP:Copyright problems. That section asserts that Editors engaged in ongoing plagiarism who do not respond to polite requests may be blocked from editing. No block should be issued until it can be determined precisely where some of his reverted material came from. Shustov has been around since September 2007, and seems to have done reasonable work on articles. His use of sockpuppets and his mocking responses in the dialog with TenOfAllTrades don't inspire confidence. He also restored a bunch of links to the article which had been removed by JzG. Possibly a case of my work is perfect, don't try to improve it?. EdJohnston (talk) 05:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've now done a non-exhaustive side-by-side comparison of the article section to a number of USGS (and, worryingly, non-USGS) documents. I can't guarantee that the list I've provided is complete, as I'm not prepared to do Google searches on every fragment of text there.

Nevertheless, I think that the word-for-word copying of a number of passages is quite apparent. See Talk:Earthquake engineering#Comparison. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 07:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Google gives us a pretty good idea who he is, and his concern over the Google ranking indicates that he is perhaps trying to boost his reputation. I am concerned that he is trying to use Wikipedia as a means of publishing his own work. Guy (Help!) 08:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for backup[edit]

TenOfAllTrades is doing a patient job of trying to explain to Shustov why he needs to change his ways, but Shustov seems to think that we somehow cannot commit plagiarism because we are nto authors (see Earthquake engineering). I left a note on user talk:Shustov, but if anyone here is good with patient explanations of that kind of thing I'd appreciate some more input. Guy (Help!) 09:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

A admin called Ricky81682 has latly been removing a lot of images, paragraphs and formats from pages such as Dalet School [26] and Obadiah School of the Bible saying images arent relevant! He has been covering this up by putting

“clean up”

in the edit summary box, but really he is simply ruining the whole article. Also see WMLK article where he removed a lot of words for no good reason at all. I feel sorry for the people putting effort in to these articles only to have them ruined by users like ricky claiming they are

“a mess”

as one edit summary said, and then just removing a whole lot of information that makes the article organised in the first place! Anyway i dont see any justification for much of his edits other than to prevent these articles from achieving a high quality standard. 212.103.241.89 (talk) 13:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the only diff you cite shows Ricky removing a lot of extraneous line breaks, unbolding "Crayola Curriculum" (which is what he said he was doing in the edit summary), and changing the lead to be a little more grammatically correct. There is one image near the bottom that he removed, but it did nothing but clutter up the bottom of the page. You will need to cite exact diffs where Ricky did what you say he did. Hermione1980 13:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, and I see that the diff actually incorporates several edits. The edit summary that I saw describes exactly what he did in that edit. I don't really see what the problem is with his edits; he removed no substantive text (that I can tell), he removed two images that relate only tangentially to the article itself, and he made the lead sound better. If you can provide diffs that show otherwise, I'm open to persuasion, but ATM I don't see a problem. Hermione1980 13:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, one more update. Pictures are supposed to illustrate the content of the article. A picture of a book with the caption "Obadiahs value study", which was located in both Dalet School and Obadiah School of the Bible, fails to do this. If Ricky were removing a picture of the actual school, that would be one thing. All he is doing is removing pictures that do not relate to the article content. Also, as far as I can tell (and this is not my area of expertise, I'm just going off what the diffs show me) Ricky has not removed massive amounts of text; if this is not the case, show me a diff that says otherwise. Hermione1980 14:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Spot the difference[edit]

1. In Cites [27]

2. Rickys [28]

1.In Cites [29] 2. Rickys [30]

1. previous [31] 2. [32]

Spot the difference? Rickys edits are drastically worsening the articles and I dont think its fair on all the users who have been trying so hard to improve them. I tried to reverse his changes but all I get is a warning that if I do it again I will get a penalty. Not very proper for a admin is it? A image of a Bible is allowed to be shown about a school that studies the Bible. A image of a Dalet is allowed to be shown on a school whose name is Dalet school etc. There is nothing wrong wih the images - until someone uploads some beter ones, these will make do. It isnt contravening any rules 212.103.241.89 (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a "drastic worsening" of the article quality. In fact, the content edits (text only, not pictures) that Ricky has done have improved the quality of the writing. As for the pictures—I suppose I see your argument about how a school that studies the Bible could show a picture of the Bible, but the books that were shown were just random books. There is still (IIRC) a picture of a Dalet on the Dalet School article; there just aren't three of them anymore. Hermione1980 14:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

User:212.103.241.89's edits[edit]

Could an outside admin please inform User:212.103.241.89 that attacks like at Talk:Assemblies_of_Yahweh#Ricky_not_helping, Talk:Jacob_O._Meyer, Talk:WMLK, Talk:Obadiah_School_of_the_Bible and Talk:Dalet_School are inappropriate? I really don't think that any of my changes could be considered "ghastly" (let alone the incorrect claim that I'm a Christian) and I would hope someone would remove them but I'd like an outsider's opinion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Have contacted 212... on his talk page. Hope that clears it up. Hermione1980 13:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Red-link user trying to narrow the focus of the term to something having to do with Israel. I'm not Jewish, but I don't know that that's the point of the concept. In any case, edit war going on and some kind of assistance is needed to put a stop to it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The redlink user is discussing on the article's Talk page and on other Users' pages, but they are continuing to edit war. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I have referenced this discussion on the article talk page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I had moved the disputed material to the talk page, but Untwirl keeps returning it to the article. I do not understand why the rush to get it in the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Is he editing anything at all, besides this one article? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Mostly this article, or User talk page messages related to it. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Strongly encourage everyone to keep this on the article talk page, and close down all the ancilliary threads at ANI/3RR/EAR/etc. The editor appears to have stopped edit warring, so I don't think admin action is required. If they resume edit warring, a block is in order; 3RR has been explained. Also, while I'm here, "red link user" is essentially a way of saying "new user" in a derogatory way, and there is nothing inherently wrong with being an WP:SPA; it's the disruption that's usually the problem, not the single purposeness. If the edit warring stops, then they may (or may not) have something worth listening to on the talk page. --barneca (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

In this case "red link user" may have a different meaning. This user seems to understand how WP works better than I do now, much less my clueless state when I first started to edit -- when I did not understand even how to sign my user name. (Of course, I admit to being one what may be the most computer illiterate users here.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you give examples of this wiki mastery that Untwirl is demonstrating? If you can substantiate it, then we have a serious concern that should be looked into. If you can't, then your comment kind of borders on unfair gossip, doesn't it? You could be right, you could be wrong, but until you do something beyond vague hints of possible misbehavior, I think we've pretty much agreed by now that shouting "possible sock puppet" at those we disagree with is uncool. I have to say, I've taken a cursory glance, and their edits from October and November have a couple of minor errors. I don't see anything suspicious. If you do, please show me. If not, please consider retracting. --barneca (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

malcolm schosha has levied accusations of soapboxing and pov pushing at me for trying to add info for npov. now i'm damningly proficient at wiki and must be a sock puppet of a great and powerful editor? is that because i went to the wiki guidelines and copied and pasted rules that he was violating? if not my mastery of cut and paste, then perhaps my adeptness at typing 4 tildes? if i weren't so laid back i would figure out how to report him for incivility due to this behavior. i also moved different disputed material to the talk page, following his lead, which he continued to revert. since i am not a sock puppet and simply a smart cookie, i don't know how to report him for the same action he accuses me of, plus, frankly, i'd rather discuss it and get the opinions of others. he seems to be discussing this everywhere but the talk page. thanks everyone for your input. Untwirl (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The "accusations of soapboxing and pov pushing" had to do with the content of the material. Never did I call Untwirl a POV pusher, and I always assume that even when POV is being pushed, that the editor doing that thinks they are doing the right thing. The criticism was aimed at the material, not the user.

As for my view that this user has more than a few days of WP editing experience, that is admitedly base on small indicators, and it is certainly possible that I am mistaken. But when I see a new editor writing an edit summery like: (i moved my edit up to the lead to match other entries for perjorative terms.) [33], I tend to assume this is an editor with some experience because, when I started editing, it was a while before I picked and started to use terms like "lead" and used wiki-speak so well -- if, in fact, I ever did. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Malcolm Schosha is a little bit upset and should take distance with this article. He has just stated that I was playing a game in that article [34], not respecting WP:AGF and not begin very WP:CIVIL.

More, there is not reason, because there is a disagreement about content to start accusing others of suckpuppetry. If somebody has really arguments and facts to bring than wp:an/I and the use of "force" is not the way to solve the disagreement. Ceedjee (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate Ceedjee's suggestion that I take of a wiki-break, and think is is nice of him to be concerned about my well being. (The edit summery he is upset over is not a personal insult, but a criticism of the edit.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

hi again! actually, malcolm, after my very first comment about balancing the usage with current connotations (before i edited anything on this page) you accused me of "trying to turn this into an Israel/Palestine issue." that charge has nothing to do with content and everything to do with your perception of my motives. in addition, other editors who have reviewed my activity disagree with your suggestion that i am a sock, and your evidence is your assumptions of my level of inexperience. you really should apologize as you are being antagonistic and 'biting the newcomer."Untwirl (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Would someone please take a look at this editor's contributions? There aren't all that many of them, but as far as I can tell, none of them are good: badly formatted, badly written, inappropriately placed, and so on. I believe I've reverted most, if not all, of the edits, but what I can't figure out is whether the badness is deliberate, and therefore vandalism, or simply an editor who just needs more time to assimilate the right way to edit Wikipedia. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Good grief! Hanlon's razor lives! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the editor has a specialised niche & to me the edits seem like an attempt at providing some useful information, not vandalism. S/he only seems to have been around for a couple of weeks. I think they just need more time to learn at this stage & I think your comments on their Talk page are appropriate. Mattopaedia (talk) 07:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I doubt very much if they are going to learn anything about spelling and grammar here, given that they evidently ignored it in elementary school. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Very similar kinds of edits are now coming from 81.153.4.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), although the IP geolocates from the UK, while the original IP was in Alabama. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 16:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This page is constantly under edit warring. I noticed some highly biased and unsourced material being inserted[35] so I reverted but I don't know what to do next as the IP editor keeps reverting and instead accuses me to be biased on my talk page. --Unpopular Opinion (talk) 13:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

conflict is resolved a less biased editor reverted all the biases the editor above me doesnt understand what bias means ignore him cheers 86.158.237.235 (talk) 13:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. CU may be needed. Ruslik (talk) 13:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• I reverted to an earlier version, as some of the edits by Wikireader41 (talk · contribs) had added content that was biased and did not appear to be relevant to the subject, however I may have removed some possibly useful content when reverting. Someone who knows more about the subject is needed for this and other articles edited by the same users (see Special:Contributions/86.158.237.235), as there may be similar problems. —Snigbrook 14:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• Wikireader41 (talk · contribs) blocked for 48 hours. Ruslik (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, Ruslik and Snigbrook. SSP submitted. --Unpopular Opinion (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This user repeatedly comes up at Arbcom following what seems to be a fairly solid history of issues starting with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt and socking. The user is highly technically skilled and has written extensively in an adverse style or to promote his own views and himself, from what I can gather.

I happened to check the article Reliability of Wikipedia and suspect that an IP that is heavily skewing it to Hewitt's disparaging viewpoint may be that user himself. There are IP posts inserting significant tracts of adverse Hewitt quotes, case material, and writings (article) and links/cites (talk page). IP socking is a known problem here. Eyeballs may be useful to determine if these edits are good quality or not. See Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia#A disturbing edit. (Also, is this article balanced in regard to "being used for the purpose of presenting specific complaints to a wide audience in mainspace" as opposed to documenting of the topic?)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I did try to resolve this with the user without success. DreamGuy (talk · contribs) is again reverting edits without discussion, and using edit summaries as platforms for personal attacks. As per this edit:

"sick of my personal stalker following me around to undo noncontroversial edits... funny thing is then he removes one of the most notable cultural refs (successful novel series) and keeps utter dreck"

This is despite the fact that DG has made a total of four edits to the Scarlet Pimpernel article, the earliest of which was on October 6th, 2008, and three of the four are reverts. I would point out that the accusation of wiki-stalking seems unfounded, as I had begun that article over six months earlier, and have made 6x more edits to it.
Were this the first instance of this behavior, I'd simply shrug it off as someone having a bad day. Unfortunately, this is something that happens (and keeps happening) in most of the articles that DG edits, as his user talk page (including those bits he likely finds a bit more embarrassing and removes) would seem to indicate. The user is currently under AE civility parole, which has been extended again and again, as the user is considered a net asset to the project. I submit that these benefits to the project are diminished by shutting down those other editors who grow weary of being exposed to DreamGuy's thick layer of hostility and rudeness. In the past, his incivility and personal attacks have chased away new editors. The current resurgence of uncivil and unfriendly behavior is of precisely the same sort that led to the user being placed under ArbCom behavioral restriction in the first place.
I did attempt to address this behavior in a civil fashion on multiple occasions recently during the Annie Chapman image discussion (1, 2) before he deleted the section as "serving no point". As well, Jack the Ripper, and his usertalk page (3), where he deleted it again with yet another PA edit summary, an action which prompted my posting here. I am certainly not the first to have had unhappy interactions with DG, but I think I've done everything civilly possible to defuse the behavior he seems to reserve for anyone who doesn't share his exceptionally narrow worldview. He reverts and edit-wars without discussion, and it just keeps happening over and over again in any article he touches.
I would remind the noticeboard (for the three or four people unaware of his status) that DreamGuy is currently under behavioral restriction by ArbCom, reinforced by AE on a few occasions (to be more civil in his dealings with others). Looking at the edit summaries of DG's contributions over the past month, I am not sure this civility parole is being followed. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed the contrib history of Scarlet Pimpernel, and confirm Arcayne has previously edited the article since April of last year and DreamGuy only since August. I have therefore warned DreamGuy regarding both his edit warring and inappropriate comments regarding Arcayne and suggested withdrawing from editing the article. I have not reviewed Arcayne's other concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

...aaaaaand this was the response. I have left a further comment, but I suppose that it will be reverted similarly. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne has a long history of wikistalking, so to tell me he is not is simply wrong and showing a recklessness in taking action. Furthermore it's completely inappropriate for you to just tell me not to edit the page in question. Admins don't just say that editors are not allowed to edit. Before you give lectures you need to make sure you know what's what. Inisting on putting a warning on my talk page despite knowing that I said you were misinformed isn't particularly helpful. DreamGuy (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne has a well-demonstrated history of personal conflict with me and also for wikilawyering to try to get his way, including misleading reports here and to ArbCom. Quite often he shows up here and gets some well-meaning but inexperienced admin to jump in and do whatever he wants because they do not take the time to examine the full facts. He knows he is banned from my talk page, per my instructions and warnings from several admins, so claiming he is trying "to resolve this with the user without success" by posting there is complete nonsense. He is not trying to resolve anything, he just blind reverts my edits on any article he happens to be on with misleading edit comments, often with statements to "see talk" when he didn't put anything on the talk page... in fact he quite regularly on Jack the Ripper says to "see talk" or "per talk" or claim no evidence was ever given for an action when he has deleted the discussion of the article talk page (calling it an archive, but doing so so often that current discussions go away). I would caution anyone seeing this to not fall for Arcayne's little tricks as others have in the past. Shows editors agreeing that Arcayne has been harassing me, that people complaining are trying to game the system, etc. and there is more evidence as well. DreamGuy (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I am going to withdraw after this comment - but someone who has edited an article since April 2008 cannot be "wikistalking" (isn't the term de joure "wikihounding", anyway?) an editor who started editing an article in August of the same year. Also, as far as counting back the months go, as I have been a sysop since May 2007 I am a little too long in the tooth to be termed "inexperienced". Nevermind, it doesn't seem as if you are interested in statistics where it does not suit your agenda. Best of luck. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Would it be part of my "little tricks" to point out that the section DG linked to is almost year old, and he has been blocked three different times since then for the same sort of behavior which prompts this complaint? I would also point out that of the three editors thus posting to this section, only DG has been blocked - less than a year ago - for "gaming the system". Anyone who blocks him is "inexperienced"; anyone who disagrees with him is "blind-reverting". No one is saying DG is stupid - a block log as long as his suggests that he does bring something to the table here. I am pointing out that I have been accused of wikihounding in an article that - by all accounts - it could be more convincingly argued that DG began visiting the Pimpernel article less than 15 minutes after reverting an edit of mine in the Jack the Ripper article (1, 2). Do I like the user? Clearly, I don't, for reasons that are a part of the record. However, I am not being hypersensitive to the accusations of wiki-hounding, as they tend to (pardon the pun) tend to follow a user around. The disproven accusations by DreamGuy, coupled with his recurring uncivil behavior seem to communicate a need to curb the user's behavior somewhat further; the behavioral restrictions don't seem to be working as well as they would with most other folk. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Double-indef. banned, long term chronic sockpuppet, troll, and otherwise ultra-abusive/distruptive User:Yorkshirian has been back, again, breifly as User:Roseswhite. Leaving rather unplesant messages about me on his talk page. Leaves a racist message about me, then calls me a nazi (!), then says he's a good editor and should be unblocked because he's reformed. Of course that won't happen, but just wanted the incident on the noticeboard so as to make sure I'm not accused of maltreatment.

However, I wouldn't mind a quick checkuser being performed on this account and User:Mister Flash to make sure there isn't a correlation, and also as a means to doublecheck there are no more sock farms being built up by Yorkshirian as we speak.

Also, what is the policy on Yorkshirian working on sister sites please? --Jza84 |  Talk  22:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocks from one site in general do not transfer to sister sites due to various reasons, partially because policies are not unified. — neuro^(talk) 22:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Neither do bans. Per WP:BAN#Scope and reciprocity, "bans issued by the Wikipedia community or by the Arbitration Committee are not binding on other projects". Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fair enough - I presume they carry some weight however, WP:COMMON and all. I'm more concerned about keeping Yorkshirian's distruption at bay here, at WP. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

They may have weight, but only if noticed, which isn't always the case. — neuro^(talk) 22:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Could some one put a more appropriate link to the relevant Russian page, which is ru:Википедия:Запросы к администраторам. They are not entirely equivalent, but the current one is downright wrong.Muscovite99 (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. — neuro^(talk) 00:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I just blocked User:Danielpi due to harassment ([38]). When I wanted to inform him about his block, I saw this edits made after the block. Because of that, I decided to extend the block to 1 month (cf. block log.) Now I saw this edit. Could one block him indefinitely, please? — Aitias // discussion 01:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, he has just made this edit. — Aitias // discussion 01:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef. --Smashville^talk 01:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. — Aitias // discussion 01:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed talk page editing privileges. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Cambios (talk · contribs) is blocked at 11:37 yesterday by Black Kite, largely for behavior at Threshold (online game).
• Nizevyn (talk · contribs) registers at 17:59, removes fact tags placed by a user who he was in conflict with, edits the userpage of said user and then undoes an edit proceeds to revert him again. That is the extent of his edits.
• Black Kite blocks Nizevyn at 19:12. Nizevyn posts an unblock request which I decline (this is where I came into the situation).
• At 1:55, Mendaliv nominates Threshold for deletion.
• At 2:31 Theblog (talk · contribs) returns from a 9 month absence to post at the talk page of the contentious article.
• At 4:11, I receive a request on my talkpage for a checkuser request of Nizevyn (I'm not a CU) from Theblog.
• At 4:30, he chastizes me for the block of Nizevyn (for starters, I didn't block him - I declined his unblock because he didn't address him block reason) because there was no checkuser.
• At 4:36, he chastizes me further for said block I did not make because we didn't go to SSP.
• He proceeds to create this.

So...my question...sockfarm, meatfarm, offwiki canvassing or some fourth suggestion I'm not thinking of? --Smashville^talk 05:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's somewhere between meatpuppetry and off-wiki canvassing at the subject's forums; there's precedent to suspect such behavior based on the content visible at the subject's forums. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I don't have positive proof that Theblog has been canvassed or is a meatpuppet. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Mendaliv for confirming this claim is baseless. --Theblog (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem? I came back to Wikipedia because I wanted to, I was not asked to by anyone. I have a long history at Wikipedia and have edited many pages, but have not edited the page under discussion recently, in fact, I have purposely not done so because of the hostile environment there. I believe the Nizevyn is not a sockpuppet and the proper procedure to show that he was a sockpuppet was not followed. I merely asked for clarification and confirmation that Nizevyn was not a sockpuppet and am still waiting for this. I believe if someone is accused of being a sockpuppet they should be checkusered, its not exactly an onerous requirement as it doesn't take long. I am sorry if I improperly bugged you about Nizevyn Smashville, I saw that you were an administrator familiar with the situation and thought maybe you could help.

I am really at a loss why I am being reported for an incident, could you please explain exactly what I have done wrong? --Theblog (talk) 07:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• I also did not "chastise" you, I merely asked for more assistance and clarification. Please do not accuse me of doing things I did not do. --Theblog (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Upon further reading it is clearer and clearer the claim is baseless, the definition of meatpuppet given is: "Meatpuppet is a Wikipedia term of art meaning one who edits on behalf of or as proxy for another editor." This does not apply to me because I have not done it, but further more, I have not actually edited the article in question recently AT ALL! I request that this ANI be removed as it has been shown to be untrue in every regard. Furthermore, I request that the Nizevyn banning be reviewed, as obviously tensions are high for some reason regarding the article and admins are acting without giving proper good faith. Thank you.--Theblog (talk) 07:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't really a claim, just wondering by an admin if there was something larger going on. (off-wiki canvassing, maybe WP:DUCK tests), Disclaimer: I'm not an admin btw ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 08:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It is an accusation, he mentions something other that he's not thinking of, like a user checking his watchlist occasionally and jumping in if they see something going on they think is interesting. Sheesh, its not a big conspiracy, its a watchlist, a feature on Wikipedia that allows you to track recent action in articles you are interested in. --Theblog (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Really, if you had just edited the article, it wouldn't have triggered anything...but the fact that you start going to various user pages, requesting checkusers and causing a big stink over a person with 3 edits being blocked as a sockpuppet raises a lot of flags. --Smashville^talk 16:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• No checkuser was performed on User:Nizevyn. Why? Well, when an account is blocked for editing disruptively on an obscure article, and promptly a new account is created and continues that behaviour on the same article, you don't need a checkuser because even though it's obvious that they are the same user or a proxy for them, the behaviour is enough to block. I have not blocked User:Theblog because even though there's a high probability that they are also the same user, or related to them, they haven't yet edited disruptively. Black Kite 11:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I am clearly not the same user as those two and I request that you present any evidence that gives you your "high probability" that I am so I can thoroughly refute it. Please assume good faith. Thank you. --Theblog (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Your account suddenly resumed editing on a very obscure article, 9 months after its last edit and just after two disruptive accounts which had also concentrated on that very obscure article had been blocked. Therefore, I think you'll find that I am assuming good faith with your account, in that I haven't blocked it because even though it's clearly related, it isn't (currently) disruptive. Where I am not prepared to assume it is with even more obvious - and disruptive - sock/meatpuppet/off-wiki collaboration accounts like User:Nizevyn. I hope this makes everything clear. Black Kite 15:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have covered all of this previously, but I will go over it again for you. I have edited many articles over many years on Wikipedia, including the threshold article, years ago. I stopped editing so frequently, but I still visit the site and check my watchlist. If something tweaks my interest, I jump back in, this time, it was activity on a page I had edited years ago. Again, I have not even edited the page in question recently, I have only responded in discussions due to the obviously high tensions on this article, you apparently can't comment at all on it without being accused of being a sockpuppet, even if you have a long established account on Wikipedia. Please spell out the guideline that I have broken and present your evidence. My explanation is clear and logical, this is not some sort of conspiracy theory, it is someone who uses the watchlist feature. --Theblog (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* As I said, I'm assuming good faith, despite the suspicious editing pattern, with your account at the moment. The other account was blocked as a clear violation of WP:SOCK. Which part of this is so difficult to understand? Black Kite 16:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Then why are you here saying there is a high probability of being a sockpuppet when I have a clear explanation of my actions and then saying I am taking people for fools. If you are assuming good faith, please at least stick to the facts you can prove and stop the ad hom attacks. Thank you.--Theblog (talk) 16:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Because the editing patterns show that there *is* clearly a high probability that your account is related (though that does not of course mean that you are the same physical person(s) as the other accounts). Please read and understand WP:SOCK, as I see no point in continuing a circular argument in this manner. Black Kite 16:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What specific part of WP:SOCK are you saying applies to me? I have refuted them all. You also claimed there was a high probability I was the same person, which is different. Again, your claims are baseless, please assume good faith, I request that you retract your unproven claims and accept the concept of a watchlist trigger of someone who has edited the article in question years ago. Thank you. --Theblog (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't misquote me please, I said "...even though there's a high probability that they are also the same user, or related to them...". As for a watchlist trigger after 9 months? Possible. But very unlikely. Hence "high probability", not "certain". Black Kite 16:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, you are assuming bad faith, please provide your evidence to the contrary or retract your claims. Wikipedia has an assume good faith policy and I don't believe you are following it. Thank you. --Theblog (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me quote directly for you: "Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." It has been clearly established that you do not have "strong evidence to the contrary" so please cease your assumption of bad faith. Thank you. --Theblog (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"Assume good faith" doesn't mean "stop using your brain." The assumption that you are connected to the other two accounts is both logical and reasonable. It may turn out to be not true, but someone coming to the conclusion that the three are related isn't a massive violation of AGF. What exactly is it you want here anyway? AniMate^talk 16:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I want this to be removed as I am not sockpuppet or related. I do not know how to go about doing that other than to argue my point. Again, I come back to "strong evidence to the contrary", which there is clearly not, or has not been presented here. What do you want a screenshot of my inbox? I could do that, what exactly is the standard I need to meet? Thank you. --Theblog (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's a crazy idea: You can just let this go. The only way this is going to be removed is through archiving, and every time you respond and argue your point the longer this is going to be visible. AniMate^talk 16:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that he is now canvassing on Wikipedia: [39][40] --Smashville^talk 17:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw that too, and while his targets would likely be sympathetic, his message is neutral. I still think the best course here is just to keep an eye on the situation, and hope things calm down. AniMate^talk 17:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I also googled "Nizevyn". It's the name of a character in the game, which furthers my meatpuppetry/offwiki canvassing question. Do they have a forum that anyone knows of? --Smashville^talk 17:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the Threshold homepage, there's a link to their forums. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that more and more editors that have not edited in months or years have suddenly shown up to comment on this AfD. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

We have sockpuppets disrupting the AfD, and users who haven't edited for months suddenly canvassing for it. I'd say that is sufficiently disruptive. Its very obviously an attempt to disrupt the AfD process.--Crossmr (talk) 01:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• CU results at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Nizevyn. Probable related forum post here. Black Kite 01:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

  This is an extremely obvious case of attempting to disrupt the AfD process.--Crossmr (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

ToTheCircus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is an WP:SPA concerning the topic of the missing in action following the Vietnam War. This is a long, complex, emotional topic to some, and the consensus of all editors other than ToTheCircus is that it is best dealt with in its own article, Vietnam War POW/MIA issue, rather than in the Missing in action article, which needs to cover the general topic of missing in action across all nations and all wars. This consensus is being clearly reaffirmed by an RfC that's in progress, where five editors (HowardMorland, Nick-D, Jeff G., Nabokov, and myself) are for the split-off and only ToTheCircus is against it. Meanwhile, ToTheCircus has repeatedly reverted the contents of the Missing in action article back to his/her preferred state that includes heavy and very slanted coverage of the Vietnam-specific issue. The most recent set of such reversions has included this edit and this edit and this edit and just now again, this edit. ToTheCircus marks all these edits as being against "vandalism", an absurd claim. ToTheCircus has several warnings already on his/her talk page for abuses on this subject area. Several editors are interested in improving both the Missing in action article and the Vietnam War POW/MIA issue article, but we can't get anywhere if we spend all our efforts dealing with this editor. I am requesting that ToTheCircus be blocked. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Notified ToTheCircus of this thread.  Sandstein  00:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• After a brief review of his contributions, I would support a block for edit warring on Missing in action. His talk page comments, while very lengthy, do not seem to make much sense. I'm going offline now, though, so others will have to continue the review.  Sandstein  00:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on the Missing in action article for the last year or so, and fully agree with Wasted Time R's above post. ToTheCircus has just reverted the article again to the version which only they support (labeling the changes 'vandalism'): [43], though I've reverted this change per the discussion on the article's talk page. I also support blocking this editor, and also request that the page be protected. Nick-D (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

ToTheCircus has now done yet another reversion, still labelling as vandalism, with this edit. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just warned them that they're up to three reverts in 24 hours: [44] I'm up to two myself and don't want a 3RR warning, so could someone else please revert the change and then protect the article? Nick-D (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That earned me a trout slap, and fair enough. The article does need to be protected to allow for dispute resolution without an edit war though. Nick-D (talk) 05:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• As an outside, uninvolved editor, I submitted the page protection request. If someone wants to admend or update the request, please feel free. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 4, 2009 @ 06:06

I have blocked ToTheCircus (talk · contribs) 24 hours for edit warring on Missing in action. Though he is not over 3RR currently, he has been systematically reverting the article back to his own version since early December. Mere participation on the Talk page does not justify an attempt to get your way by reverting the article. If he doesn't stop using the word 'vandalism' incorrectly he may need to be reviewed for disruptive editing as well. Article protection is not logical if only one side is edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, was just trying to help out. If you like, you can remove the RPP request. :) Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • January 4, 2009 @ 06:18

Unfortunately, the revert-war on Missing In Action is still alive and kicking. User:ToTheCircus has just done 4 reverts within the past 24 hrs. A very reasonable compromise was provided (i.e. a new article called Vietnam War POW/MIA issue) but it's just not acceptable to ToTheCircus. Warning or blocking him doesn't seem to have any effect. I have done 2 reverts today (to reintroduce a more balanced POV) though obviously I can't keep on doing that. I'm sailing close to the wind as it is. The discussion page for Missing In Action tells the full story of what's been happening. Assistance from an independent and neutral administrator is urgently required. - Nabokov (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This user despite continued notifications continues to (sprinkled among some apparent good faith edits) continues to make major alterations to film article budgets and grosses without sourcing or edit summary. I can no longer keep up with the articles. The user hasn't used a summary once in their history or cited a source in their prolific editing. I'm concerned about the integrity of all these film article across the board as this user has changed a lot of information on Wp without any explanation. Thanks. Mjpresson (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Also this user had his user page deleted for continuing to post improper content after being notified twice. Mjpresson (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at a couple of examples, and have to say that the lack of communication is a problem - they do seem to place a couple of sources at the end of the "rewrite", but it is difficult to say that they cover all the changes. I am going to drop a couple of warning templates on their page and ask that they respond to the concerns raised. We will then take if from there if needs be. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Another issue you may not have seen is inserting text into already cited statements. Mjpresson (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the assessment. I've tried to communicate with the editor about removing {{defaultsort}} and non-breaking spaces from articles as well as re-sorting articles' categories in a non-alphabetical way. A lot of the edits are beneficial, but there are so many changes in an edit without a summary that it is difficult to review the changes (especially when sections are shuffled). It would be nice to actually initiate a conversation with the editor and communicate what changes work and what changes don't. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Twice I have asked this editor to refer to film project style guidelines, but he continues to change articles to suit his own preferences rather than the general consensus without ever acknowledging having received messages from myself or, it appears, from others. If he engaged in some sort of dialogue it would be easier to determine if his edits are sincere and simply misguided, but the fact he chooses to carry on without comment suggests he is determined to do things his way, which to date has included deleting complete plot summaries, rearranging articles into sequences that make no sense, and adding data without any references. LiteraryMaven (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly suspect this user to be a sockpuppet of User:AshTFrankFurter2 (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/AshTFrankFurter2). My suspicions are based on the similar user page (ObsessiveJoBroDisorder's now deleted - perhaps an admin could confirm), with a link to the identical myspace page used by the other sockpuppets, and similar patterns of editing. These sockpuppets have been blocked in the past for trolling ([45]), vandalism ([46]) and using sockpuppets to evade indefinite blocks.([47]) --BelovedFreak 12:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hemanshu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been the subject of concern for a considerable time, including an RFC (October) and various final warnings on his talk page, including a desysop discussion on another wiki. An RFAR motion was filed on 31 December in light of these concerns, which had not been resolved.

A concern has now arisen regarding sock-puppetry (WP:SSP/Hemanshu), which confirmed that while at RFAR, the user had begun sockpuppet activity on "year" articles similar to those he had previously edit warred: Wikipedianforever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created Jan 2 2009. The sock use is  Confirmed by behavior and checkuser.

By itself, a single SPA sock would not warrant more than blocking and noting at RFAR. Further checkuser investigation to confirm there was no other abuse, however, shows serious concerns and irregularities on an involved IP range, that had not come to light, including suggestions of a possible nest of sleepers. Other evidence suggests a clear possibility that there is a pattern of ongoing misconduct although further analysis is needed. We also note that the user is at RFAR due to unresponsiveness in the first place, which suggests a request to stop a given problem behavior would not be sufficiently protective.

Accordingly an "emergency desysop" of the user has been requested for protective/preventative purposes, until other Arbitrators can review the evidence of the community and checkuser findings in full, and the RFAR case is concluded. An IP range that is of concern in the case was also hard-blocked short term pending the same review. Full details and checkuser data have been circulated within the Arbitration Committee.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur with this assessment of the situation, and confirm its factual accuracy. — Coren ^(talk) 20:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks FT2 and to the rest of the committee for the quick action - You've made the right move here. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Have looked at the publicly known evidence and I think the right call has been made here. Orderinchaos 11:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Me added an admin category listing to his page several months ago, which I questioned after the edit's odd edit summary and some research, and which User:Neurolysis recently removed. Me has since readded the category with another odd response on his talk page, and I'm not sure how to verify the information. Probably not a big deal, but I had some disagreements with this editor several months ago, and our exchanges and Me's editing history don't seem consistent with these latest edits. Flowanda | Talk 22:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's misleading, since they aren't an admin, so I have removed it and left them a message accordingly. _Gb^T/c 22:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, as this seems to come up quite frequently here: when wondering whether an account has admin rights, check Special:ListUsers. Admins have "(Administrator)" next to their username—it's that simple. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there a chance that this editor's account was somehow compromised? Not trying to cause trouble, but the latest editing behaviour is odd. Flowanda | Talk 22:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the cat but I have been reverted with a Get out of my life edit summary. BigDunc^Talk 23:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That's damned odd. Maybe the account has been compromised. Can it be indef blocked until the user pipes up with some reasoning? Blowing off admin suggestions and posts is pretty much a red flag the size of Portugal that something is amiss. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Very strange indeed. I just removed it again, and restored one thread on his talk page, including a link to this discussion. Antandrus (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No one has claimed to be an admin. There is no rule claiming I cannot be included in the particular group. If there is, and it is shown here, I shall forgo the restoration. Until then, it shall stay. Thank you for your concern. -- Me^Holla! 23:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

By adding yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators, you're claiming to be an admin. Common sense trumps a lack of policy. I've fully protected your userpage; if you're an admin, you'll have no problem unprotecting it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed the category again. I'm considering upping the ante next time. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I doubt it's a compromised account: he added the category and thought it was funny way back in July. Not that it's a huge deal, just misleading. Antandrus (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Making a funny edit was the odd part. But that was probably part of the BS -- see our exchange at Talk: Simon Property Group#Press releases as sources.Flowanda | Talk 23:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Moral of the story: Ol' Flo still has a grudge and is trying to get back at me months after the fact. Holding grudges ups your blood pressure. You should look into Yoga, or something similar. -- Me^Holla! 23:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I updated Category:Administrators to make it slightly less useful to people who would abuse it. There are some categories that should be bot-patrolled for false entries, this is one of them. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Page has been protected (not by me). I agree with the protection. User has had enough warnings. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Gads. I feel a disturbance in the Force, as if a thousand vandals all cried out in glee with a single voice. I think this is an iceberg tip. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh? -- Me^Holla! 00:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Note to David - I already do semi-automated category patrolling, that's how I picked it up. — neuro^(talk) 00:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Noting new removals:

• Devin2462
• Dinesh reddy

User:J1nxwiki seems to be in the cat, but doesn't have it on his user page. Not sure what is going on there. User:Le Faux Nez de L'Aquatique is not an admin, but the operator is, so that seems just dandy to me. — neuro^(talk) 00:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I just rollbacked this. Um, I don't think so. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• hugs* -- Me^Holla! 00:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Do not put that template back again. I am fully willing to issue a block in this situation for disruption. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

LMFAO. The template has been gone for awhile now, and the page has been protected (apparently I'm a risk to myself). Let's try to keep up, ok pal? Oh, and don't delete my message to UV. I have a right to post on his talk page, and he has the right to read it. If he wants to delete my obviously joking, tongue-in-cheek statement is up to him, not you. Thank you. -- Me^Holla! 00:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, edit warring on my talk page. I feel so loved. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice edit summaries. — neuro^(talk) 00:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hr - I don't see leaving false talk page warnings as constructive to the encyclopedia. Considering that WP:TWINKLE was used to do so, this makes it even worse. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Gee, that was fun. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

User has requested unblock with the rationale that Rschen has his "gonads in a bunch". — neuro^(talk) 04:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I declined as an uncivil (and other things) request without reviewing edit history. Daniel Case (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

And another unblock request: [48]. Not that I think it will go anywhere. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Silver Hawx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've just come across a userpage - perfectly OK, but the user says he was born in 1997 which makes him an 11 year old. There's also a picture of him on there. See here. I think it should be removed, but don't know what the correct action is to do in this situation. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Also - anyone smell a sock? D.M.N. (talk) 13:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

From WP:CHILD, which I'm aware is an essay, but it's a good one to follow:

“

Users who appear to be children editing in good faith who disclose identifying personal information should be informed of the potential dangers of such disclosure. They should be advised that disclosing personal information is a bad idea and is potentially dangerous. Deletion and oversight may be used in appropriate cases to remove the information.

”

Garden. 13:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Based on User:Silver Hawx (who declares himself as Matt Winter) and User:Self Preteder I think this is a sock. D.M.N. (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Likely. Garden. 13:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock of Matthew Winter. Garden. 13:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Orangemarlin made this personal attack here:[[49]] with the edit summary accusing me of being racist (another personal attack). I left him this civil warning, not wishing to template aregular, and stating as much here [[50]] which he deleted and left the uncivil edit summary of "what the fuck ever" here [[51]]. I resored the message with this due to the uncivil response [[52]] and he propmpty templated me here for " vandalism"[[53]] and removed and identified my civil warning as vandalism here [[54]] he then left the following uncivil edit comment here at a deletion conversation [[55]]. Orangemarlin has a long and recent history of this type of behaviour. Perhaps someoen could talk to him or give him a short break.Die4Dixie (talk) 08:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but reading through the entire exchange, you really seem to be goading him on, and rather rudely. Absolutely, he could have made his point with a better choice of words than " you have the racial sensitivity of an amoeba" but honestly, I don't think anyone would call [this] or [this] comment to be racially sensitive. And the reply that caused him to say "what the fuck ever" was when you commented that his saying he was "shaking with anger" was an unfortunate choice of words given stereotypes about "spastic Jews." [56] I wouldn't exactly call that civil discourse either. Sounds like you both just need to back off.--Loonymonkey (talk) 08:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think my original comments that you are labeling "racially insensative" were geramne to the discussion". In a discussion about Jewish stereotypes it is either insensitive or naive to refer to "shaking with anger". The insensitivity is his and he should know better than to use that streotypifying language in a discussion about Jews. I'm sure several readers were as offended as I was.Die4Dixie (talk) 08:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think most non-involved editors would agree that someone saying they are "shaking with anger" is slightly less than civil but not really offensive, whereas replying to them that the word "shaking" brings to mind "spastic Jews" is actually pretty offensive. --Loonymonkey (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry . He made a direct refernce to that stereotype which I'm sure the Jewish editors would have been able to pick up on immediately. I know I did. It was a direct reference to that and gratuitious on his part.Die4Dixie (talk) 09:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no. Nobody mentioned anything about "spastic Jews" in that discussion until you did. To say that the phrase "I'm shaking with anger" is an obvious reference to "spastic Jews" defies credulity. Also, I'm not sure why you are assuming that Orangemarlin isn't Jewish when you refer to "the Jewish editors." --Loonymonkey (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course it did. It defies credulity to believe that he had not read the article on which he was commenting. And I have no idea if he is Jewish or not. Why would a jewish person use that term given the subject?Die4Dixie (talk) 09:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I responded on your talkpage, where further discussion between us can take place so as not to impede this process here.Die4Dixie (talk) 09:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I see no need to move this discussion to my talk page. This is the subject of the an/i after all, isn't it?--Loonymonkey (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Orangemarlin doesn't always pick the kindest or fittest of wordings. I've even brought this up with him quite lately. However, he can remove what he likes from his own talk page and Die4Dixie, I think you're taunting him. Please stop that. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course he can, but after telling him with a civil note that I wouldn't template him, he abuses the template to be uncivil. Of course he can remove it. I only restored it because of the continued civility problems. bait him? I would have perfered never to have had him ever direct a comment at me. He personalized my comments. I was blissfully unaware of him until hes started attacking me.Die4Dixie (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you just drop it. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 09:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That was not particularly helpful. Between the WP:POINTy wikilinking my username by Gwen after I have several signed live posts on this discussion and not wikilinking Orangemarlin's and your laconic response, I'm wondering why my report has been met by bath faith assumptions.Die4Dixie (talk) 09:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You made what was, perhaps, a poor choice of words and Orangemarlin responded accordingly (although his reponse might have been a bit harsh). As of right now, no one is willing to take any action, so I can't see how continuing to engage on this issue is helpful. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 09:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I can live with that. In looking through his contributions, it appears that there is a strong likelyhood of his being Jewish [[57]] ( I hadn't read that comment), so I should have assumed good faith about the shaking comment. I see Gwen has had discussions in the past about civility with him. Perhaps she would be willing to have another. Case closed as far as I'm concerned too.Die4Dixie (talk) 09:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Not so fast. I'd say this is a pretty clear case of you trying to game the system to cause someone you dislike to be blocked, via goading him. I propose an admin-administered reversal of fortune. Jtrainor (talk) 09:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Dislike? Where in the world do I know this user from? Where have I interacted with him to dislike him? You are welcomed to make the proposal.Die4Dixie (talk) 09:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Helpful hint, D4D: Drop it now. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, amoebas are distant cousins of white blood cells. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The IP of the indeffed User:Ragusino posted (alleged) personal information about my identity on Talk:House of Bondić/Bonda [58] and on the talkpage of User:Barba Nane [59] (who kept it there).
The personal information on Talk:House of Bondić/Bonda was removed and User:EdJohnston semi-protected the page [60]. However, User:Barba Nane reverted the removal [61], placing personal information back on the talkpage. I removed the info again [62] from both Talk:House of Bondić/Bonda and User:Barba Nane's talkpage, and left User:Barba Nane a standard WP:WARNING. Clearly warned, he promptly removed the warning and once more restored the personal information both on Talk:House of Bondić/Bonda [63] and on his own talkpage [64].
Furthermore, there is a strong possibility he is a sockpuppet of the banned User:Ragusino or User:Luigi 28 (both of which are reported above [65]). It is likely the sock was created to avoid User:EdJohnston's semi-protection of articles such as Talk:House of Bondić/Bonda (and others, listed above [66]). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Final, FINAL warning issued, if only because I'm a lenient person. Garden. 12:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Got off easy if you ask me... :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The 1st thing is I never posted personal info about you. About user Ragusino, I've previously written here [67]. I do not know this user and I will no more revert him. --Barba Nane (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Now blocked. Black Kite 16:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

We've been through this before:[68].

Series of userpages dedicated to creating intricate forged articles about a mythical rock tour by Jake Gyllenhaal. This time, it's on OperatorMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and restricted to a single userpage.—Kww(talk) 14:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggest WP:DUCK block, also deletion of aforementioned page. — neuro^(talk) 14:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef AO ACB. — neuro^(talk) 14:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Blocked and deleted. If someone has the time and disposition, it might be a good idea to do a periodical userspace check of WhatLinksHere on valid links used in the hoax (e.g. [69]). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I made another report a couple of days ago, that can be viewed here in the archive. He was given another final warning, but he's still going at it. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 14:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

In the words of LHVU, "long term sanctions" may well be appropriate here. Clearly disruptive anon. — neuro^(talk) 14:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, had wrong window open. Could you link me to the disruption? Thanks. — neuro^(talk) 14:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I had a look, and think that I have dealt with this editor before - changing or adding genres, adding names to info boxes, etc. I am uncertain if they are bad faith, but they are certainly disruptive and I have blocked for a month (a previous ip was blocked for 3 months). As ever, review welcome. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Viewers of Talk:Harold Pinter will see that one particular editor User:NYScholar is seemingly impervious to useful suggestions from other editors about the style and content of the articles, see also Biography for Harold Pinter. The article is becoming increasingly bogged down with minutiae and a mishmash of impenetrable citation styles making it heavy and unreadable. That is a great pity in my opinion. The editor in question undoubtedly has a wealth of informtion and research on the subject but does not seem to grasp that an encyclopedia article is not a thesis or article in a learned journal. I ask here what can be done, or should I just let that editor get on with it. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for situations that require the intervention of administrators. If this is not such a situation, as appears to be the case, I recommend that you proceed per WP:DR.  Sandstein  16:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that, I will request editor assistance. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed User:Aazzaa's curse words [70] but I think some admin should block the account for that. The "comment" was not made in the heat of an argument but the so far only edit of the account for quite a while, it was also left unsigned and was signed later by a bot. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

User has been warned about the issue. Corruptcopper (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've left the user a warning for his/her edits. Please note that the user's earlier contributions are quite valid and a single comment can't be the reason for a block. Should the user continue such obvious vandalism, you should warn again and if the behavior continues past final warning, you can consider reporting him/her to WP:AIV, which is the board for obvious vandalism. ^LeaveSleaves 17:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Astolfo Petrazzi (talk · contribs) is a grawp-sock doing the usual page-move vandalism. After he moved caffeine to *HEŖM E E?, Nawlinwiki moved it back and move-protected *HEŖM E E?, but nobody has yet blocked user:Astolfo Petrazzi. I mention this here instead of AIV because I'm puzzled by the admin actions. Looie496 (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The above user was indef blocked by Chris G (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). See the block log. --Kanonkas (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see -- I was expecting a template on the talk page. Looie496 (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be an edit war, that has lasted several days now and counting, going on between Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs) and Amwestover (talk · contribs) at the above article. Would someone who doesn't mind dealing with these things look to see if protection and or some user warnings are warranted? Kelly ^hi! 19:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"Endemic" is the proper word. "Several days" understates how this article has been handled for several months now. Collect (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh my good lord. Is this still going on? I propose a topic ban on both editors. // roux   19:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with that, I just looked at the history. Yeesh. Enough. How about this:

Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs) and Amwestover (talk · contribs) are hereby topic-banned from the article John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 for a mininum of three months. They may use the talk page to discuss proposed changes. This topic-ban may be lifted, if in the consensus opinion of uninvolved administrators, the two users can edit collaboratively within Wikipedia policies. SirFozzie (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The debate is like the hot-stove league, debating how someone's favorite team could have won the pennant if only thus-and-so hadn't happened. Content disputes, like they can somehow change the election results if they just get the article "right". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

SirFozzie, I'd expand that to each other's talkpages, Joe the Plumber, William Timmons, and List of John McCain presidential campaign endorsements, 2008, based on editing intersections for the past couple of months. Send them back to their separate corners. // roux   20:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If only McCovey had just hit that ball 3 feet higher! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

BB, you just made me cry. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Roux, We can simply make and related pages part of any topic ban to cover that, I think, but I agree that we need to keep them from interacting with each other. (and Bugs, or a more recent version, why the )!@*@+$*@_$ did Grady leave Pedro in so long! :D) SirFozzie (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Unbelievable. Endorse community topic ban with respect to pages related to the 2008 U.S. presidential election for at least 3 months. This may give them something more productive to do. Will notify the two.  Sandstein  20:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I also endorse the expanded community topic ban. Suggest that 'related' include any person related to the 2008 campaign, to the extent of any congressional figure NOT representing the two editors' directly, Foreign personalities commenting on the matter, State races in which either candidate was endorsed by either presidential race, any article on any interaction between any candidates, and so on... Can we just ban one to articles on insects and the other to articles on french cars, ensuring ZERO communication? ThuranX (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hell yes. This has gone on way too long. McCain campaign and related articles, broadly construed, and if we have to bang heads together to make it stick then let's just do that. Guy (Help!) 20:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• YES! It's way over due. See my comments here and here. --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Expanded version based on comments:

Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs) and Amwestover (talk · contribs) are hereby topic-banned for a minimum of three months from:

• any articles related to the 2008 US Presidential election, broadly construed for a mininum of three months
• Each other's talkpages, with the sole exception of any procedurally-required postings, including but not limited to RFC/mediation/RFAR/XfD notices as well as AN/ANI threads. Users are required to keep such notices brief, formal, and polite.
• They may use the talk pages of articles to discuss proposed changes.
• This topic-ban may be lifted, if in the consensus opinion of uninvolved administrators, the two users can edit collaboratively within Wikipedia policies.

Seem about right? // roux   20:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the summary. That's about right.  Sandstein  20:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Why is Bob Hope coming to mind just now? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support. A topic ban as worded above by Roux seems logical and fair. To be definite, I suggest that the topic ban expire on 30 March 2009. EdJohnston (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• uninvolved support - three months to do something else is a good starting point. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment from Amwestover. Whoa! I do not think this is a fair characterization of the dispute at all. I have made numerous attempts to reach compromise on the World opinion section of this article, and I have plenty of diffs to prove this effort. This is part of the editing process, and I don't think I should be punished for it even if it has taken what some would consider a long time. In the past few weeks, every time I'd address one of csloat's concerns, however, he'd raise a new one -- this is part of the reason that this has gone on for the length of time it has. So eventually on the suggestion of another editor after I'd lost all patience with csloat, I went with the simplest version of the section possible hoping that this would finally end it all. That was wishful thinking cuz it didn't. So now the dispute is over material that was removed which I think is non-notable and is being given undue weight. Instead of giving evidence of notability and relevance, he has refused to do so. Instead, he has decided to claim that his version of the edit is the "consensus" version (he has quite a history of this...), and that past consensus is immutable. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 22:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Is the debate over just that paragraph about the alleged al-Qaeda "endorsement" of McCain, or is that only one of many content disputes? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I am satisfied with all of the content in the article, except for the al-Qaeda content which I believe has no place in the article. I can't speak for csloat, though. I honestly have no idea what he's come up with, but I do know that he'll claim whatever version he supports is the "consensus" version. You could count the number of times he's done that in his edit summaries with your fingers and toes and you'd still run out. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 00:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Seems appropriate. — neuro^(talk) 01:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Proposed addition to topic ban - in addition, the two users should refrain from talking about each other anywhere on-wiki. Leave each other alone, period, is kinda the point here. // roux   00:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps inferences should be added to this too. — neuro^(talk) 01:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse Anything that stops this sort of absolute buloney is a Good Thing! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Or... You could all try and put this into some sort of context instead of !voting. Maybe even contribute an opinion on the matter since uninvolved opinions have been needed for a while. I hope this isn't how all admin action discussed. There was an RFC like two weeks ago, and now we're blowing past all other forms of dispute resolution (if you can call this proposed action that) right to blocking? --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 02:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Seems pretty extreme to me for a content dispute. The only issue is with the McCain campaign article and it's the al-Qaeda paragraph; every other editor on the page has seemed ok with keeping some version of the paragraph in except Amwestover. I'm willing to compromise and I'm willing to go along with whatever version of that paragraph the consensus supports, and I'm certainly willing to not touch the page until a consensus emerges on that paragraph, whether the "wrong version" is in place or not. Hopefully some sort of voluntary solution such as that is preferable to a mutual topic ban? csloat (talk) 05:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Change bullet 2 to read any procedurally-required postings, including but not limited to RFC/mediation/RFAR/XfD notices as well as AN/ANI threads would be better. (Can't exactly run RFAR without RFC/Mediation these days.) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 09:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Amended & slightly expanded. Do we have consensus on this and is there an admin who would like to notify both users on their talk pages? // roux   09:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, I could notify them... - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 10:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support just wanted to note that I also support this proposal. I've seen this user Commodore Sloat edit on other articles before resulting in similar issues with disruptive edit warring.--Jersey Devil (talk) 11:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Wow. Three months topic ban for having a strong opinion about including a single paragraph on a page. And with no due process whatsoever or even an attempt to look at non-punitive means of dispute resolution. Happy new year, Wikipedia. csloat (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh come off it. You two have been fighting for ages. This is the clearest way to make the disruption stop. // roux   18:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Penwhale left a notice of an alleged topic ban on my user page and I've discussed (and may be continuing to discuss) the notice. The topic of discussion has been mainly this: where anywhere in Wikipedia's policies or guidelines does it state that an editing restriction can be imposed by anyone other than the Arbitration Committee? I've thoroughly searched the policies to the best of my ability and haven't been able to find anything that gives authority to administrators or the uninvolved community to spontaneously impose an editing restriction on any single user without due process. So this discussion of a topic ban whose terms were suggested by SirFozzie and which were blown way out of scope by roux are nonconstructive and not appreciated.
  Now, if anyone would like to offer an uninvolved third opinion on the matter, which some editors already have done and what has been needed for a long time, then you are more then welcome and encouraged to do so if you desire. Advice on further steps in resolution are appreciated too, however I'm not sure if they'll be necessary. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 23:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion You were both out of line and over the top. Let it go. Gerardw (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually got here via the appeal on WP:AN - reviewing the edits in question, all I can say is, wow. I think an enforced break from editing in these areas and squabbling with each other is entirely warranted. Orderinchaos 03:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

At WP:AN, both editors contend the edit war is continuing. An examination of the talk page and article history shows this is not the case; in fact, the talk page shows numerous voices opposed to inclusion, and no new voices for it. As such, I've again removed the section. ThuranX (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

In other words, you joined the edit war. csloat (talk) 06:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. I waited for two days, and when no less than three outside editors concurred that the material belonged out, I effected that. You got four WP:3O's for the price of one; or a new consensus of uninvolved editors examining the situation. Either way, I simply instituted a new, extant consensus regarding the material. I noted that of the four new editors I counted, one had questions, three opposed, and no one supported teh inclusion of the material. Including you and amwest, that would yield 4 for out, one for in, one questioner. If we did it by votes, you'd lose. We do it by consensus, with three new people agreeing with each other and with one side of the extant fight that the material should be out. That's it. ThuranX (talk) 08:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Your revert was less than 24 hours after two other reverts of the same material, neither one by myself or Amwestover. And you can claim consensus, but the RfC turned out a very different consensus based on the fact that the information was well sourced and directly relevant. But that's not the issue anyway, the issue is edit warring, which continued after the block, indicating the block was purely punitive and did nothing to protect the article from edit warring. Your deletion only confirms the point. csloat (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

two days after you and Amwest's last go-round. And you'll note that since pointing to the talk page, and removing, there's been no further edits. I guess it worked out after all. Enjoy the topic ban. And given your rabid insistence on including it even after a topic ban, I wonder if the duration shouldn't be doubled? ThuranX (talk) 07:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You want to double my ban because I suggested that relevant and well-sourced information shouldn't be censored? And you're pretending this ban isn't punitive? Unbelievable. Perhaps you should be banned for piling on an edit war. csloat (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

In lieu of any cited evidence at all presented in this case, otherwise tertiary and inconclusive evidence: The 2:54 edit prior to Csloat's first edit (for a long time, I didn't go all the way back in the History) of 17:11 25th Oct
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2008&oldid=247519680
18:30 edit prior to Amwestover's first edit, confirmed, on 22:56 20th Sept
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2008&oldid=239830363
John McCain presidential campaign, 2008
The article is improved since these editors began. This does not prove they contributed, but it does show that they haven't stopped the article from improving. Anarchangel (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This is actually the first evidence of any sort introduced into this case at all. csloat (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The recently blocked IP of Simulation12 is requesting an unblock because she claims it was her "sister" who threanted me and that the IP belongs to her whole family. Will he/she give it a rest already, i'm starting think that he/she is more than a typical troll, instead a psychotic nut who thinks he/she is a kindergartner and is using a santiarium computer. Besides that, what do you suggest? Gladys is on wiki-break and we all know that Sim12 is just going to do the same thing if he/she is unblocked. Elbutler (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Evil roommate, evil brother, evil sister - typical sockpuppet/troll fairy tales. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I AM SURE that we are daeling with a troll here but therei s no need to engage in blatant WP:CIVILinvility here.

Nice try, you can't fool us with your stupid excuses. We all know it's you. I don't who you are, but when you mess with ::::::::::::wikipedia, it's no joke. Elbutler (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

the relevent apolice here is to revert, lblock and ignore. Arguing with a user liek this only encourages them to find antoehr dynamic IP can come back harder and stronger than ever possible. simply reporting this troll here is the best policy in the future as it denies them the atetniton and horror that they crave as of blood. They should be blocked and ignored, nothing further. Smith Jones (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I know you are all far to busy to bother with RFPP, but could someone please do something about Iain Lee? DuncanHill (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Patience, young Padawan. Someone protected it just before you posted here. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Yoda was meditating over yonder hill and forsaw he would be needed at some point in the future. So verily, he returned to his tools and he did smite the vandals with his mighty padlock. Or something. Ironholds (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Just out of morbid curiosity, what prompted all that nonsense? Kuru ^talk 00:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Possibly something on his radio show; it has happened before. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have become engaged in an edit war with an external link promoter on Apple community, and any further reverts by me would violate WP:3RR, so I am asking for assistance. The user making the edits has refused to engage in discussion over the issue, despite my having left an entry on the article's talk page and requesting discussion there in the edit summaries of my reverts. Interestingly, the user is unregistered and has used four different IP addresses in less than 48 hours, so leaving messages on user talk pages seems futile.

• Initial addition of promoting non-notable site: Diff #1
• My reversion of the addition: Diff #2
• Addition #2: Diff #3
• My talk page entry on the issue (Talk:Apple_rumor_community#Apple_Cafe ), immediately followed by reversion #2 with an edit summary pointing to the talk page: Diff #4
• Addition #3: Diff #5
• Reversion #3, again with an edit summary requesting discussion on the talk page: Diff #6
• Addition #4: Diff #7

Any help with this situation would be greatly appreciated...thanks. WildCowboy (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverted and put up a request for semi-protection at WP:RPP. --aktsu ^(t / c) 11:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Great...thank you! WildCowboy (talk) 11:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I think an external link promoter would probably be a vandal, which invokes WP:IAR and makes WP:3RR irrelevant. DARTH PANDA^duel 02:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that counts as vandalism per se, and would strongly suggest people not violate 3RR thinking they'd be able to get away with it. DreamGuy (talk) 03:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Rev Dr Alexander Scott.jpg is currently displayed on the main page, and is not locally uploaded or protected at the Wikimedia Commons. Administrative assistance is requested in uploading the file locally (which cannot be effectuated by non-admins due to a conflict with the filename at the commons and cascading protection for the main page) or protecting the image at the commons. Thanks. John254 03:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded locally and protected. --B (talk) 04:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

--VS ^talk 09:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Related to the User:Teledildonix314 incident above, another editor, Manutdglory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), in recent days has been falsely accusing others of vandalism and making other inflammatory comments about other editors, in particular Teledildonix314, in talk here and here, and in edit summaries here and here. He has returned from a bit of a hiatus with another edit with an edit summary claiming he's fixing vandalism by other editors [71] when clearly that is not true. This will only serve to inflame the situation surrounding this article.

After a series of warnings (here and here), I've final warned Manutdglory regarding his abusive comments [72]; in response, I received this rather uncivil comment in my talk that among other things accuses me of making threats. His sole action thus far has been this message left for one administrator; he appears to be rather tone-deaf to Wikipedia culture and policy as well as the usual methods and procedures to deal with conflicts and vandalism, even after I've pointed them out to him. Given that we now have two editors on this article that seem to be feeding off this conflict, I would suggest that some admin action be taken. Perhaps both these editors, who have both continued abusive behavior after final warnings, should be blocked for some period of time. Mike Doughney (talk) 08:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Mike, even comparing an established, veteran editor like me to someone like User:Teledildonix314 is a complete joke, and you know it. "Falsely accusing others?" First of all, why are you asking for administrative action to be taken against User:Teledildonix314 if he is innocent? We all know he is guilty. Secondly, "others" - ah, the only person I accused of vandalism is User:Teledildonix314 and I only started criticizing you when you admitted your personal disdain for Rick Warren (he referred to him as a "thuggish slimy weasel" see here), yet still felt compelled to edit his article despite your bias, so where were you going with that comment? And your argument that you could still be an objective editor despite your personal bias was negated when you defended some of User:Teledildonix314's hateful diatribe. Also, I wasn't aware that removing unsourced personal editorials that the user repeatedly reposted (which you yourself did to User:Teledildonix314) from an article qualified as edit-warring - in fact, I believe that is what our goal as legitimate editors is. My objective input is clearly needed in the Warren article to offset your and Teledildonix314's obvious bias. Manutdglory (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Still at it, I see? Trying, and spectacularly failing, to enlist allies by spewing a great tale about dozens of rampaging pro-gay editors running rampant over an article because you haven't succeeded in sanitizing it of inconvenient facts? Still can't get it through your head that editors with plainly announced biases (and my paper trail across the net making my views quite clear is wide and more than a decade long), can, will and should edit Wikipedia articles within the boundaries of Wikipedia policies and guidelines? Still not assuming good faith and spreading your bile everywhere? Why don't you hurry up and WP:PBAGDSWCBY. Mike Doughney (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I attempted to resolve the situation so that an administrator didn't have to waste his time on a completely pointless endeavor, yet Mike Doughney replied with the following insult - classy. You see what I'm dealing with?Manutdglory (talk) 08:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't write clearly, and you don't seem to be able to tell the two of us apart, when you're not busy trying to play us off each other. Get lost. Mike Doughney (talk) 07:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You say I'm "masquerading as a legitimate editor," implying my presence here is illegitimate. You imply that people who don't share the same religious beliefs as the subjects of articles aren't allowed to edit those articles by repeatedly making an issue of my atheism. You trot out your (alleged) master's degree to insult those who take your writings at face value. You call me insulting? Mike Doughney (talk) 09:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I do. And your atheism would have nothing to do with it if you weren't so blatantly proud of your hatred of Warren. As an atheist, your interest in Warren's article is certainly questionable. For instance, I don't go around editing Lennin, Stalin, Mao, Darwin and other noted atheists articles, so why do you feel so compelled to edit Warren's despite your obvious bias against the man? The reason the article was protected was to defend the article from anti-Warren editors. Manutdglory (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I have absolutely no problem with you personally editing those articles if you are willing to diligently follow Wikipedia policies while you do so. I find that editing articles about people with whom I strongly disagree is a means of actively working to understand my own biases, as well as reaching a better understanding of how I know what I know. I also by various means seem to have accumulated some specialized knowledge about such figures (Warren one of many) and Wikipedia is a place where I can put such knowledge to use. In light of that, I've added an evaluation of the article's exclusion of the recent controversial commentary on Warren to the article's talk page. Mike Doughney (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The User:Teledildonix314 vindicated me by posting a lengthy apology/admission of guilt on the Rick Warren discussion page (see for yourself), this after User:Mike Doughney and other editors reported him (see above). Since User:Mike Doughney's entire original reason for reporting me was because I (accurately) identified User:Teledildonix314 as someone who repeatedly vandalized the Rick Warren article (which he labelled "name-calling"), I really am curious as to what he hopes to accomplish by all of this, other than wasting administrators time. Manutdglory (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Here's my initial take on this (seeing you both also came to my talk page for assistance). Firstly, and most importantly any further incivility, name calling or personal attack by either party and you get a block; return with more of that type of edit anywhere and the block escalates. Having said that Mike your direct personal insults are more beyond the pale than I would normally accept without a block to protect wikipedia but at this time Manutdglory is not asking for a block and for now I will abide by that request. That said neither of you are bigger than the project so, as I say on the next occasion I will block and indeed should I miss any of these types of edits I invite either of you to come directly to my talk page to inform me. That said I will look a little more closely at the Rick Warren article, place and keep it on my watchlist and respond accordingly if it becomes necessary. In the meantime please both walk away from the article, have a cup of tea and work on something else - preferably of a wide enough parameter between the two of you to keep yourselves apart.--VS ^talk 21:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your objective and fair analysis of the situation. I will certainly abide by your requests. Manutdglory (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Your indication of a willingness to act, after about a day and a half of administrative silence on this noticeboard regarding this matter, is noted. However, I will point out, with respect to "protecting" the Wikipedia project, that anything I have said pales in comparison to Manutdglory's expressed insistence that certain editors are "illegitimate" based not on their editing behavior but solely on their personal beliefs, affiliations or attitudes towards the subjects of biographical articles. Mike Doughney (talk) 08:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Your opinion and need to get in the last word against your opponent is noted Mike. That said I am glad that you understand that a block is imminent if further incivility arises. Given you have decided to go straight back to the article in question I trust you will be able to stay within the general civility covenant between editors across this project, and assuming so then I send you my best wishes.--VS ^talk 08:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Manutdglory wrote above: "The User:Teledildonix314 vindicated me by posting a lengthy apology/admission of guilt...."

I did absolutely nothing of the sort, i did the exact opposite. I wrote, and i repeat: "You called me a 'vandal' repeatedly, you reverted my edits without asking anybody else for consensus, and you implied to other editors that it would be a joke to respect my literacy skills as you would have them respect yours." You have successfully poisoned the opinions of other editors when i'm barely out of the gate, and your decision to repeatedly Bite The Newbie has resulted in a situation where i no longer feel i can contribute without being treated with prejudice... despite the fact that i was beginning to show an aptitude for quickly learning about the regulations and standards around here. Now anything i do other than the most Minor of edits will automatically be received with possibly excessive skepticism and hostility which other new editors hopefully would not have to endure. And instead of apologizing for your own errors, you simply repeat your declarations about me to everybody here, reinforcing the prejudice by falsely claiming that i have apologized to you.

Hopefully people will notice if this is your usual pattern of dealing with newbies, to prevent them from going down the same path i did, responding to you with the same level of hostility which you showed me, and then being embarassed for following your lead and failing to realize that yours is a lower standard of behavior being exhibited and taught than is supposed to be expected. I made my mistakes, i admitted them, i listened to criticism, and i withdrew from any possible situation which could have the slightest bit of controversy. I've resigned myself to contributing in no way larger than a few simple Minor edits which hopefully will not provoke trouble.

At least if there's a next time during which some other editor comes around calling me a "vandal" and lying about my activities, i'll know theirs isn't the true standard of behavior, and i'll remember not to stoop to the same level. I had assumed that Wikipedia was edited by a bunch of jerks, given the way i was treated by the first few editors/administrators i met here, and let myself sink to that level. My mistake. After being given information instead of slaps, i smartened up in a hurry. You might have been able to help save me the trouble if you'd set a different example initially, but Oh Well-- that's my fault, for thinking yours was the standard of behavior to follow, instead of looking around here further to see that there really are editors and administrators who can be civil and give Good Faith instead of just mentioning the concepts while doing the opposite. Teledildonix314 ^talk 22:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Something simply must be done about the IP socks of User:Ragusino and User:Luigi 28 (i.e. User:PIO), which are stirring up trouble on dozens of articles for weeks now. User:Ragusino is indefinitely blocked for personal attacks, block evasion and violations of WP:HARASS [73]. User:Luigi 28, aka User:PIO, is also indeffed for edit-warring and personal attacks [74]. The IPs of User:Ragusino usually start with 191.**.**.**, pr 190.**.**.**, but also sometimes with 200.**.**.**, while those of User:Luigi 28 start with 151.**.**.**. Further information about their IP range should be readily available from their edits on the myriad articles and talkpages they've been trying to deface over the weeks. Around 15 or more articles and article talkpages have been semi-protected due to this problem, among others:

• Antonio Bajamonti
• Brno Kabudžić
• House of Pucić
• House of Bondić/Bonda
• House of Gundulić/Gondola
• House of Getaldić/Ghetaldi
• House of Sorkočević/Sorgo
• List of Ragusans
• Dalmatian Italians
• Zadar
• Bombing of Zadar in World War II
• Autonomist Party
• House of Božidarević/Bosdari
• House of Natali

(The protected talkpages are not included)
This method has been largely unsuccessful as the IPs simply move to other articles or wait until the protection expires and continue with their disruption. To top it all off, they've forced admins to semi-protect a number of article talkpages because of their new hobby: posting personal information and attacks about me all over Wikipedia (see User:Ragusino edits in article history: [75] [76] [77] [78] [79], etc.,etc...). This took place all the time on my talkpage until it was semi-protected [80], now the personal attacks appear everywhere. With many articles protected they've even resorted to personal attacks on any article or talkpage I happen to edit, no matter how unrelated (such as Talk:Croatian American [81]).
Even as we speak these users continue their disruption, and do not show signs of giving up. Apparently secure in the belief that they cannot be stopped, they've made it their daily routine to disrupt articles and harass users on Wiki. In my personal opinion, something must be done, and after weeks and months of this few options remain save a range-block. I'm sure any help would be appreciated both by me, and by the increasingly large number of editors forced to revert on a daily basis. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Hmm, these ranges look to big to rangeblock to me - it'd be at least three /16 ranges for the main culprits even without looking at the others, and that's a lot of collateral damage. The 151.48.x.x range, for example, also has a lot of recent productive edits. I think semi-ing the articles until they get bored is the best idea for the time being, unfortunately. Black Kite 15:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Damage is exactly what I'm hoping we can prevent: constant day-to-day damage on dozens of articles. Based on my previous experiences over the last few months, I dare say that these IPs simply will not get bored of their disruption (at least not in the coming months). The reason is that they're active on itWiki and "plan their moves" there. They discuss these issues and whine about how they've been banned, then they simply move on to their daily routine of trying to revert so many articles until one of them is forgotten. This has been going on for weeks and months, and even today we have Ragusino disruptions to speak of [82] [83] [84] [85]. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The amount of disruption is really getting out of proportion, these guys do not stop. Is a temporary range block available as a deterrent option in cases like this? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I've issued four rangeblocks (three for Ragusino IPs and one for PIO) and blocked Ragusino's other socks. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks loads for your effort, a lot of users can now put this ugly matter to rest. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a sudden urge to go to an Italian restaurant. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

xD --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

To echo comments by KillerChihuahua and ThuranX, I agree that any outlook which could be described as "neo-Nazi" is so overtly sociopathic that I'd think most of us can understand how a good faith, thoughtful editor could be set off by anyone having even the slightest go at tweaking the uncontroversial and widely supported assertion: "Stormfront is a neo-Nazi website." Even if this wording isn't wholly enyclopedic, it's spot on and the murderous pith of neo-Nazism seems to trump any worries about that for most editors. Likewise OrangeMarlin's over-the-top reaction: The topic at hand is Stormfront, not Le Manège Enchanté. I re-protected the page because two editors, one of them OrangeMarlin, fell back into a straightforward back-and-forth over wording in the lead. I must say however, I think OrangeMarlin was edit warring for the talk page consensus. I only wish he had waited for someone else to make the second revert, which was bound to come. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

'Ang on for a sec then...[edit]

Well how nice, I forgot to check ANI for a few hours and it looks like my name is prominently featured in a diff at the beginning of a thread. The more fool me for having taken notice of a previous thread, looked at an article, reviewed several dozen external sources and trying to provide clarity and an outside look.

As it seems that I am a newly-identified racist Nazi-apologist whitewashing POV-pusher (traits of which I confess I was previously unaware), could I ask for a little clarification?

• OrangeMarlin, when you made an apparent deliberate copy of my post in your followup, were you intending that as a good-faith response to a good-faith post? Does your edit summary "What a waste of fucking time" accurately describe your intent? Do you have a basis to determine that I "apologize for the Neo-Nazis" or that I introduce "weasel-wording"? How about telling me to go away? How do you define the "NPOV editors"? The ones who agree with you, the rest being candidates for bullying?
• ThuranX, who said 'too many cites make it a lie'? Do you have a diff? I'd already commented that the multiplicity of sources could be due to previous requests for clarity, Gwen apparently agreed, Sceptre didn't pursue the issue, presumably because it was now made clear.
• ThuranX, when you decide there is some pretext for a 'bulletproof vest', you are paraphrasing my GFDL-licensed addition. Do you have anything specific to say about my wording? Do you have a specific objection to wording an article so that it can not be dismissed as inaccurate or slanted by people residing on all points of the political spectrum, or do you think it's better to word it in such a way that it can be easily dismissed by some groups? The wording I tried to introduce was factually correct and not open to challenge from any side (should have used "widely" instead of "often"). It was directly aimed at achieving NPOV.
• ThuranX, when you declaim "a site run by neo-Nazis, for Neo-Nazis, about Neo-nazis", do you have a direct basis, or do you opine?
• ThuranX, where you say "People who self-identify as apologist,s as has happened on the SF talk page..." - this is important, please specify - which people? Do you include myself? Sceptre? Skomorokh? Can you name one or strike your comment?
• Gwen, first of all, I echo your and other people's distaste for the site and its denizens, I'd rather use words best not put onto a public website. I do disagree though with your assertion that it's OK to not be "wholly enyclopedic". I feel that this is a case where we do have to go the whole nine yards, painful though that may be. That's the only reason I got involved, the fuckers can burn in hell for all I care. I want an article worthy of the sum of all human knowledge, and I'd also like to target a few other wordings that look a little peacocky to me ("Black's clarity of vision..." is an especial WTF for me).
• And Gwen, my specific intent was to not edit war. I stick by my edit summaries and only wanted to direct OM to article talk rather than employing blind reverts. The talk page consequences of course ended up here, but I think that's more due to OM's approach to collaborative editing than any other factor cited above. I agree that it's an emotional issue.

So yeah, am I clean on this or what? Adding up my agreements with Sceptre gets me to about minus-seventy-six, but on this one I'm not seeing a whole lot of good faith from the "other side". If I've personally done something wrong, please someone say so. I've not seen any of the labelled racist-apologists do wrong either, other than strive for encyclopedicity. Clarification is welcomed. Franamax (talk) 05:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

go read the talk page. YOU self Identified as an apologist "you can so easily identify us apologists for what we are". Yep, I can, your attempt at irony aside. The Bulletproof vest -"As Franamax said, we're trying to make this bulletproof." , the too much proof is a lie thing - "There is a balance. Not enough citations, it looks like original research. Too many, and it looks like you're pushing a POV by oversourcing. Sceptre", it's all there. As for the Neo=Nazi thing, did you bother to read any of the citations? the website itself? the consensus on the talk page, here, and in the real world as evidenced by the numerous citations? They're neo-nazis. that some are also 'White Supremacists', or say they're WS but not NN, is the hairsplitting of people who just dont' want to admit it to themselves. WS is NN, and there's no difference. ThuranX (talk) 05:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Umm, "go read the talk page" I've read several times, the one I've extensively referenced? I'll type slower, maybe then I can be more clear.

• So indeed it seems you peg me as the "self-identifier" - you can spot irony and still tag the label on me, all in the same breath? I find that hard to credit. Recall that it was OM who launched the attacks.
• Bulletproof and Sceptre's comments - could you take the simple expedient of reading my comments before you hit the Edit button? The little bit about "Sceptre didn't pursue this issue..." and the specific questions I asked you about my wording? Any chance you could address those questions?
• Neo-Nazi, did I bother to read... - only a few dozen different sources, which is quite apparent from my contributions at the talk page. How else did I arrive at this post? Are you also saying that I'm a liar?
• "WS is NN, and there's no difference" well, sez you and maybe a lot of other people here (and my warring against consensus is conspicuously absent from this encyclopedia, whereas my willingness to engage in give-and-take discussion conspicuously is) - so granted, maybe so, sources? Even reading the footnotes at Neo-Nazi, I'm not getting it. Going back to the "bulletproof" thing, it seems to me that the way to make a sound article, beyond criticism, requires a little more than the bald assertion of "is too!". Taking potshots on AN/I doesn't necessarily advance content either (though I knew in advance what a fun-fest this page often is).

So no, sorry ThuranX, step off the box. I categorically reject your characterization of me as a self-identified neo-Nazi apologist as sadly mistaken. Your continuance of that assertion borders on a personal attack, and wther it's an attack or not, I take offence. I've tried very hard to outline above my rationales for pursuing a NPOV approach at the article. That you can't find the off switch for your attack machine is breathtaking. Study carefully my 8,000 prior edits and show us where I'm the monster you claim to see before you. Franamax (talk) 07:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Despite the fact that WP:DYKs are not endorsed or opposed, just qualified or not qualified, User:NurseryRhyme has been editwarring to reinsert a criticism of a hook I submitted:

• Initial Hook, disclosing that the article is at AfD
• First T:TDYK oppose
• My explanation at his talk page
• My Strikethrough
• His reversion of my strikethrough
• My templating him
• My deleting it entirely
• His subsequent reversion

I would request that an uninvolved admin revert the WP:POINT change to T:TDYK, and counsel User:NurseryRhyme that the edits are inappropriate. (Full disclosure: User:NurseryRhyme nominated for deletion the article, Robert Eric Wone, to which the hook applies, and I am the major contributor to that article) Jclemens (talk) 06:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

1-I'm not allowed to comment at DYK? That seems pretty wrong. 2-Jclemens, as the person making the nomination, has a vested interest in the article and should not be the one removing my comments. 3-Whatever it is that I might be doing, it cannot be by any stretch of the imagination, vandalism, as he templated me with on my Talk page. If anybody other than Jclemens or other people with a vested interest in that mess of an article had removed or struck out my comments, I would not have liked it, but I wouldn't have reverted, but Jclemens has no business doing it. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 07:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: Whatever the resolution of this is, I will not revert again. I don't want to give anybody the satisfaction of getting blocked. But it takes two to edit war. Still and all, I originally came here to have fun, and it's lately becoming less and less fun. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 07:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Okay let me see if I can assist here. Firstly it is quite correct to say that DYK is not a vote situation. Secondly I am confident that the DYK admins will have noticed the to and fro on this possible inclusion and will consider those comments and the AfD before their final decision. Thirdly, NurseryRhyme is kind enough to give us a final solution here - which is for someone else to strikethrough the comment at DYK. I am about to do that now and I hope that will end this matter. Please add your thoughts below and I will close off as resolved if the two parties are in agreement.--VS ^talk 07:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• I am satisfied with the solution, however, User:NurseryRhyme continues to be disruptive and incivil on this topic, accusing other editors of accusing people of murder and then removing relevant warnings from his talk page with incivil edit summaries. I propose that User:NurseryRhyme agree to voluntary a one-week article ban, or be blocked for this consistent incivility. Jclemens (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• Not too put to fine a point on it - I can see the inappropriateness bordering on blockable incivility in the edits you refer to but that area of incivility appears to be outside of the heading of this thread. Can I suggest we close this thread in terms of the DYK situation and either a new thread for incivility is started on the available evidence or you await another case of incivility and come straight to my talk page - whereupon (as my admin history will clearly show) I will block if appropriate?--VS ^talk 07:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, in light of NurseryRhyme's announced retirement I believe this matter to be moot, and will follow up directly with you should future problems arise. Thank you for your time and offer of mediation services. Jclemens (talk) 07:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• My pleasure - and now my mountain bike and I are on a date for the next hour. (I love the way she makes me sweat) :) --VS ^talk 07:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters is in violation of WP:OUTING. See [[87]] This is an abuse that cannot be tolerated. I request he be permanently blocked. Syntacticus (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait, I'm confused - didn't you just deny being that person at the linked section, and essentially ask the user to Prove It? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What? I alleged Lulu violated WP:OUTING. That's it. I did not dare anyone to do anything. Syntacticus (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Claims of outing should be taken to WP:OVERSIGHT for privacy. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Whether the claims are true or not, it is still a violation of WP:OUTING. — neuro^(talk) 00:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh and just noting - immediate thoughts are that an indef block is much too much. — neuro^(talk) 00:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

We define outing as "posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information". I can't see anything of this at the link provided.  Sandstein  00:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I didn't see the outing (I don't really understand where is is, couldn't find it on page), I was just noting that factual accuracy is irrelevant in WP:OUTING cases. Could someone point me to this outing (or non-outing), please? — neuro^(talk) 00:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak to remedy. I thought the only punishment was permanent blocking. Anyway, I just want this looked into, please. It is unacceptable conduct. Sandstein: I think the implication at [[88]] is abundantly clear. Syntacticus (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, to me it is not. Please provide the specific WP:DIFF that you think is objectionable and explain how exactly it violates WP:OUTING.  Sandstein  00:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't look like outing to me. On a different subject, I was looking over Syntacticus' contributions, and I'm starting to wonder if there's a connection to User:WorkerBee74 and other sockpuppets of User:BryanFromPalatine. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein: Here is the passage. It reads like he is accusing me of being Vadum. I already pointed out to him that the name Syntacticus appears to be in use on the web by several different people. Is he allowed to do that?

>>>>>Despite your disingenuous ANI claims and all that, let's just stop the pretense that you are someone other than the very same "Syntacticus" who continually inserts references to articles by Matthew Vadum/CRC at Free Republic and Daily Kos... A belabored claim that you can shed your carapace and emerge as a whole different butterfly is not the meaning or WP:OUTING. Unlike you, I make not pretence of being "some other person" than the one I actually am (in particular, I give all my true biography right on my user page, and make no inventions about "gee, I must accidentally share an IP block with someone I have no connection with other than promoting his articles). LotLE×talk 23:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)<<<<<

Syntacticus (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Nope, not outing in my eyes. — neuro^(talk) 00:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought Fridays were for WP:DRAMA... ♪BMWΔ 00:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I hate to point this out, but you're accusing another editor of OUTING. However, not only have you not asked for oversight, but you also just reprinted the offending area here at ANI (not providing a DIFF) where it would be seen by many many more editors. If this is actually OUTING, it doesn't seem like a very big deal to you at all, and it seems as if you're using it to have someone blocked who disagrees with you. Dayewalker (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the relevant article here is vexatious litigation. 02:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Let's get this straight. BTW I'm taking this from the diff you posted Syntacticus. First Syntacticus accuses LOTLE of having a conflict of interest and then reacts when their own potential COI is brought up. Syntacticus then comes here asking us to indef block LoTLE claiming that LoTLE "outed" him.
  Now on the substance of the wp:outing violation: there isn't any in that diff. Why is there no "outing" there? Because LoTLE linked User:Syntacticus to another "Syntacticus" screenname - not a real name. To out some one you must publish 'personal information' and that didn't happen here--Cailil ^talk 02:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein: Doesn't speculating about the identity of an anonymous editor contravene WP:OUTING? I thought it was a really big deal. Also, what is "oversight"? I went to the oversight page and I thought it told me not to leave messages there. Confusing. Syntacticus (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No, "speculating about the identity of an anonymous editor" does not violate WP:OUTING, which I think is written in rather plain English.  Sandstein  11:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

// roux   11:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Matt_Smith_(British_actor)#Abuse_of_semi-protect --87.113.0.21 (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Repeated violations of WP:BLP are grounds for protection. If you have something to add to the article, discuss it on the article's Talk page. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 03:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with NurseryRhyme. I'm changing the header on this one, since there's absolutely no reason to accuse anyone of abuse in semi-protecting an article for BLP violations. Dayewalker (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't edited the article before but I wanted to.... I won't now, since obviously you regard contributors who won't submit a registration as lowest of the low. Whatever. And I looked in the history and I didn't see any messages about vandalism... --87.113.0.21 (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Look deeper, it was there just before protection. I haven't the time to grab the DIFFs, but it was a good semi-pro. Feel free to register and join us! Dayewalker (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I explained the protection on the article's talk page. I think it was fully justified. VegaDark (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The following was originally posted to WT:WPSPAM#John Nance threatens lawsuit, over legitimate dicussion on his page. I'm moving it here, as this is a more appropriate venue for this discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

John Nance threatens to sue.

The Spam page is the article about John J. Nance, at this URL:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_J._Nance

It appears that the article was started after a previous one was eliminated, because it amounted to plagiarism as it just copied John Nance's mini-bio from another website.

My suspicion is that the current article then was started to get around that previous violation of Wiki rules, by someone very friendly to Nance. At any rate, the current article progressed only by expanding positive information about Nance, his books, his movies, his media appearances, and such. Then links to his official website, and other websites, were attached.

When I first saw this article, I decided that it could become a legitimate Wiki article about this living person, only if there was some discussion about his controversial view----that Airline Safety had been affected adversely by the 1978 Airline Deregulation Act (ADA).

So, I added a section about that controversial thesis, in his book of Blind Trust.

Nance then responded vehemently, in a style of writing that violated several of the Wiki rules, for posting. I reverted that back, because of those violations of the 5 pillars of Wiki. In response, Nance has now removed all my comments on both the article page and on the talk page and says he will file a lawsuit if anyone dares to put it back.

Please look at these pages, which will show how this Nance article has progressed to a Spam page, and then to a legitimate discussion page and then back to a pure spam page, with nothing but accolades about John J. Nance.

[index.php?title=John_J._Nance&oldid=233229796 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_J._Nance&oldid=233229796]

[index.php?title=John_J._Nance&oldid=259891508 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_J._Nance&oldid=259891508]

[index.php?title=John_J._Nance&direction=next&oldid=259891508 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_J._Nance&direction=next&oldid=259891508]

This one above, was obviously written by John Nance himself, and it contains the kind of unacceptable style of writing that violates so many Wiki rules.

I then reverted it back at this link:

[index.php?title=John_J._Nance&direction=next&oldid=260408163 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_J._Nance&direction=next&oldid=260408163]

Then, Nance removed the section about his controversial theory:

[index.php?title=John_J._Nance&direction=next&oldid=260483001 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_J._Nance&direction=next&oldid=260483001]

Then, Nance removes all reference to that controversial thesis of his book, and continues to add accolades to himself.

[index.php?title=John_J._Nance&direction=next&oldid=261535529 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_J._Nance&direction=next&oldid=261535529]

Then, I added the Spam warning:

[index.php?title=John_J._Nance&direction=next&oldid=261547806 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_J._Nance&direction=next&oldid=261547806]

Then, the pertinent history of the Talk Page, for the Nance Article:

My reasons for reverting Nance's response to the Controversial Thesis section:

[index.php?title=Talk:John_J._Nance&direction=prev&oldid=261536334 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_J._Nance&direction=prev&oldid=261536334]

And then, Nance cleaned out the Talk Page and threatened a SLAPP suit, if anyone puts back the comments about his controversial thesis.

[index.php?title=Talk:John_J._Nance&direction=next&oldid=261157261 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_J._Nance&direction=next&oldid=261157261]

I am amazed at such arrogance. Mr. Nance is apparently insisting that the article about him, be allowed to contain only accolades about him, his books, TV and radio appearances and such. He will permit no comments that make reference to his controversial book and/or why the facts of history appear to prove that thesis incorrect.

Nance is apparently is willing to trample all over the First Amendment to the US Constitution, to enforce his demands, even to the extent that he is threatening a SLAPP lawsuit to silence Wiki. I hope Wiki Administrators will not cave to this kind of terrible intimidation. EditorASC (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Looks like a clear legal threat, and some rather nice WP:COI issues as well. Anyone else agree? Tony Fox (arf!) 01:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Blatant legal threat; he says that re-posting the info will result in legal action. If not retracted he should be blocked per WP:NLT. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Looks like it to me. Also reverting the talk page comments. It's the talk page, we discuss the changes to articles...there is absolutely no reason to remove them. He can pursue all he wants, but he has no right to remove legitimate talk page comments. --Smashville^talk 01:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

First Amendment? There is no first Amendment issue here. – ukexpat (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

He just did it again, with another legal threat in the edit summary. Dayewalker (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering he's not retracting, but is still making blatant threats on the talk page and blanking it, it's time to enact an NLT block. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment: In addition to the threats at Talk:John J. Nance, see also WP:BLPN#Repeated posting of Defamatory Material. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Yes please. It's textbook WP:LEGAL. Will an admin step in, please? Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 02:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Note that he's extended his threat to all users reverting him. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears that he has now also acknowleged a WP:COI with this edit. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Endorse WP:NLT block. — neuro^(talk) 02:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef for legal threats. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like contributions may be related to this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ya think? Oh, and he posted his editorial again, 3 minutes after the "last warning". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sock blocked, with the targeted talk page semi-protected for a week. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see how far this user would get if he did actually sue Wikipedia (assuming the user is so adamant on filing a lawsuit). But then again, there's Stella Liebeck, Mike Nifong, and Roy Pearson, so who knows? MuZemike (talk) 07:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This could be the flipside of the "penalty" someone discussed below, and it would last about that long in court. The judge would say that it's "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", so there is no legal accountability to content. Seeya. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If this guy can't take criticism, why'd he become an author in the first place? He's obviously new to wiki, out of his depth and trying to regain control the only way he knows how; through legal action. 203.35.135.136 (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Threaten to retaliate by tearing the tag off his mattress. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I just extended the block of this IP, 194.176.105.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), to six months due to repeated legal threats. Too long?--Jac16888 (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Noting that the editor is disruptive outside of simply making legal threats. — neuro^(talk) 15:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Probably, but it's no use retracting your length now. This is a static IP, so the length might be at least somewhat justified. The legal threat is obvious BS, but the editor is clearly here solely to disrupt the project... Tan | 39 15:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Re-set to two weeks and hardblocked by Checkuser User:Sam Korn. Black Kite 18:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm dealing with a persistent soapboxer and need some help. Admin Gogo Dodo has had some experience with this user, but hasn't been active lately, so I'm brining this here. Oconner12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a small sockfarm to his name, and has been attempting to add a few unsourced opinion paragraphs to various articles about how Pashtuns are neglected in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and thus US efforts there are doomed to failure [103] [104]. The material is not salvageable, and no attempts to discuss with him have been fruitful. In addition to named accounts, he also edits from a few DSL IPs, as well as an IP that traces back to an Apple store and a Schiphol Airport wifi connection. He's also vandalized my userpage twice [105] [106], accusing me of vandalism for removing his screed. His primary targets are War in North-West Pakistan and War in Afghanistan (2001-present), though he's hit a couple of others as well. I hate to request semi-protection, since both articles also get a number of good edits from IPs. But I've run out of ideas on how to deal with this guy. Help appreciated. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 18:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Are the user's newest socks blocked/accounts you suspect templated and reported for CU? Otherwise, its time for banning and WP:RBI if you don't want to deal with semi-protection. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Socks are tagged and named accounts are blocked. I'm mostly concerned with IP edits. And to clarify, while I don't like the idea of semi-protecting, that might be the only thing to make him give up and go away. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 12:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've very reluctantly semiprotected War in North-West Pakistan and War in Afghanistan (2001-present) for two weeks apiece; the latter especially gets quite a lot of IP editing, so hopefully two weeks will be long enough for our POV-pusher to lose interest but short enough not to do too much collateral damage. I've also indefblocked the user - I think they have been more than amply warned across multiple accounts, and we really don't need more POV-pushing in these easily-inflamed areas. Review welcome as always. EyeSerene^talk 20:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way to block user 70.71.243.53 from editing this page? He has made at least a half-dozen deletions of an item on the page, even though I keep reverting his edit. Thanks. Greg Salter (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Try WP:AIV if he is vandalizing. He seems to be removing information, so warn him a few times. If he goes over the limit, report him to WP:AIV. Just a note though; this diff just doesn't put you in a good light...DARTH PANDA^duel 01:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. But he'd done the same thing at least 6 times before that, and I was getting frustrated. Point taken. Greg Salter (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that anyone's actually engaged the IP in any way. It would be a good idea to actually discuss the issue with the IP before we do anything to remove its opportunity to edit the article. Looks to be relatively static, so take your concerns to the IP's talk page, perhaps? Tony Fox (arf!) 01:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Since your message, I've done that, and he's now gone and done another removal (which I've undone just now). Looks like it's time for WP:AIV. Greg Salter (talk) 06:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• To assist I have semi-protected this article for 1 week. That should give you enough time (if possible) to discuss edits with the anon IP.--VS ^talk 12:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the IP editor appears to be correct in this point. The material being removed is a non-encyclopedic incident (fails WP:AIRCRASH and its sole source is a web forum, which is not a reliable source. I've commented on the article's talk page to this effect, and I support the removal of the material. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right, neither of the two citations given look like something wikipedia would normally accept as a valid source. One is a blog, the other is a plain-text document that anyone could have posted. That item should go until or if a better source is provided. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hold on thar, Baba Looey. I was looking at the earlier sourcing. There is a new source that looks more like a valid source for that November 2007 incident. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, ironic isn't it? If the IP had only left an edit summary, it might not have gone so far... DARTH PANDA^duel 21:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that Theplaystation3dude is the same user as John-joe123. This user's only edits have been in the nomination and support of John-joe123 as an Administrator. At the time of writing, Theplaystation3dude's only contributions have been on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/John-joe123 and User talk:John-joe123. I find the nomination highly unusual as the user being nominated (John-joe123) has made relatively few edits, has only been active for a short time and in that time has been involved in a number of disputes with established editors and Administrators. He also appears to have little knowledge of Wikipedia's policies. I also believe it's unlikely that a brand new user such as Theplaystation3dude would have any knowledge of adminship procedures and a new user's first and only action after registering would be to nominate someone. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 12:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Quack. // roux   12:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Quack? ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 13:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

See WP:DUCK. // roux   13:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) WP:Duck#The duck test. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see ;) And there was me trying to be all diplomatic! ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 13:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm quacking up. Can we get some divine intervention? — neuro^(talk) 15:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Note Informed suspected user In question using a variation of the SSP template. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 20:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

John-joe123 has posted the {{retired}} on his user page, likely as a result of the SSP case and the RfA failure. Not much left to see here, methinks. caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 21:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Maxwell33 (talk page) has written a paper for high school and keeps overwriting the Frank Sander Residence article with unsourced information, some of which may also create WP:BLP issues. This is a borderline non-notable structure (I really can't find any information on it) and he's including information on a private residence I haven't seen in other architectural articles. The tone is also off and he's shown bias against the topic on the talk page, so I'm not quite sure what's up. I've made a number of detailed explanations of how to adapt his original research for inclusion in Wikipedia without success. He removed initial attempts to communicate with him from his talk page. He's since overwritten cited information with uncited information nine times. The edits are disruptive and I'm forced to play a heavy hand in reverting because of BLP and privacy issues given the negative tone, the lack of sourcing, and my inability to find any information about this structure online. Can I get the minimal block necessary to encourage him to read policy? Assistance on his talk page from other editors would also help. Savewright (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I support Tan's block based on this comment alone. But some advice to Savewright: Next time, please ask for help before getting caught up in an edit war. Being right is generally not an exception to WP:3RR. — Satori Son 19:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Sarah Palin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is currently fully protected by Kylu (talk · contribs). The only admin, it seems, that is currently willing to deal with POV-pushing and other problems at the article is KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs). I like Puppy, but this is not an ideal situation because she had been involved with some of the more contentious content disputes at the article in the past. I'd like to propose article probation, similar to what we have at Barack Obama.

On a related note, there are several {{editprotected}} requests at that article that haven't been dealt with for a while. Kelly ^hi! 19:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll try a hand at it. (And does anyone know a good .cs hack for monobook to get rid of the gray text on dirty-pink field when editing a protected page? Not nice to the eyes!) --SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion it would be an over-kill and too much of a bureaucracy placing her article(s) on probation since the election is over and she's not a main focus in the media (and of most editors) anymore. I'd rather would like to see tight (admin) hands dealing with disruptive and edit warring editors and have the article semi-protected till things calm down. So if let's say 2 uninvolved admins [just so that the burden is not on one admin] would be willing to deal with it for a certain time it would be a better handling and choice to ease the "problem(s)".--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Normally I would agree, but this article is controversial enough that it's been the subject of an ArbCom case. Kelly ^hi! 22:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

That case was closed in October.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The Sarah Palin article has a higher admin burnout rate than most (myself included), so unless a decent amount admin support materializes, a general sanction may be needed. I haven't looked into the recent behavior myself recently, but the fact is there are still people arguing about it at all - and most of those people are by nature going to be partisans and/or very stubborn.--Tznkai (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

They're certainly feisty on the talk page... protection for a while is probably better IMO, so long as a couple admins keep an eye out for {{editprotected}} requests. Relatively low-stress for me after some adventures in outer wikimedia, so I'll keep an eye on the discussions for a stint. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 00:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Kudos for you. Let's see how long you can take it  ;) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favor of probation. Maybe one way to make the probation more palatable would be to say that the probation will only last six months at most unless there's an active decision to renew it. Andjam (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't want to "convert" you but I keep on speaking my mind.

Gosh, nothing against Palin but she had her "15 minutes of fame" and they where extended but how long will it last? So I stick to my opinion above unless she gets a live span of fame in politics. Remember, that most of us didn't know anything about her before here nomination as vice-President. I'm just sticking here to the "cruel" facts and give my opinion with those in mind.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palin probation proposal[edit]

Based on the decision at Barack Obama, I propose the following identical proposal:

Pages related to Sarah Palin (broadly construed) are subject to the following terms of article probation:

• Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith.
  • Sanctions imposed may include restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, bans from editing the Palin pages and/or closely related topics, blocks of up to 1 year in length, or any other measures the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
  • For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute).
• Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee.
• Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) community consensus or Committee approval to do so.
• All sanctions imposed are to be logged (propose creating Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation for this purpose).

Kelly ^hi! 21:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Uncontroversial, I would say. Make it so. Guy (Help!) 20:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• As one of the (and recently, the primary) admin trying to maintain some kind of civility and reasonable working environment on that page, I would very much appreciate it being on "official" probation. I was actually chastised recently for removing some very clear attack comments, which were immediately replaced via reversion by another admin, and although he later removed one phrase, the entire para was re-posted by another editor. None of the crap in question was about the article, mind you. Some stronger support for keeping that page on subject and more mature would be a step in the right direction. I support the 6 month probation. Perhaps if it were "official" I myself, and other admins trying to keep things under control, would have to deal with less Micky Mouse stuff. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I would, however, be happier if there were input from more than two admins. (Hint hint) KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to enter your view below. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• This is a good idea. Disruption on the Palin pages has been out of control for some time now. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Agree. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Agree, and also agree that it should be limited to six months. However I think the details of the proposal sound draconian. Topic bans would be more appropriate remedies rather than 1 year blocks. Also the definition of "uninvolved admin" should exclude those who've edited the article significantly.   Will Beback  talk  01:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, SBJohnny has volunteered, and has not edited the article at all, so far as I can tell. so long as we have Johnny (and hopefully others will arrive) we will have at least one unarguably uninvolved admin. My only edits have been enforcing BLP and putting brakes on edit wars, but of course Kelly's habitual hostility towards me has led to 'involvement' (and the usual 'IDCab') accusations, which while it does not make me involved, certainly has led to some ridiculous drama. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding, the details are left rather open. I hardly think we need worry about draconian measures. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support, and also per prior epic drama at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war. One year bans are too much--utter topic bans, and clarify explicitly that "uninvolved" admins can not have been involved period in significant content changes or the usual ongoing discussions. Basically, anyone currently debating on the talk page, and debating back to and before the RFAR, and all parties in the RFAR, should be exempt from working as admins on this one. rootology (C)(T) 18:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Alter from present form Proscribing involvement can exclude the informed. It does not guarantee unbiased editors. It can exclude unbiased editors. There appears to be an assumption here that uninvolvement is a panacea. Anarchangel (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

After moving this to where it was supposed to be in the first place:(prev 2 edits)

I give never moral support to punishment; only prevention, contrition, and restitution. In lieu of a system supporting those, I support one year topic bans.

There is an issue of how behaviour that occurred prior to this probation is to be treated.

I have evidence of one editor doing 40 deletions of SP talk page sections. Another doing 18 nonconsecutive edits to the main article. And a third doing 13 nonconsecutive edits to the main article on the same day that he noted that a fourth editor had done 5 edits that day, in a discussion about the blocking of the fourth editor, who has since gone elsewhere.

I assume I should deal with these in another place, but the point is, these will not be dealt with retroactively, correct? Anarchangel (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The probation clearly cound not be ex post facto for anyone. Even SPAs or the like. --

• Consent: If "probation" has worked well in the past to organize similar chaotic situations, then let's do it. It's flattering and frankly daunting to be put forward as the archetype of the "uninvolved admin" however, so here's my ante: I'll participate, but if it gets to be more of a job than a hobby, I'll stop participating. My thoughts on it are here. The good news here is that the editors who share an interest in this article seem to be happy about most of the article's content, but they're just unable to agree on a few sentences. WP:GA, anyone? --SB_Johnny | ^talk