Resolved

 – No longer an ANI issue. Jehochman ^Talk 03:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The students at Lancaster University have been busy on Wikipedia. While some edits are without doubt constructive, others are far from it. Today's vandalism from 194.80.32.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) includes some really creative stuff. However the IP's talk page also has seven notations indicating that vandalism should be reported to the school rather than on the talk page, and that the university would prefer to deal with it, rather than have us block the IP.

This issue was brought to my attention when I processed a block request for the IP at WP:AIV. While I would normally be inclined to let the university administration deal with the issue, the 13 previous blocks combined with the steady and continuous stream of vandalism (which shows no end in sight) leads me to the conclusion that enough is enough. As such, I have applied a {{schoolblock}} with a one year duration.

Any admin who feels I have been too hasty should feel free to reduce or remove the block as they see fit. — Kralizec! (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Completely support this block. Tan | 39 01:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I saw where the one user claimed that this will block 20000 people. I don't see the problem with that. If they want to edit, they can register an account from elsewhere, and not be inconvenienced. While it is good that they are reacting to it, it does not change the fact that each of those 20000 could potentially make 4+ bad edits, and that quite a few seem to have taken that chance. Sodam Yat (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

steveb: and I have to say, we have received no notifications via email. Not one. Apparently the tools that WikiAdmins use (Huggle?) simply revert and write to the page (seems like a bit of a fault to me), so my efforts have been spitting in the wind. Steveb (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

steveb: as things stand at the moment, unless someone here camps on WP all day, vandalism reports will go unnoticed. As the last week has shown, even responding to complaints is not enough. Steveb (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←I have notified Steveb (talk · contribs) of this discussion after seeing that they have responded to most of the warnings on the IP's talk page in an official manner indicating that they are an official of the university. (Could this be a shared account? I say that because of the almost constant usage of we in their replies) -MBK₀₀₄ 01:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

steveb: I use the term "we" because I work as part of a team. Steveb is a thinly veiled disguise, my real name is Steve Bennett, I work in ISS (the University IT department). Steveb (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've allowed account creation. If a vandal registers, it'll be easier to narrow them down for the administration, I'm thinking. Also: they're students. May as well... Xavexgoem (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

steveb: Thanks for that, most of our users are away from home so the "register from home" thing is pretty inconvenient. Steveb (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Makes it harder for us to track, plus they will still get autoblocked... Prodego ^talk 02:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's just IMO. <shrug> Xavexgoem (talk) 02:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The school may be trying to prevent autoblock from causing massive disruption. One student could cause much of the university of lose Wikipedia editing access. For that student, it's fun. For others, it's hell. For that student, just cause a block and other computers get blocked. Just one visit to the computing center and another to the library could disrupt a lot of users. Ipromise (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• one year is excessive. The students change from year to year, and this year's sins should not be visited on the incoming class also. The block should run at most till the end of the school year this spring. DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a British university, so they're only a month into their new academic year. Black Kite 08:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, DGG - if you want a block to run until the end of the academic year, it would need to be a 9 month block (end of the school year is officially 31st August) -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has the individual (Steveb) that claims to have jurisdiction over this IP verified their identify with OTRS? Just a thought. Netalarmtrick or treat! 06:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

steveb: If I had ever heard of OTRS I might have used it. Steveb (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steveb, you can read about it here -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

steveb: I don't really see that proving my identity makes any difference if WP admins will never read a response to a complaint, and it's moot now anyway - my institution has what amounts to a permanent ban on anonymous contributions, so it really doesn't require any further input from me.
It would be great if account creation can be left in place so that those that wish to make a positive contribution can do so with a minimum of fuss. Steveb (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We see here another edu institution trying to do the right thing - allowing students to edit and taking action against those who are making bad faith edits. It seems to me that WP should welcome this editor, and try and link them with others in similar situaions, and create some policies / guidelines to help them do their jobs and help keep wp clean. Misuse of computers in english unis is taken pretty seriously. Remember Civility (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems to me that obvious sock puppets shouldn't comment on administrative pages. But look, they do anyway. Auntie E. 17:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a sock, it's an alternate account. Please assume good faith. An apology for you assumption of bad faith and accusation of damaging the project would be nice, but is not expected. Thanks for your contribution, which completely failed to address the problem of edu institutions wanting to help prevent damage from their users on WP, and getting no help to do so. I say, again, we want people like that on WP. Template warnings from NPP get ignored. A letter from your IT security warning you that you may lose your place at uni (which has considerable finanial implications in the UK) would be more effective, no? Remember Civility (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I am all for the University actively tackling student vandalism on Wikipedia, Lancaster's requested method (emailing details to the security department, rather than leaving messages on the IP's talk page) puts the onus on us, rather than the other way around. I suspect that many vandal fighters (like me) could not do this even if they wanted (because, for example, they can do web browsing from work but do not have access to their personal email accounts). Not to mention the fact that the defacto vandalism procedure on Wikipedia is revert/warn/block, so letting institutions pick a different way for us to handle vandalism coming from their network sounds like a recipe for disaster. If LU really wants to keep tabs on vandalism coming from their network, rather than relying on Wikipedians to send them email about it, perhaps the security department sould consider using the RSS web feed mentioned in the {{sharedIPedu}} header? — Kralizec! (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I think that suspending or expelling students for ordinary vandalism is an excessive punishment. By contrast, when your IP is blocked, you can still use Wikipedia, just not modify it. Blocking protects Wikipedia without serious real-life consequences. Bwrs (talk) 02:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you think we would expel a student for adding rude words to a WP article?? Normally just getting someone face-to-face is sufficient to make them realise that computer misuse has real-world consequences. Steveb (talk) 10:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see Steve is trying his best here. If all of those students who need to edit WP register with an account, will the subsequent block on the Uni's IP prevent those who have registered being able to edit in their own account? Is that technically unavoidable? Leaky Caldron 10:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the block is on anonymous edits, and so long as account creation is not blocked, I think that's OK. My edits (like this post) are coming via the blocked IP address. Steveb (talk) 10:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So can those students requiring access for legitmate reasons not register? Then the IP block safeguards against the vandalism? I'm not sure if this helps Template:Schoolblock, whether it's already been considered or whether it is a total distraction to your problem. Anyone having problems registering could do so via you presumably? Leaky Caldron 10:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's reasonably common to block anonymous editing-only (reading will be fine) from a range of IP addresses. There should be no problem with users on that IP range creating a userid. I have rarely seen any hiccups with that process. Granted, users who thought they had logged in will be surprised to see a "blocked from editing" notice. It should be a wakeup call for people that they are, indeed, being watched. Does the University have an appropriate "Terms of Use" statement and security briefings for students that talks about "accountability and availability" issues? Getting students realizing early that nothing is truly anonymous, and that they are 100% accountable for anything they do and say not just on the internet, but everywhere seems to be a challenge these days. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Account creation can better be handled by e-mail requests, or the account creation module, where we can control it better. Once someone creates an account outside of these functions we can't easily connect them to the university absent grounds for a checkuser, which wouldn't be likely. I would prefer that steveb would verify his identity through OTRS, then I'd be inclined to give him account creation rights. BTW, I don't understand why we should care what the university does to the students, that's their business.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 11:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good to me too. In case Steveb is not familiar with WP:ACC, students could contact Steveb (or someone else in the university) to ask for a username. Once the username is created with a dummy password, the student could then change their password. That should prevent vandalism-only accounts from being created, so autoblocks would less likely be an issue. Wknight94 ^talk 12:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) That's the second reference to OTRS, again without any clues to how one can verify one's identity "using OTRS". As far as I can make out, OTRS is a ticketing system for handling requests; there's no reference to an identity verification system that I can see. Maybe I'm not looking closely enough.Steveb (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2) I quite specifically do not want account creation rights. I'm more than busy enough with the stuff that my institution pays me to do - which includes investigating misuse, but does not include becoming the bottleneck for WP account provisioning.Steveb (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The specific process isn't detailed on Wikipedia, to help prevent people gaming the system (see WP:BEANS). You can follow the instructions at WP:OTRS to contact them, and the OTRS team will help walk you through the steps to verify your identity. It's a touch convoluted, but it kinda has to be to prevent folks faking it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I was sceptical before, but now I call Shenanigans. You're saying that there's a secret, undocumented procedure, that somehow I should have known how to follow in order to prove my identity, and you say that it can't be documented because then Bad People would use it. Plenty of other sites have been able to verify my identity; I've written systems to verify the identities of other people (it's not rocket science). On top of all that, I'm less and less convinced that I care if any WP admins know whether I'm "the real Steve Bennett", because it will make no difference to how the users at my institution get treated. I think I'm going to go back to the Real World for a while.Steveb (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, never mind OTRS. It doesn't address the issues at hand. Bottom line is you want an e-mail every time someone from your IP address vandalizes? And then you'll immediately stop them on your end, even on nights and weekends and holidays? For the e-mail, try WP:BOTREQ. For your claim to immediately stop vandalism on your end, now I call Shenanigans. Wknight94 ^talk 21:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I never said that we would "immediately stop them". I said that we would identify the originator and deal with him/her according to our disciplinary procedures - which involve real-world interactions between the originator and University staff, and (on the whole, in my experience) prevents a recurrence of the abuse. The WP vandalism that we have seen has been due to users being ignorant of the effects of their actions, rather than any deep-seated malicious intent. Steveb (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The school is doing the equivalent of having the British government request the French police to report the whereabouts of any British pickpockets found in Paris back to the Brits, instead of arresting them. It might be well-intended but it's just not reasonable. Right now the school's network is essentially a big open proxy, and we routinely block those. Wasn't there a similar issue with AOL before, fixed by giving us a way to block AOL users based on the XFF headers? Maybe the same method could work with traffic from the school. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find your analogy useful (if anything, it's like closing the Channel Tunnel to try to prevent British pickpockets in Paris, but it's still an unhelpful analogy). We're not an open proxy.

Your assertion about XFF headers is interesting (if true). The notice on User talk:194.80.32.8 has said clearly (since February 2007) that requests from our proxies include XFF headers; I was given the impression that WP had no support for reading these. Does anyone have information on how to make use of this, or is it a one-off bodge for AOL? Steveb (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to see this from the WP end Steve. If one of your guys goes off the rails and wholesale vandalises pages, you cannot expect that blocking will be deferred or for you to be contacted every time. What happens when your on leave? Surely by blocking the IP but getting your legitimate students registered it will save your time chasing and taking disciplinary action? Six of one and half a dozen of the other. Leaky Caldron 23:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When we get recurring problems from IP addresses shared by multiple users, we do treat that as an open proxy (see for example the Bryan from Palatine and Scientology arb cases which I think implemented this remedy). As for blocking by XFF, apparently we have a list of proxies whose XFF headers we trust and to which the developers could possibly add your school (see m:XFF project and also for example here). In your case, that might not be workable, if your client addresses belong to your internal network rather than being real internet addresses. I'm not at all knowledgeable about this though. You could ask at WP:VP/T or irc freenode #wikimedia-tech if nobody here has better advice. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a resource Wikipeida should be embracing. If even a small portion of those students create accounts and contribute it is awesome. More editors is good and if some of them have resources and the mentality to create encyclopedic material it is even better. I can't tell from the conversation above: Has allowing account creation been attempted? A malicious account created here and there after too many beers should be easy enough to contain by editors. Also, the thought of one of those kids getting a talking to (or even worse some sort of sanction from the school) since they got caught is too good to pass up. Imagine some kids face when Steve notifies them that they are going to have to explain to the parents holding the purse strings that they are not allowed access to the school's network any longer.Cptnono (talk) 02:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the way mediawiki's XFF works, any non-logged-in edits are logged as coming from the real client address rather than the proxy address, and we can (if necessary) block the real client. If someone at the school creates a wikipedia account and vandalizes under it, we would block the account (and checkusers could presumably see the XFF address in case of socking), but under our privacy policy, we could not notify the school (except under some extreme circumstances). It would amount to disclosing the IP address of a logged-in user. We would never do it for routine vandalism. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 02:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not really an incident requiring administrator attention. Could the technical discussion be continued over at the appropriate page on WP:PUMP? Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 03:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – This is non-issue. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the discussion of the previous ANI, that I filed exclusively against Dbachmann: discussion

Toddst1 resolved the issue with quote "no abuse found"

WP:SEMI states: Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages which are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy (such as biographies of living persons, neutral point of view). Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users.

I challenge the decision made by Toddst1 and want to know a detailed explanation of his action in light of wikipedia semi-protection policies and the previous mentioned discussion. I still request sufficient action against Dbachmann, who accused me in the discussion of edit warring, lawyering etc. --91.130.188.8 (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speak with them individually. This is not the place to discuss this.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 13:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you were edit warring, and you are wikilawyaring...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 13:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the big deal? If you're right, you'll be able to discuss it on the article talk page, get consensus, and the change will still get made. You ought to do that anyway, before repeatedly reverting to changes when you can see that others disagree with you. I'm an administrator, but I don't know anything about Telegu, so I don't know who's right in this content disagreement. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The big deal is, that I already made my point in a summary and Dbachmann ignored it and semi-protected the article.--91.130.188.8 (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Going after your logic, every admin can protect a site whenever they want (also in case, they were part of it).--91.130.188.8 (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked your contribution history, and I can't see any posts from you at Talk:Telugu language at all. If your goal is to get your desired changes made, that's the place to discuss why they are correct and get consensus for them. I don't think that a conversation about semiprotection rules at WP:ANI will help you get your desired changes into Telegu language as effectively. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been accused of a lot of shit, but abusing {{resolved}} tags - that takes the cake. Toddst1 (talk) 13:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Especially from somebody who claims not to be wikilawyering...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 14:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be abusing a {{resolved}} tag here in just a minute. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any more of this, and I am not going to agree this is "resolved" unless measures are taken to impress basic wikiquette on 91.130.188.8 (talk · contribs), if necessary using blunt instruments. --dab (𒁳) 14:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It just gets better. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And forum shopping at RFPP. Syrthiss (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (E/C) FWIW, the IP address, in classic forum-shopping mode, asked for unprotection at RFPP. I declined it, and suspect that a block may become necessary, since two AN/I threads and a thread at Talk:Jimbo Wales is not enough drama. Horologium (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you mean User talk:Jimbo Wales :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • <facepalm> Yes, that was what I meant. (This is what happens when one is attempting to do several things at once; none of them turn out very well.) Horologium (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I held off commenting on the original thread until DBachman had had a chance to respond. I must now say that I feel that a group of admins seem not to be willing to pay attention to what the OP was complaining about. Yes, plonking a level 3 warning on DB's talk page was not a good idea, nor was the "forum shopping". However, please bear in mind that this is an inexperienced editor (their account has existed for about 3 weeks, with just over 70 edits). Looking at the page in question, I feel that if someone had come to RFPP asking for it to be protected, any of the admins here would have declined, saying that there was insufficient vandalism/edit-warring at this time. Does WP:BITE not apply to editors after their first couple of days? I would count this editor as a newcomer. Just my 0.02 -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Although not an admin, I looked carefully at the contribs and situation. I'm a firm believer in the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. An IP editor was bold - inserting information that clearly did not match the sources being used (yes, he did some other edits too). Those edits were harmful to the overall article. Those edits were reverted (which may have reverted some ok edits too as collateral). Without any discussion, the IP reverted that reversion as vandalism - the BRD cycle broken, and no attempts to discuss. At this point (incorrect material, no discussion, calling valid revert "vandalism"), 1+1+1=3 ... time to protect from an editor who clearly was not participating in the cycle. I would highly doubt that the admin was protecting a favoured version, they were protecting from the insertion of bad data that was promoting a specific language. Now, if this were me, and I semi'd an article that I was involved in, I likely would have brought it up here myself to explain and achieve validation of my action. The admin prevented disruption to an article - unfortunately, it was an article they had some involvement in. For the IP to say that they discussed in an edit summary is BS; we discuss on the article talkpage. The additional disruption actions by the IP (opening a new ANI notice against the closer and running to Jimbo because community consensus was against him) merely emphasizes the non-understanding of policy, process, and makes me think we have a WP:SPA who is trying to promote a certain language (as per the article edits), no matter what. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • • WP:BRD is an essay, and not one we can reasonably expect a newbie to have even heard of. WP:SPA from a handful of edits, and then a complaint (with various followups due to poor handling of it) is a ludicrous leap. Rd232 ^talk 12:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • I acknowledge that it's an essay. However, in the IP's first ANI entry, one of my first responses was to read the BRD essay, and re-gauge his anger, and it would have certainly alleviated much of the additional drama that has occurred. They appear to have steadfastly refused to so, although I will AGF. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Thanks for your response, Bwilkins. I agree that the protection was to prevent 'bad data' being entered into the article rather than any other motive, and I understand what you are saying - but I still feel that if this had gone to RFPP, the request for protection would have been declined - and I still feel that a newcomer has been harshly treated. I personally wouldn't have semi'd the page (yes, I know I'm not an admin, but I'm talking theoretically!) - I would have given the IP editor a 3RR warning - if they reverted again, then the IP could be blocked for a day (or however long), rather than semi-protecting the page. Just my take on the situation. YMMV -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I notice that Bwilkins said the IP made mistakes and promoted bad data, while the admin was trying to prevent bad data. I looked at the edit as well and see the exact opposite. The edit changed the article to say that Telegu is the third-most spoken language in India rather than the second. The cited source which the IP added, an Indian census page, says that Hindi is the most spoken (257 million), Bengali has 83 million, and Telegu has 74 million speakers. So on that point the IP appears to be correct unless I'm missing something? On the other factual point is ambiguous because no sources are provided. II | (t - c) 02:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • After a futile discussion on dbachmann's user talk page I have unilaterally unprotected the page.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Tussenvoegsel, when a Dutch person whose surname includes a tussenvoegsel is referred to by their surname, the tussenvoegsel should be capitalised (e.g. Van Nistelrooy, Van Persie or Van der Sar). However, User:84.91.100.2 is ignoring this rule at 2009–10 UEFA Champions League group stage and continues to write "van Persie" despite my messages on his talk page asking them not to. Could an admin please have a word with this user? – PeeJay 19:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned the IP with a van-3. Hopefully that will be an end to the matter. Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the person in question was registered as "van Persie", then the correct way to write the name is "van Persie". This is not uncommon in Dutch. By the way, the word "van" is not a "tussenvoegsel". It is a "voorzetsel". What is needed here, is a wp:source for the specific name. There is no general rule for this. DVdm (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not know this - but then, I ain't Dutch. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither am I. I'm Belgian, but we have the same phenomenon. By the way, have a look at van Persie's article and look at the consistency in the spelling :-)

Cheers, DVdm (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd never heard of a "voorzetsel", but that's only because I was introduced to the concept via the tussenvoegsel article. Anyway, the article seems to suggest that, in the Netherlands, when the surname alone is used to refer to the subject, the "van" should be capitalised. I'm fairly sure that the names are capitalised in Belgian conventions too, but IIRC, aren't most Belgian names capitalised anyway (e.g. Anthony Vanden Borre and Daniel Van Buyten)? – PeeJay 23:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A voorzetsel is a preposition. "Van" translates to "from".

In Dutch (the common official language of the Dutch in the Netherlands and the Flemish in Flanders, the northern half of Belgium) most names are indeed fully capitalized, but by no means all. Mine is not (type: "Van de m...", with capital V only), and apparently van Persie's is not. Cheers, DVdm (talk) 10:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Natalee Holloway, which contains many Dutch names, we learned that you only capitalize "van" when a first name or title is not used.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I am correct in saying that, in 2009–10 UEFA Champions League group stage, my version is correct ("Van Persie", not "van Persie")? – PeeJay 22:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of weird-ass language being used here so I'm going to ignore all of that and address this issue as an editor who holds (and correctly writes) a Dutch surname. In the case of the entire name (i.e. Joe van Whatever) 'van' is not capitalised. However, if a salutation or no name is used (i.e. Mr Van Bloggs or Van Bloggs) is used then the name is capitalised. I've been writing my name for the past 25 years and have yet to be corrected. RaseaC (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The above editor has been inserting unsourced material of low quality across Anglo-Viking and Anglo-Saxon articles, much of it reading as OR and fairly useless (possibly it was this. Or possibly that). He refuses to engage in any discussion over his edits on talk pages, even deleting other users' comments on article talk pages that pertain to his edits. He has also been reverting grammar and spelling fixes, declaring it to be 'fine as it is'. Following the latest reverts, he came up with this offensive edit comment. --Narson ~ Talk • 19:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever else comes of this, he earned a block for the edit comment. You aren't coming off too sterling yourself (calling his edits dross in edit summaries), btw. Syrthiss (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only 31 hours? For that inexcusable summary, I would have blocked him for at least a month, and brought it here for a review of an indef. Horologium (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Implied threat of violence in the edit summary. Paternoster needs to become Our Father Who Art Indef'd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support a longer block for that edit summary, a month would be fair. Off2riorob (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Our Father needs to have a month added to that proposed indef, for butchering the English language. I'm sorely tempted to revert everything he's done that's at least the most recent change to an article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Syrthiss, his edits were dross (worthless) in my view, I was commenting on them and not the editor (who I'm sure has much to offer when he realises he is not a lone crusader). He refused to enter into any discourse over why his work was being removed/edited, so bluntness was all that was left. If people won't talk, there are few options available. Apologies if that seems overly harsh. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that a comment like that doesn't really explain the problem. My edit summary for the first reversion was simply "editorializing", since it reads like a little original research essay. And the second one I reverted (so far) I labeled "editorializing, speculation, and poor English", the latter referring to that guy's tendency to write like a 3rd grader would talk, in run-on sentences. Ugh. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now that I think of it, he writes the way Casey Stengel used to talk. However, when Casey wrote his autobiography, he worked with a professional writer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted a few items from his most recent updates, thus putting several articles about Vikings and such on my watch list due to the pillaging of those articles by the user in question. I feel as if I ought to post something on his talk page, but he'll just zap it like he did the block notice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usually I'm worried that I'm being too harsh. My first inclination was for indef, but figured I'd give him a small benefit of the doubt. If someone wants to block our father the antisemite for longer, I'm fine with that. Syrthiss (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support a block extension for this awful anti Semitic comment. Off2riorob (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support block extension - there's no way that comment can be acceptable Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The block has been extended for a very long time (indefinitely), which serves him right for saying such an awful thing and the extension will also save Bugs from having to correct his spelling. Off2riorob (talk) 14:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have him reblocked to indef. I wanted to make sure that he was unable to edit (the original block would have ended soon) pending any further discussion here, as so far it seems the consensus is my original block was too lenient). Syrthiss (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That the startling and offensive edit comment justifies a ban is indisputable. However, a lot of what is said above is irrelevant and a summary indef. is disproportionate for an editor with no apparent track record. Leaky Caldron 14:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with the above. I do believe 31 hours might be too short as a preventative measure (there needs to be some break so he can re-think his approach or the same behaviour will occur), but I do feel the motivation behind his edits was initially good, if misguided. Ideally we would find an editor willing to mentor him when he emerges from the block and we will have a constructure editor out of it all. Obviously this will only work if Stephen starts communicating with other editors, but if he doesn't then he will likely earn another block anyway. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mentoring is one thing. But who's going to teach him how to write English? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One would assume it was more a lack of attention to his language rather than lack of knowledge, considering his location. I've often seen mentors copyedit propose edits as well. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If his userpage is to be believed, he is a 15 year-old who was born and reared in England. It's disturbing that a teenager would use such a vile and disgusting metaphor to indicate displeasure with another editor, particularly because of the photos on Narson's userpage. Horologium (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, he has communicated on his talk. Off2riorob (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is sorry and won't do it again...well I suppose everyone deserves a chance, I could support a block of at least a week to show him how serious the community takes that kind of comment, it would be illegal in some countries, and then keep an eye on him. Off2riorob (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot support an immediate unblock, but I may have a bit of a personal antagonism towards that edit summary. My partner's mother was one of the lucky Jews in Bialystok; she was exiled to Siberia rather than murdered (including those sent to Auschwitz). Horologium (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the general consensus is slightly veering towards leniency. My personal opinion is that any editor who can make such a callous, heartless, unfeeling and vicious edit as that edit summary (burning in Auschwitz) is, should never, ever be allowed to edit here. But I have been to Auschwitz, and perhaps he has not. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 16:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Totally reprehensible though the comment was, and deserving of decisive action, the purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment. The duration of a block has to be related to the likelihood of a user repeating inappropriate behavior. He needs to get himself over here and provide apologies and assurances.Leaky Caldron 17:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

? The user cannot edit here due to the indef, though I did make the offer to cut and paste any defense he cared to raise on his talk page to here. His unblock message does apologize and does say that he won't do it again. If I've misunderstood your comment, my apologies. Since I'm the one currently holding the block, I'm not going to respond to the unblock request myself. Syrthiss (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had not read it when I posted above, but his talk page says: "I am sorry for what i done and i will not do it again i won't attack personal people it is not right and i will not do it again". You could have copied that over. It looks like an apology and an assurance he will not do it again. Leaky Caldron 17:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, then my apology for not doing that. I considered that part of his unblock, and it was paraphrased by Off2riorob above. Syrthiss (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't unblock him yet - I gather he's only young and it's poor form to encourage the young to believe that just apologising will make everything all right instantly. Give him a week, and discuss some of his worse edits on his talk page in that time. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that a longer block is needed. This is not being punitive, it's being preventative: absolute racism in that format has a ripple effect on the project. If a whole slew of people who were affected by the comment see that the editor received a very minor tap on the wrist, then you'll get a collective howl, AND set a precedent for future situations. I know this isn't a crystal ball, but the action/lack of correct action will have longstanding ramifications. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more along the lines on not coming back until he’s shown an appreciation of proper behaviours. If, as suspected, he’s a school student, ask him to produce an essay based on the 5 pillars or some suitable civility topic. If it passes in a week (or longer) fine, if he cannot be bothered let the block remain. We are allowed to be creative aren’t we? Leaky Caldron 18:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am about to scram for the day. My thoughts on the above essay idea - really, I suspect he wouldn't want to write one and I myself really don't want to read it. Wikipedia is not a 12 step program, or therapy. My thoughts are this: if we accept that he is sorry, then a week away isn't going to make him sorry-er. If we accept his apology, we should unblock him now. If we think that his comment is just an indication of future disruption to come then we should recognize that the block is not punishment (to address Leaky Cauldron's concern) and is to prevent further disruption. If that is the case, the indef should stand and his unblock should be denied.

His current status is that Beeblebrox was placing the unblock on hold, assumedly to come discuss with me, and then rescinded his offer based on the edit summary. Before I log off, I'm going to go restore the unblock to the state it was before Beeblebrox placed it on hold as that is my last read on what the user wanted. Syrthiss (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, I’m not acting as an apologist for this editor. WP:Block lead is clear the purpose of blocks and repeats 2 further times (wp:Blocking_policy#Purpose_and_goal, Wp:Blocking_policy#Duration_of_blocks) that they are not for punishment. An indef. Block cannot stand without justification and there appears to have been no attempt at education either as per, Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Education_and_warnings. He’s entitled to be treated per policy even if he does not have the competence to check out and understand the policy. My suggestion was merely to test his desire to join the community in view of the grave and wholly unacceptble error he made today. Leaky Caldron 20:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He has again blanked his talk page and the editor that was looking at his unblock dropped out as he said he couldn't continue to be neutral after reading the edit summary, don't forget that we are allowed to add our own common sense to the situation. Off2riorob (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If he's actually 15 and is actually using his own name, that's trouble enough right there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would support an extended block. Bwrs (talk) 02:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• He's blanked his talk page, including the unblock request, so I think we're done here and can let the indef block stand pending any future unblock request. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He has put in a new unblock request (rather rambling but hey ho). Pleased to see he wasn't planning to kill Jews but just me! ;) --Narson ~ Talk • 20:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you misinterpreted that Narson? I can't see that, have another look. Off2riorob (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is something not right here. Although the user is not noted for using punctuation, this dif. [1] represents about 40 edits by the user (only a few by intervening editors). I cannot testify to the subject matter, but the general prose is not at the very poor level of his talk page explanation which is, frankly, puerile. I don’t know whether policy restricts illiterate editors and I do wonder if he is attempting some sort of juvenile attempt to “game” himself out of the block. I make no apology for assuming bad faith in view of his disgraceful edit summary leading to his block in the first place. I don't think he was talking about Narson by the way, more likely Hitler I think. Maybe my essay suggestion should be reconsidered, this time based on his ability to write coherently using correct grammar. Leaky Caldron 20:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the editor may have taken Dutch Courage to post his unblock request. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And....blanked again. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trulexicon (talk · contribs · logs)

This user has spent almost the entirety of their time on wikipedia reverting references to Larry Sanger being the co-founder. That issue is long resolved to everyone's satisfaction (except her and Squeakbox's, both of which come back and revert to the founder version time and time again), consensus favours the co-founder description, something that is ably supported by sources from the time, including Jimmy himself and the WMF (anyone interested might like to look up the archives of Jimmy Wales). I ask that someone uninvolved step in here. I realise this is a content dispute, but there are underlying behavioural issues, like completely disregarding the consensus that has been formed and the almost-an-SPA status of their account. Viridae^Talk 09:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This still needs attention. Viridae^Talk 23:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the inattention. It seems to me, looking at Trulexicon's edit history, that Viridae's characterisation of the account as SPA-like is warranted. I also see no justification for Trulexicon's single-minded editing over this issue; that sources support Larry Sanger as the co-founder is, as far as I'm aware, a long-held consensus position, and the alternative view receives little or no support.

To address the intermittent but ongoing disruption, one solution would be to topic-ban Trulexicon from any founder-related areas, which I am happy to impose if it has the support of other editors/admins. However, Trulexicon's limited editing interests mean this might amount to a de-facto site ban, so my preferred response is to give Trulexicon a chance to voluntarily diversify their editing into more worthwhile areas under the following conditions:

• Any edits relating to Wales/Sanger should be proposed on the relevant talk-pages for discussion before making them (note that this is not a carte-blanche to tendentiously make use of argumentation; Wikipedia is not a battleground)
• The zero-revert rule should be followed by Trulexicon on all articles in this area
• Established consensus must be respected; if it is challenged, use should be made of the proper channels
• Any further disruption on either the articles or talk-pages will lead to to blocks of increasing length.

Pending further input, I'll leave Trulexicon a note setting out the above. EyeSerene^talk 09:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trulexicon has added the word reared to the article again. Sanger is not an animal. See Talk:Larry Sanger/Archive 2#Reared vs Raised and User talk:Trulexicon#repeated BLP violations added to Larry Sanger article. QuackGuru (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unresolved

I'm bringing this here because I feel I'm out of my depth with this. The editing of Ani medjool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been raised with me by two separate editors on two separate occasions. Deborahjay raised an issue with Ani medjool's editing with me on 17 October (further details). The editor was nominating Commons files for speedy deletion. I issued a uw-generic4, which was later removed by Ani medjool as delete lies.

Today, Hertz1888 raised an issue on my talk page about Ani medjool's editing (see most recent contribs of Ani medjool). I do know that Ani medjool is subject to the WP:ARBPIA case and has been notified of this. Therefore I'd like to leave this in the capable hands of more experienced admins than myself to take any action that is felt necessary. I will notify Ani medjool that the issue has been raised here. Mjroots (talk) 09:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notified Mjroots (talk) 09:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have only taken a quick look at Ani medjools editing today at Golan mountains, and as far as I can see, there is nothing wrong with his edits. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• [ NPA redacted ]

I think the crux of the recent editing issue is whether or not the Golan Heights are considered by the Wikipedia community to be a part of Israel or a part of Syria. Mjroots (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article on a winery is definitely not the place to discuss an area's political or legal status. The whole purpose of wikilinks is to make it possible to find more information on a linked subject, such as Golan Heights. Tomas e (talk) 12:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at some of the edits in question. While some of the changes made by Ani medjool may be debatable, I do not see them as disruptive. While it is perhaps incorrect to change the category at Petroleum Road, for example, to read simply Category: Roads in Syria, it is perhaps equally incorrect for it read as it did before Ani medjool's changes as simply Category:Roads in Israel. The Golan Heights is considered to be Syrian territory that is Israeli-occupied by most of the world. Israel's annexation of it is not recognized as legal anywhere except Israel. All of these articles need to be reviewed. As a quick neutral fix, I might suggest they be categorized simply as being in the Golan Heights, without designating them as either Syrian or Israeli to avoid taking sides in this territorial dispute. Alternatively, they might be categorized as being in "Israeli-occupied territories" to reflect the majority worldwide POV on the matter. Tiamut^talk 14:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do nothing but correct false information propigate by misinform editors. Golan is Syria not israel. If United State build winery or ski resort or military base in israel or other country we not say it located in United State, we say it located in country it build in. The same be truth in this situation. If jew or israel state choose build winery in SYRIAN territory it do not make it part of israel! I also think the ADMINISTRATOR who instigate personal attack on Supreme Deliciousness should be admonish by wikipedia, because as admin and respect member of wikipedia, the editor should know not to make personal attack and should know difference between personal attack and regular response. I question neutralness of admin because of his personal attack against editor who not share same view has him, and there fore this admin do not belong making decision in this case. Ani medjool (talk)

Comment The redacted comment was not intended as a personal attack on Supreme Deliciousness. It was a statement of fact re SD's POV. It was also made clear that the SPI referred to cleared SD. If it came across as a personal attack to SD the I publicly apologise to him for the remarks. It's not a question of neutrality here; I don't know enough about the Middle East and the background of individual editors in the ARBPIA case to be able to deal with this myself. Which is why I've raised it here and am happy for other admins to deal with the situation. I myself will not be taking any action against you, Ani medjool. Mjroots (talk) 06:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—It is clear that Ani medjool's edits are not simply controversial and disputable, they are pure vandalism. For example, in this revert, he removes a category and insert a controversial statement but also with improper spelling. He has also made a disruptive edit to a template, which is especially problematic. I wouldn't mind participating in a discussion about the content of the edits, but don't feel that User:Ani medjool should be allowed to continue these making edits like this until he has had time to familiarize himself with Wikipedia and its policies. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Counter-Comment - Poor spelling/grammar/capitalization is not vandalism. Don't get me wrong; I'm not stating that he should be allowed to continue editing (he doesn't seem to be cooperating terribly well, which is necessary), but I just should hope that any action taken would be solely for the preservation of wikipedia's article standards, rather than based on any assumptions of vandalism or other malicious intent. (a fine hair to split, perhaps, but I think important) 139.57.101.207 (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English not my first language, I sorry you have problem with my spell and language skill. It not vandalism, the edit I make, because international community recognize Golan Heights be part of Syria that currently under military occupation by israel. This do not change fact that place in article be located in Syria and not Israel. Vandalism be disruptive false insert of material to article, I just attempt to correct false information with truth: that Golan Height is recognize as Syria not Israel and there fore article about thing in Golan Height should be attributed to Syria and not israel. If other editor do not beleive this be Syrian and instead it be part of Israel, i stop making edits. But i request discussion because this important issue that has for long time not be addressed. Ani medjool (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ani medjool, you have edit-warred, POV pushed and politicized many non-political articles. For instance, at "Talk:Falafel#Images" you and another editor complained that the falafel photos taken in Israel should be removed because of the fact they were taken in Israel. Furthermore, your comments on that talk page telling me that I should "cease cry and cease play of traditional "poor me. poor jew" wolf call" are not constructive. Those actions, and others, have made it very difficult for editors to Assume Good Faith when dealing with your edits. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 02:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - When looking through his previous edits, it is more than difficult to assume good faith. It's impossible, as it is clear that he is incapable of putting aside his political beliefs and contributing positively to Wikipedia. He isn't here to help the website; he's here to spread propaganda. The best example of his intentions is one of his past reasons for edits: "the picture in ramallah is good enough, its better than the one in jew city". -- 99.253.230.182 (talk) 04:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no doubt that this editor has a strong anti-Israeli POV which he regularly pushes. He also has repeatedly made offensive comments against Jews. However, in reference to the specific issue which caused this thread to be raised, there has been collective violation of NPOV by multiple editors which has resulted in the pervasive categorisation of places and properties in part of Syria as Israeli. (Claims of items such as roads and wineries as being Israeli-owned are problematic due to their being constructed on illegally confiscated land and therefore there alleged Israeli ownership would be regarded as in violation of multiple motions of the Security Council and other internaitonal legal bodies.) Ani Medjool's highlighting of this problem is a positive contribution to the project even though some of his behaviour justifies repeated short bans. His conduct problems should not be used to prevent the pro-Israeli npov-violations in Golan-related articles from being addressed.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Axmann8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Here [2] asks for an unblock. He admits to block evasion since his block, and claims his block was "politically motivated". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this sums it up nicely. TNXMan 16:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ja! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since he admits to evading his block, I wonder if it's time to re-open the SPI on that guy? Maybe I've been falsely blaming PCH for stuff that Axmann has been doing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be worth it just to sort out which edits belong to which editor. I'm also curious to see these "constructive contributions" that Axmann claims to have made. TNXMan 19:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was in communication with Axmann and attempted to help him adapt to and understand Wikipedia culture back in march before he was indefinitely blocked, I'll chime in with a note here: My efforts to help rehabilitate him were greatly hindered by the constant attention some people decided to give him (I'm definitely looking at you here, Bugs, but you weren't alone). Constant AN/I posts for every potential misstep, especially where admins are already well aware of the situation, are not helpful. I believe he could have been counseled to become a productive editor, but it would require peace and quiet for some time and an understanding that he will make further mistakes during mentorship. henrik•talk 19:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all in favor of giving every opportunity and extending good faith. How Axmann was chased off was unseemly. But I think an editor who chooses a Nazi username would be pushing our limits even if the political climate on this site wasn't as partisan and antagonistic to those who don't toe the dominant liberal/leftist world view. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it only fair to point out that most of the conservative/rightist editors in Wikipedia have little if any more tolerance for Naziism than the liberal/leftist ones (who I see no signs of constituting a majority, unless you measure liberal/left with an AnnCoultermeter). --Orange Mike | Talk 00:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was the point I was trying to make. Sorry if I was unclear. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

All that's left is for someone to record this edit war for WP:LAME Beeblebrox (talk) 03:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

There is no need for any admin action at this time, if further discussion of Chil of Midnight's actions are needed, an RFC is the place for it. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Could I get some extra admins to watchlist Fort Hood shooting? Obviously, dramatic and horrific and appalling, and definitely a high traffic page as facts come out. Some extra eyes would help to head off problems (particularly BLP) before they become severe. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 22:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been semi-protected in response to IP vandalism, but, I agree. *watchlists*--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 22:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) is engaging in edit warring at this article, and also is making edits with no edit summaries. Talk page consensus is against the odd and awkward style of reference formatting he is using, and yet he is seemingly ignoring this and instead reverting, edit warring to remove {{reflist}} style formatting, and reverting the addition of a {{cleanup}} tag for this same issue. I'm taking a break for a while, but really this is not the most appropriate way for an editor to conduct oneself, especially one that also protected the same article they are now editing and engaging in disruption on. Cirt (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty whirlwind over there for the time being as it just happened, fyi. JoeSmack ^Talk 23:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stricken, he appears to be willing to discuss on the talk page now. :) Cirt (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not it is 2-2 at the moment. And you should AGF rather than post to my talk page accusing me of edit warring. And rather than posting here while I am still writing a reply on the article talk page. The solution I am using is manifest good sense for the article at the moment - the {{Reflist}} I put earlier was repeatedly being broken by the pace of editing on the article. See the article talk page and my talk and Cirt's talk for more if you wish. Rich Farmbrough, 23:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

You kept editing and reverting without edit summaries, after I had posted to your talk page multiple times asking you to stop and instead discuss on the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not blow this out of proportion. I've been there the whole time, and it's a simple misunderstanding. Everyone is discussing now, so let it go. Certainly no need for an ANI thread on either the reverts or the (relatively low) level of vandalism. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 23:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, agreed. :) Cirt (talk) 02:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An ip user, 68.193.133.203 has been making over an edit a minute, as can be seen here, adding X danced a Y with Z on Dancing with the Stars to many song pages. I took a random sampling and checked, and could find no sources for any of it. They appear good faith, but no sources, and not being able to find a single source for a random half-dozen sample has me worried. IRC admins directed me here. FELYZA ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 23:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do ya'll think, it's rather fast. [3]. JoeSmack ^Talk 23:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like they're adding references to Dancing with the Stars to every song that was used on that show. Maybe unnecessary, but not vandalism. Evil saltine (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did a quick refactor of this, JoeSmack is one of the IRC ops that told me come here, while I was typing, their conflicting edit made me retype. Appended it to what should have been the original notice. FELYZA ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 23:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rolled back regardless. The rate is disconcerting, among other things. Protonk (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I thought there was an abuse filter to throttle IP edits...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 23:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe block him? He seems bot-like, he's not replying to talk pages. JoeSmack ^Talk 23:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NuclearWarfare went ahead and rolled them all back. Tim1357 (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a rather interesting way to show outdents/indents isn't it. This place never runs dry on the jaw-droppers.--The Legendary Sky Attacker (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it should be fixed soon, since the deletion discussion is pretty much SNOWing to keep... Until the discussion has closed, I've fixed the problem by wrapping the TFD template with noinclude tags on the template itself. Until It Sleeps ^alternate 18:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to get somekina 'review' of this indef-block? GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem to be reviewed? Looks like there was a lot of discussion about it back in September, from the editor's talk page... Tony Fox (arf!) 00:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that they've been evading their block within the last week (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Redking7/Archive)? Unlikely, I would have thought. Block log is fairly impressive too. Black Kite 00:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish the best of luck to you in trying to get this overturned, but I really wouldn't hold my breath. Indeed, the original block was a mistake, as the poll was presented incorrectly (ideally, each side should have prefaced the poll with their own arguments; rather than one side being allowed to set redking up with a strawman argument). However, the moment people resort to sockpuppets, well, that pretty much puts the nail in the coffin more often than not. When a mistake has been made, there are options for remedy; creating another account isn't one of them.

Simply my opinion, mind you. I just don't want you to get your hopes up, or waste too much of your time on something that isn't likely to happen. 139.57.101.207 (talk) 00:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I'd know about the September blocking, my 'first' advice would've been don't evade the block (i.e. socking). GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale for Redking7's September block is given over at User talk:Redking7#Status as of November 6. I'm aware of his case since I blocked him once due to 3RR violation over the status of consulates in Taiwan. He kept fighting this issue for an entire year, and declined to follow the steps of WP:DR. EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if a long length of time has gone by and he still declines to follow the steps of WP:DR as you put it, it would be amazing to see him change his tune now. Unfortunatley, that is how it ususally goes, although one would never know in this crazy world that is Wikipedia...--The Legendary Sky Attacker (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

The article GetJar has been recreated when it was deleted by an adiministrator previously - it still contains direct copyrighted information from the bussiness source. Reubzz (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted again by Orangemike. TNXMan 00:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salted. Mjroots (talk) 06:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents will be unable to resolve this dispute. Please consider other forms of Wikipedia:dispute resolution, for example WP:AE.

Last month there was considerable drama surrounding the naming of articles about motorways and major roads in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. See for example Talk:N11 road (Ireland), Talk:M1 motorway, Talk:M3 motorway, Talk:M18 motorway, Talk:M50 motorway. There was a lot of heat and drama, and accusations of racism and bias, especially from user:Sarah777. Sarah was subject to an arbitration ruling in 2007 (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine#Sarah777 restricted) that stated "Sarah777 may be banned from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks.".

Today, after several weeks of relative quiet, Sarah posted a new section on talk:N11 road (Ireland) entitled "Anglo bias proven beyond any reasonable doubt" [4]. The aim of this section appears to be to try and get the article moved to the primary topic, despite a requested move discussion closing as "no consensus to move" less than a month ago. The drama first time involved several controversial page moves and requests move discussions.

It might or might not be coincidental that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sarah777 2 was closed earlier today.

Please could a admin who was not involved in the earlier drama take a look and try to prevent another flare up. Thryduulf (talk) 01:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sarah777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Thryduulf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You're one of the people who brought that RFC against Sarah777, correct? You didn't notify Sarah777 of this thread, did you? And you're in a content disagreement with her, correct? If there is an arbitration ruling in effect, why did't you request enforcement at WP:AE? Your post raises doubts that should be answered before any action is considered. If the editor is on edge because she was the subject of an RFC, I think we should give her a chance to calm down and think about the feedback, rather than adding more pressure. I think this thread is much more likely to create drama than to avoid it. I recommend you drop the matter, and we'll see if she is willing to drop it as well. Jehochman ^Talk 04:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jehochmann. --John (talk) 04:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sarah777

I went to the N11 to make a change and saw the tag and wondered why it was still there. Then I saw the "move request" box and scanned through, realised (anew) that the case for N11 primacy was at least as clear-cut as the British roads articles whose move was opposed (by many of the same editors). So this move, like the blocking of British road moves, is simply down to the national perspective of the bigger group of editors. The "quality" of the arguments was obviously completely ignored by the closing editor. He saw a sea of "oppose" and said "no consensus". This episode was a stunningly clear demonstration of British bias imposed on Irish articles on Wiki - and of how it works by simple force of numbers. I pointed that out. In the greater debate about WP:NPOV these examples will one day be necessary evidence. I had (and have) no intention of attempting to move the article again. And could someone please tell me how pointing out British bias, where it clearly exists, is an "anti-British remark"? If I said Jack the Ripper was British is that anti-British remark? As for dropping it; I wasn't intending to move any Irish roads articles to primacy, simply because the attempt will fail. There is a coalition of people who support universal dabbing (such as BHG) and there are the editors who insist on primacy for major English roads. The combined effect is that major Irish roads must be dabbed and major English roads cannot be dabbed. I think it was important that this situation was highlighted. Sarah777 (talk) 08:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed this will put new light into this discussion. And the answer to your question, no, saying that Jack the Ripper was British is not an anti-British remark at all. Heck, I don't even think that saying George W. Bush is an American would be considered an Anti-American remark (let's hope not anyway). Pointing out a possible bias issue on Wikipedia is good. There is WP:NPOV to follow after all. You just need to be careful that it doesn't look like you are pushing bias into the other direction, if you know what I mean. Not that I am saying you are doing so.--The Legendary Sky Attacker (talk) 08:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Major British roads are dabbed. The A1 is a major road linking London and Edinburgh, It is not at A1 road, but at A1 road (Great Britain). This is quite correct as it is found in two countries, England and Scotland. Mjroots (talk) 08:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Found in Edinburgh, Scotland to be exact, as you said. Two countries. Yes...The link that you provided to A1 Road (Great Britain) does in fact say so.--The Legendary Sky Attacker (talk) 09:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Reverted and warned for blatant vandalism.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 03:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Graeme Bartlett has done this. Thank you.--chaser (talk) 07:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked Fred1296 (talk · contribs) for 3rr on George Carlin (the diffs should be obvious in the page history) and then started tracing his editing history to see about a sockpuppetry claim made in this AFD (sockpuppetry almost certain). In the process of doing so, I checked Lexis for other sources for Chris Rush, the current version of which Fred1296 wrote. I expected to bring the article to AFD. Instead I found enough reliable sources establishing notability, so I added them to the article. Some of them make the article more negative than as originally written. As such, to avoid the appearance of impropriety, I'd like another admin to take ownership of the 3rr block (just edit block settings and stick your name in the log). Alternatively, if for some reason you don't think a block was warranted, please unblock the editor with my blessing. I'm perhaps being overly cautious, but this was a simple 3rr block, so I don't think it'll take you long to review it either way. Thank you.--chaser (talk) 06:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos for being respectful and considerate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have re blocked, a bit shorter. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

195.138.71.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) admits to being CSOWind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) evading a block for purposes of disruption and promotion. Please do the needful. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. TNXMan 12:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Guy (Help!) 12:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(section retrieved from most recent archive - added comment)

User Softvision (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is abusing talk pages with unsourced original research of the the-article-and-relativity-is-wrong type. He has been warned about this repeatedly by myself and by others ( [5], [6], [7] ). He then goes away, and after a while, returns. Today, after someone else removed his talk page sections, I left some 3rd and 4th level warnings on his talk page, which he promptly removed, toghether with similar warnings by others. A bit later I got this 10-edits string on my talk page. Assuming good faith, I have no other option than to assume wp:NOCLUE. Can someone effectively take some kind of administrative action? DVdm (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked him to back off on the original research and flooding your talk page. Not sure what good it will do, but... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks already, but I just got another one. This seems to be a copy of his reply on his talk page. You got another copy on yours, so it seems. DVdm (talk) 11:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit more clear about the likelihood of blocking this time, and reminded him that we both told him to stay off your page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As if nothing happened, Softvision continues with more of the same. DVdm (talk) 14:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure what he's saying there; I don't think English is his native language. Maybe we should give the folks on WP:FTN a crack at it? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As Softvision seems to mistrust me, I will refrain from commenting there. DVdm (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not suitable for me to play any role in this way. Softvision (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics might be better for similar future incidents, but those are highly watched pages and enough editors seem to be aware of the problem for now. The recent Speed of light arbitration included a WP:NOTFORUM provision but no special enforcement. Would you like to initiate a community ban discussion, or wait a few days to see if the problem of posting unverified fringe material to basic physics articles will sink in? - 2/0 (cont.) 20:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2over0, I don't know whether you are addressing me, or Softvision, or SarekOfVulcan, but I don't think there's much to discuss anywhere. Anything beyond a simple block is (i.m.o.) going to be a waste of time. DVdm (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is going south fast, folks...

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

---

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here, folks. HalfShadow (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I request that you look at Talk:Charles Karel Bouley (section "Sincere Effort to Avoid further Edit Warring"). The user Joy Diamond has for the third time in a month outed me and posted personal information as a way to garner sympathy for her case. She is, in my opinion, obsessed with one article (Charles Karel Bouley and is, in her latest comments at the above talk page, using personal information about my involvement in Usenet to prejudice administrators against my continued participation in editing the above named article. In the past, she has revealed my full, legal name to others in Wikipedia and this is the second occasion where she has named me as a participant in Usenet. I have informed her each time that she has violated Wikipedia's outing policy. I'd appreciate a sincere effort to look into this and respond appropriately. I have informed the user on her talk page that I am reporting this here. Thanks. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specific diffs of the alleged outings would be useful here. Tan | 39 16:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is your username: Kelly A. Siebecke. It seems to me you have no problem with divulging your real name. You appear to accuse User:JoyDiamond of calling you Kelly Siebecke on talk pages. I really can't see how any outing has occurred since no non-public information has been revealed.--Atlan (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She divulged my full legal name (middle name was included) in addition to revealing that I contribute to Usenet and to what groups I contribute. She has revealed that I used to contribute to a chat room (albeit four years ago) and was banned. This is all personal information not related to my participation in Wikipedia. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Below is the list of violations (of which I have found one more, raising the number to four incidents) -

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Posting off-wiki behavior is not covered by WP:OUTING. Your username is a volunteering of your name. I see no violation of Wikipedia policy. Tan | 39 16:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I feel compelled to point out that the only reason it 'raised to four incidents' is that she chose to list one of the links twice (the first and the third are the same). I don't think that really counts. 209.90.135.222 (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? My legal name is not my user name. My legal name includes my middle name. Off-wiki activities - whether virtual/internet or not - is covered in the policy under "or other contact information" (especially since that contact in Usenet is through my email address). SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speaking from the perspective of an oversighter, none of the diffs listed above would qualify in any shape or form for oversighting, as they are information revealed by the editor both on-wiki and in other forums. There is no outing here. Risker (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have NEVER posted my full, legal name in Wikipedia (the 'A' could stand for many other names beginning with 'A' other than what my middle name actually is). Middle names get outsiders access to all kinds of things in this computer age, after all. Revealing my middle name has the potential of subjecting me to harassment off of Wikipedia. I have NEVER discussed or revealed my participation in Usenet in Wikipedia. Revealing that I am a participant in Usenet has the potential of revealing my email address(es) and further harassment off of Wikipedia. I have NEVER mentioned in Wikipedia that I have taken part in a particular chat room and been banned. That was personal information. These things are all *personal* information that should never have been revealed and these things were revealed by the user I have reported for outing - I don't get why you keep insisting otherwise...? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... if you think your middle name is that valuable, you probably shouldn't include the initial. That said, a google of your name (without even bothering with the initial at all) yields wikipedia, and then a page stating your middle name. Since you've also chosen to include where you live on your username, it makes it easier to verify on that other page.

In other words, you've already voluntarily revealed your name, as well as, in essence, your entire middle name. (at least, within the realm of people who know what 'google' is) Also, don't you want to retract your claim that you have four examples? Leaving it up there doesn't look very good. 209.90.135.222 (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OUTING policy, which you link above, specifically lists contact information as being covered. Hence, "Usenet participant" is not a violation, and being banned on an external chat room is not a violation, just as it wasn't a violation of the policy for Steve Black to mention in my RFA that I had been briefly banned from his wiki for vandalism. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I can accept that. However, that does not change the fact that this user did violate the outing policy by using my full, legal name in the past. Whether or not that is dealt with at this time...? Whatever. But being told repeatedly that I have given my full legal name here when I have not and that there was no violation is ridiculous at best. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how someone else can 'out' you when you've already outed yourself. If you want your real identity to be a secret at Wikipedia, you should probably request a change of username. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the policy clearly states "Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted one's own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia oneself." I have NEVER posted the info that was revealed about me in Wikipedia. Your personal interpretation of what I should have done or shouldn't have done in regard to my personal information in Wikipedia doesn't matter. The policy is clear and my privacy was violated. Further, it would seem to me that as an administrator, you would be more prudent about observing Wikipedia's policy of assume good faith and no personal attacks (which you completely ignored with your snarky comments above). SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, are you sure you aren't confusing Sarek with me? Because 'snarky' sounds a lot more like me than him. (I don't try to be snarky, mind you. But I definitely hear it a lot) 209.90.135.222 (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get this at all. You are all supposed to be administrators, but your behavior and the manner in which you have conducted yourselves here along with you dismissal of my valid complaint is beyond childish. Aren't administrators supposed to model appropriate behavior in dealing with issues? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe the point is that you can not reasonably expect to use Kelly A. Siebecke as a username with no one curious about who you are not looking up your name on Google. Also, I'd like to point out that by bringing this issue to ANI, you are in fact ensuring that this outing is known to an even larger audience. Which makes me wonder whether you're after getting the outing corrected, or just out to get the outer punished?--Ramdrake (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I don't care if the person who made the violation is "punished". I care that everyone here has summarily dismissed my complaint as valid (which it is - you can't interpret the rules to suit you as you please based on something you assume I did or didn't do) and that you have all essentially banded together to mock me. At this point, the title "Administrator" in my opinion is a joke. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my response certainly was not mocking you. However, posts like the preceding one would seem not to be WP:BEANS-compliant... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, we are not "all supposed to be administrators" here - the IP is certainly not. But I agree - your complaint is legalistic. Given your user name and sig, the "outing" did not reveal significant information. We don't work by the letters of our rules, but by the spirit. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What??? You don't work by the established rules but by whatever mood strikes you all? Give a break. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That is obviously exactly what I wrote. We also have Sigmund Freud's ghost roll dice every 20 minutes to determine our collective mood, which is then distributed to all contributors via telepathy. Furrfu! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget about the Death-Ray Unicorns. HalfShadow (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we're done here. HalfShadow (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The two users in question routinely battle over the content of Charles Karel Bouley. Each has accused the other of bias, and each has lodged complaints of harassment against the other. These arguments are likely the reason Black Kite has left the article locked as long as he has.[12]

Per the current complaint, JoyDiamond has questioned Kelly A. Siebecke's POV by commenting on Kelly bashing the subject of the article in Internet discussion groups. Similarly, Joy's POV has been in question due to a personal friendship with the subject of the article.

Joy did, at one point, mention Kelly's middle name on her talk page. Joy later removed it, and apologized to Kelly, who accepted said apology.[13] At the time, no complaint of Outing was filed.

Kelly has similarly revealed personal information about Joy (specifically, Joy's education), commenting on how it can be easily found on the Internet. And yes, Kelly has commented on having been banned from a particular chat room.[14]

I have attempted, in the past, to initiate dispute resolution between these two, to no avail. It concerns me that this is still going on. -FeralDruid (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I do se a potential violation, but it has nothing to do with WP:OUTING. Kelly, you have already given us your full name (except the middle - which could be easily guessed/assumed). Outing cannot ever happen if you have provided the information yourself However, using personal information against you in an argument as an attempt to dissuade you from editing, or to undermine your edits may violate WP:CIVILITY guidelines. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thank you. Finally some helpful and real administrative behavior and assistance. I will take your advice, BWilkins (and shall I assume your first name is Bernard? ;-) SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am suspicious that Joeberto (talk · contribs) and 198.160.77.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are one and the same editor; the former edits exclusively on just two articles (Daniel Adam Ortega and Christopher Austin Ortega), while the latter has edited exclusivley on said articles today. Also, they have similar MOs i.e. disrupting the deletion process of those two articles (which are now at AfD) - firstly by removing all traces of PROD tags, then removing AfD tags; both have also removed other editor's comments from the two article's respective talk pages. Do you think I'm on the right lines or just barking up the wrong tree? GiantSnowman 16:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could file a report at WP:SPI. --Jayron32 16:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked there first, but didn't want to make people go to the bother of using CheckUser if I was just being a tad paranoid or whatever! GiantSnowman 16:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think they pretty much satisfy the duck test. Syrthiss (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worth an SPI then? GiantSnowman 16:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no, unless you are concerned that other undiscovered users are them and are disrupting the afd. Both are blocked, and its clear enough that they are the same user in my opinion Syrthiss (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'll leave it for now then. If other users/IPs start editing in a similar fashion, I'll take it to SPI. Thanks for your help! Cheers, GiantSnowman 16:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Corrections on Anastase Gasana Profile. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DOLT, please - we have the foundation for this sort of thing. I directed the poster to the contact email at WP:LIBEL, but someone else should feel free to direct this to OTRS if you think it necessary. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I love that acronym. I await the day when someone creates a page that acronyms as WP:YOUSTUPIDBASTARD. HalfShadow (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can not fully participate in the Wikipedia project because I must walk on eggshells to avoid upsetting another user. Depsite my walking on eggshells, they are lashing out. If this documentation is tl;dr for your attention span, just open the diffs.

Tothwolf (talk · contribs) is retiring[15]. Unfortunately he is going out in flames and claims that people are out to get him.[16] [17] [18]. Before his retirement claim he spent the previous day making increasingly outlandish, irrational and paranoid claims against myself and other editors [19], [20] [21] [22]

Tothwolf has lost touch with who his delusional attackers even are [23]. When taken to task on removing his flames from discussions by neutral third parties [24] he gets more belligerent at them [25]. Or, when a neutral third party simply hides the flames he revert wars to make sure they are visible to all [26] [27] with inflammatory edit summaries and new threats at the third party [28].

A month ago, Tothwolf made a huge screed at ANI about these accusations that myself and others were attacking him. It is here. Tothwolf would restate his case every day on ANI to ensure the issue didn't scroll off the main page of ANI, until someone moved it to a subpage. My take-away from the ANI case was to slow down PROD or deletion nominations in a specific subject area and to stay away from Tothwolf. At the conclusion of the ANI discussion, I took a one week break from the project. On my return, I was immediately accused of stalking him again [29]. All of my edits between my break and his accusation are in this contribs history, [30]. Tothwolf's subject area is IRC clients. I performed some followup to IRC articles based on deletion discussions one week previous. Tothwolf takes his ownership of the IRC subject area seriously, so apparently any work done on those articles is a personal attack on him.

I have tried very hard to have zero direct interaction with him. I have ignored his outbursts. I have let other parties reply to him in public discussions. In the interests of not interacting with him, I have not continued debates even on matters of substance. I was going to turn this latest episode of his into an RFCU but did not for three reasons. First, if he is retiring he won't defend himself which is not fair, and won't appear fair. Second, in gathering the diffs, it became obvious that this latest episode was extremely one-sided coming from him and towards many users. Nobody has done any action to provoke Tothwolf personally. Third, the outbursts are becoming increasingly less rational and needs the kind of immediate attention RFCU wouldn't provide.

Thanks to those who would take the time to read through this. Miami33139 (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see that there is much an Anministrator could or would do about this, looks like a good case for Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to me, looks like he just needs a break and he has said he is having one. Off2riorob (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He said his having a break, but isn't doing it, and the attacks are continuing. Administrators can act on that. Miami33139 (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link to an attack? Off2riorob (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you did not notify Tothwolf of this thread, I have notified him.Off2riorob (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this is an attack. Repeating it at every opportunity is an attack. Calling me a meatpuppet, repeatedly, is an attack. Doing the same to other users is an attack. Everytime he flips out and calls any criticism of an article he edits as a personal attack on himself is WP:OWNership, and irrational behavior that doesn't allow people to edit around him. Miami33139 (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call that much of an attack, and it is not a continuation of recent behaviour, the edit is two days old. I looked through his edits and it seems to me like he likes to save articles and you like to nominate them for deletion, as I said dispute resolution would be useful for you pair. Off2riorob (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I can not fully participate in the Wikipedia project because I must walk on eggshells to avoid upsetting another user."
Oh really? That's funny, I'm under the impression I've been the one prevented from editing articles or doing prod and AfD patrol work for WP:COMP due to you and your meat/sockpuppets wikistalking anything I touch. Lately the only thing I've been able to work on is a large project in the Template: namespace due to your continued harassment. You've been warned repeatedly to "disengage" and to leave me alone yet you still refuse to do so.
For those that care to wade through the tl;dr, past details are summarised in an AN/I discussion here (which I can update if necessary...I have the diffs saved and ready).
Here are a few links that demonstrate the continued Wikistalking the moment I touch anything outside of the Template namespace: [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]
Miami33139, quite frankly, your claims are absolute crap. You've continued to violate both WP:CIVIL and WP:HARASS by wikistalking, harassing, baiting, and taunting. You did the same thing to User:Ed Fitzgerald and he finally gave up and left the project. I'm not Ed, however, and I'm calling WP:DUCK. Furthermore, I think any uninvolved editor who takes the time to wade through the tl;dr of the last AN/I (summarised here) and whom dares to comb through your contribs will see your tactics for what they really are.
For what its worth Miami33139, no one here can do anything worse to me than you already have. Bringing this here in hopes of getting someone to block me won't change anything for me since I already can't really edit anything because of you and your *puppets' wikistalking and harassment.
--Tothwolf (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF Tothwolf. You are accusing Miami of a lot of things here. And as for your "no one here can do anything worse to me than you already have", WP:NPA.--The Legendary Sky Attacker (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow through the past AN/I linked above. I'm not stating anything that can't be validated. I'm not sure why you are linking NPA while quoting part of what I said above as while it has been tempting to give Miami and their *puppets some of their own treatment in return, I've not actually done so. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how this edit [37] has anything to do with you whatsoever. Miami33139 (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-

Please explain how this edit [38] has anything to do with you, beyond you commenting on the AfD discussion of this article several days after I did. You have never edited this article or its talk page. When you claim I am harassing you, does that mean if you comment at an AfD discussion, that I may never touch the article or any discussion of that article ever again? Miami33139 (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-

Please explain how this edit [39] is harassing you. I nominated that article for deletion about a month ago. It is now at DRV. I believe that a short comment that I think it should have better sources before restoring it is legitimate. You did not work on the restoration, as far as I know. The comment is not directed at you. I found the issue because I follow DRV and follow the deleted articles that I nominated. How does this harass you? Miami33139 (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-

Please explain how this edit [40] harasses you. I nominated this article for deletion when it had a POV bias. In AfD several editors volunteered to change the article to remove the POV bias. That effort is continuing. I made a single edit to remove an entry that didn't belong here. What is your role here at all? Miami33139 (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-

Related to the above, this edit [41] is a constructive proposal to create effective criteria for an article I've been looking at for a long time, after AfD discussion changed its focus. What does this have to do with Tothwolf? Nothing. Miami33139 (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems like the two users should be banned from interacting with each other. Why do they need to comment on each other? Can't Tothwolf retire in peace? Can't Miami33139 refrain from posting about Tothwolf on ANI? I don't see any benefit to Wikipedia in pursuing this matter further. Simply disengage and let there be peace. Does anybody disagree? Jehochman ^Talk 21:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because Tothwolf doesn't want to actually retire, so these claims will continue. Look at the list of diffs that he has provided as evidence of my harassment and you will see my dilemma. For a month I have not interacted with him. He is pulling edits from nowhere that these edits harass him on articles he has never edited and never commented on. How am I supposed to know which edits will be harassment if he has nothing in that contribution history? Miami33139 (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the edit history huh? [42] [43] [44] Miami, you are full of it. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in THIS edit history, [45].And there is nothing in the diffs shown that show how my edits interact with yours at all. Everything you touch becomes yours, and anyone you dislike gets told they are harassing you. Miami33139 (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban Miami from software articles (especially Multimedia software articles), AfD, prod, and their new target "IRC" articles (they picked those to mass-AfD to try to get revenge on me for the last AN/I because I worked on many of them) and all those problems should go away. For that fact, expand it to the other two *puppets Miami "recruited" as well. I'll provide links for those two editors as well if needed although the AN/I link above should fill most people in. I'm not really interested in "retiring" although I tried to take a break without success due to Miami and their *puppets continued harassment. Hell, I've tried to stay away from Miami but they or their *puppets AfD seemingly any articles I attempt to work on as a means of harassment. I've gotten absolutely sick of it and I think most any reasonable person in my shoes would feel the same way as their actions have continued to fit the very definition of Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how this edit [46] is harassing you. Miami33139 (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are being discussed here again? Oh Miami33139, you're a total drama queen lover, aren't you? You relish having driven Tothwolf crazy. "I can not fully participate in the Wikipedia project because I must walk on eggshells to avoid upsetting another user." Bwhahahahaha. Thank god I'm not an elementary school teacher, as I've no idea how to stop this inanity.--Milowent (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, it never stopped. It only slowed down when I stopped editing articles and stopped participating in AfD, DRV, etc, but you saw all the past stuff so you know what happened :/ --Tothwolf (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Milowent, if you wish to help Tothwolf, please examine the six diffs provided by Tothwolf where he claims I am harassing him, and explain to me how those diffs harass him. Miami33139 (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • The problem is 100% tothwolf, not anyone else. he has egregiously failed to AGF and defaults to paranoid personal attacks, accusations, and drama stirring anytime someone touches an article he owns. he's already been shown to have a COI in the IRC area, as he's an eggdrop developer (or somehow related to the eggdrop project (check the COI board archives), so it's no wonder that he has ownership issues with irc related articles. If an admin wants to see another admin's take on tothwolf's behavior, check out User:Mikaey/Tothwolf. tothwolf has already been admonished for his failure to agf by admins repeatedly. it's time this ended Theserialcomma (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nominating articles that are not worthy of inclusion is not harassment. that is what we do with bad articles, we delete them. if they are worthy of inclusion, they will be kept. if they are deleted, they were bad, or can be recreated. this is not harassment. what is harassment, however, is calling people stalkers and trolls. stop this behavior and get over it. the only topic ban necessary should be tothwolf from IRC-related articles. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't say its 100% anybody who is the problem, because my recollection is that there was some serious ban discussion around Miami and JBSupreme last month in connection with Tothwolf, before it all fizzled out in yet another tl;dr ANI. I suggest a cage match to resolve it.--Milowent (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

here's a link to tothwolf's admonishment: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=317692047#Proposed_Remedy_-_Tothwolf Theserialcomma (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Pfft, anyone who cares can check Theserialcomma's contribs, block log, talk page history, and the AN/I link above and see that their claims are bogus. They've been blocked for this kind of thing before and I see no reason to respond further to Theserialcomma. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't respond to him, respond to this, please explain how this edit harasses you: [47] Miami33139 (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)A cage match you say? Cool. I'll be the referee.--The Legendary Sky Attacker (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I'd pay to see that...oh, wait... ;) --Tothwolf (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

so tothwolf, you attack my character when i link an admin's admonishment of you? [[48]]. I'm afraid that's not how it works. This is about evidence and diffs, not personal attacks against those who provide diffs. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tothwolf provided these six diffs to show my harassment. [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54]. I encourage any administrator who thinks Tothwolf has any merit whatsover to his claims to examine the links he has provided and explain how these edits harass him. This is his evidence. These edits have no relationship to Tothwolf at all. They may as well have been chosen at random from my edit history. Miami33139 (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said a lot earlier, you guys are in need of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, squabbling here is not helping. (imo) Off2riorob (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Long term harassment does not fall under normal WP:DR processes (I've asked). --Tothwolf (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an Administrator editing restriction that you are both not allowed to contact or comment regarding each other. Off2riorob (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be highly unlikely to accomplish much as this particular "group" of editors follows me around to different XfD discussions and they AfD articles when I attempt to do any real editing. Can't say I've had much to do with them outside of their blatant wikistalking efforts. Here is a link to one of User:Theserialcomma's more elaborate efforts of false COI and SPI reports that they tried. [55] [56] Theserialcomma has a long history of doing that exact sort of thing to editors that they don't like and it can all be found in their contribs and talk page history. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is out to get you. Can you name some more members of this group? Can you show me how [this diff which you provided as evidence of my harassment actually shows harassment? Miami33139 (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a finding that I have done so in the last month? That is exactly what I am alleging. I have ignored him. I haven't contacted him. I haven't commented on him, or at him. A little bit of actual process before imposing restrictions would be useful. Read the last entry from me above. Tothwolf gives six diffs showing my supposed harassment of him. Please show me where any of those six diffs actually have anything to do with him. How about you take a look at one diff he provided. JUST ONE DIFF [57] and tell me how that affects him? Miami33139 (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing restrictions

To end this feud, which is harmful to Wikipedia, where it is unclear who is in the wrong and quite possibly both editors have not acted perfectly, I propose to enact two editing restrictions:

• Miami33139 (talk · contribs) is topic banned from Tothwolf (talk · contribs) for a period of three months. If Miami33139 comments on, wikihounds, or otherwise baits Tothwolf, Miami33139 may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator.
• Tothwolf (talk · contribs) is topic banned from Miami33139 (talk · contribs) for a period of three months. If Tothwolf comments on, wikihounds, or otherwise baits Miami33139, Tothwolf may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator.

Barring an objection from another administrator before the close of this thread, or an arbitration filing by one of the parties, the above restrictions should be logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. There have been personal attacks and unhelpful behaviors by both parties during this thread. It would have been better if one or both editors had agreed to disengage from this dispute. Since neither was willing to back down, I think the only reasonable course of action is to force them to stop fighting. Jehochman ^Talk 03:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC) and 04:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by uninvolved users

Comments by Tothwolf

I'm going to raise a very loud objection here; This does not address the harassment from the other two editors in their "group", nor will it prevent them from continuing to AfD articles I'm working on, nor follow me to XfD and !vote against me (often with absurd rationales that go against Wikipedia policy, guidelines, or just consensus). This is not a feud as you describe, I've been the target of outright harassment for months on end. Furthermore, I've done nothing to Miami33139 or his "friends" to warrant someone proposing a topic ban for myself.
Let me make this even easier, if the community refuses to step up and properly deal with the three editors who've been outright Wikistalking me, and this thread closes without the larger being ignored again (and myself being "topic banned") then I quit. I've put a lot into Wikipedia and I'll finish {{cite IETF}} before I go (I got some emailed questions asking if I was going to finish it yesterday when several people saw me add a retired template to my talk page) but there is little reason for me to stick around if I can't edit without being harassed. I invite the community to have a long hard look at each of our contribs and decide the outcome.
--Tothwolf (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are being harassed by a group of editors, that is a problem that needs to be addressed. ANI isn't going to be of much use because the group will simply gang up against you. I think you need to request arbitration so that the entire matter can be looked at closely. We don't have the capability to handle something that complex on this board. Jehochman ^Talk 04:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't being harassed. He is paranoid and delusional. He is now claiming that my edit to a section of an article harasses him because eight months ago he made a minor edit to the same article. What is clear is that if he has ever touched an article then anyone who he dislikes who later touches the article is harassing him. This is the most severe case of ownership I have ever seen. Miami33139 (talk) 04:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Miami33139

Make a finding that I already have editing incorrectly in the last month in regards to Tothwolf. Tell you what, show me how this diff, [58], which Tothwolf claims is harassing and I will leave the project. Nobody here proposing anything has actually said I did anything wrong. Don't be so quick to act unless you are willing to actually look. Here I am pointing out Tothwolf's own claims, and nobody can say how it harasses him. Miami33139 (talk) 03:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You dug it out of my contribs [59] [60] [61] using the same unapproved JavaScript tools you used to trawl through User:Ed Fitzgerald's contribs which you admitted you "wrote" here [62]
  See also: (semi-)automated editing tools and Bulk removals of User:Ed Fitzgerald's edits
  You continue to BULK REMOVE User:Ed Fitzgerald's edits (whom you Wikistalked to the point where he left) using one of the automated tools you "wrote": [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93]
  Note for others: Check the edit histories on all those articles, you'll see those are intended to remove edits of User:Ed Fitzgerald while most recently also auto-sorting the interwiki links. Also note that this is only a small snapshot, look here [94] for this stuff in even greater volume.
  PS, Miami, stub templates go after categories. WP:FOOTERS
  --Tothwolf (talk) 04:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those diffs are from FEBRUARY. Eight months have passed since you edited that article with minor edits. My edit isn't even in the same section of the article. HOW IN THE WORLD DOES THIS HARASS YOU? Miami33139 (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday an editor commented on the talk page that it was inappropriate to categorise the article in Category:Geography of West Lancashire; within two minutes, RaseaC agreed and the category was promptly removed, which is fine. When I saw the edits later in the day I disagreed and restored the category, giving my reason on the talk page, but RaseaC reverted me citing the earlier discussion (such as it was). As the removal was disputed (by me) and there was no clear concensus of opinion, I felt justified in reverting to the status quo in the hope that this would lead to further discussion. RaseaC responded with comments such as "until [someone else agrees with you] then we'll go ahead with what the majority want", and despite stating on my talk page that "I'm not going... to get into a revert war with you here" has nevertheless removed the category again.

I'm not here about the category – that's something I can ultimately take or leave. What does concern me is RaseaC's attitude towards concensus building, the notion that concensus can be forged by two editiors within the space of two minutes, that differing opinions don't matter, comments like "As far as I'm concerned a consensus is reached when a majority of editors reach an agreement" and "It's not my fault if the policy is flawed", and the aggressive manner in which the presumed concensus has been enforced – none of this is consistant with my understanding of Wikipedia's concensus policy. I've made my arguments on the article talk page but RaseaC doesn't seem particuarly interested in any constructive discussion. I'm really not sure how best to proceed here. Small-town hero (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be an inappropriate forum for a discussion about which you apparently have no interest. If there is a problem with my understanding of a particular policy then it would probably be better to hold such a discussion on my talk page. Unless you want administrator intervention against my edits on WP I see no reason for this discussion to be conducted on this noticeboard and therfore have no interest in taking part in this particular discussion. RaseaC (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what now?--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 22:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a huge backlog at Special:NewPages, both of unreviewed articles and speedied articles. If some admins and users could pay it some special attention, that would be great. I'm logging off now. A little insignificant ^{Bloated on candy} 18:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin but I'll have a look for you. GiantSnowman 20:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Where would the admins be? Not doing work they could be doing? Disappointing.--The Legendary Sky Attacker (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our paychecks were late so we called a work stoppage. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WebHamster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Someone should probably check up on whatever this is about. I have no idea, nor do I wish to be involved with it. Danger, will robinson... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is outright blackmail. Oversight nuke the diffs, talk page block WebHamster if necessary. This is some serious shit. A little insignificant ^{Bloated on candy} 18:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how WebHamster is indefinitely blocked (for a long track record of... let's just say incivility), and claims to have left the project anywyas, I would humbly suggest that "it's necessary" (to fully protect the talk page) 209.90.135.222 (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Locking his talk page won't change anything as WebHamster said he'd use means other than Wikipedia (that's my interpretation anyway, although he didn't explicitly say that). I don't agree with what WebHamster's suggesting, but considering the campaign of harassment by Yiwentang with some disgusting accusations that had to be oversighted it's not hard to see how he feels he's been pushed to this. Nev1 (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blackmail of whom? Parrot of Doom 18:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access blocked, WP is not his or anyone else's battleground, although any admin is free to reverse if they feel I was in error. Furthermore, there appears to be nothing we can do on this side to deal with this ongoing harassment so alluded to, unless someone has an idea that can be solved by my array of buttons or a stern message?--Tznkai (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yiwentang has been blocked and warned in many guises many times. Unfortunately, another warning for the latest sock wouldn't have any effect. The best policy is WP:RBI whenever one pops up. Nev1 (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree with Tznkai's decision. This matter has nothing to do with improving Wikipedia. -- œ^™ 19:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Eternally remove WebHamster from Wikipedia. He has done good things here, but outing threats (even if it were against another potential outer) is just not acceptable. Not to mention his long, dark history of incivility warnings, blocks and the rest...WebHamster was a good contributor but is no longer an ingredient in Wikipedia's recipe book.--The Legendary Sky Attacker (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – All blocked. Brandon (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loobasooba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has a single edit, for has nominated for adminship JoSePh3993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a vandal who has 25. MISSKITT99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who also has precisely one edit, has helpfully decided to answer the Questions for the candidate. Evidently the user can't keep straight who s/he's logged-in as. I think I smell LTA, but can't identify the culprit. The number 99 evidently holds some significance for this editor. --Rrburke^(talk) 19:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I knew Wayne Gretzky was no longer coaching the Phoenix Coyotes, but who knew that he'd stoop to vandalism :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if you block him, Marty McSorley will not be happy. --Smashville^talk 20:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Is a month old today. Will some uninvolved admin make the close? ThemFromSpace 20:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone seems to be having fun with the Momentum article.

I reverted an unsourced nonsense edit by 130.184.198.150 (talk) again. Compare with Special:Contributions/Edwardgraef, Special:Contributions/130.184.198.202, Special:Contributions/130.184.202.172.

It is always the same edit, by the same person. He has been warned several times, and just continues as if nothing happens.

Can this be somehow stopped by an administrator? DVdm (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since rangeblocks and the like is beyond my capabilities I semi-protected the article for a week, hoping the individual will get bored and go play elsewhere. I did review the article edit history, and in two weeks there was only 1 ip edit that wasn't vandalism - so I am fairly confident there is going to be little collateral damage with my action. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I always wondered what it is that makes subjects like Momentum, Time, Space and Light so attractive to vandals. Bad physics teachers? Very strange. Anyway, I expect this one Will B. Back in about two weeks. DVdm (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Schoolkids tend to pick articles they read I guess. Either "that's what I'm reading so I'll play with it" (why bother finding some *other* article) or "I'll do something my friends will see" (fun/petty rather than insidious vandalism) or occasionally (extension of #2) "I'll change something to play a joke on next kid who reads it". The forgoing is WP:AGF WP:OR obviously. DMacks (talk) 22:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here[95] is WP:Point

He's used his unhappiness at this; Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:HarryAlffa/ArbCom as a spring board.

• WP:Civil - quoting out of context
• Plain untruth - satire not sarcasm
• Plain untruth - that I've "been attempting to backpedal on that initial stance"

In short Poisoning the well. HarryAlffa (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just stating my awareness of this thread for the record. Equazcion (talk) 21:33, 6 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Equazcion could also practice what they preach.--The Legendary Sky Attacker (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to concern of impropriety, my experience with HarryAlffa began with the bot-posted notification at WP:VPP that Harry had marked Wikipedia:Politeness Police as a policy. My comments at his "arbcom" draft deletion discussion came after I had expressed my disapproval of the politeness police page. Equazcion (talk) 21:38, 6 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Nothing has transpired that requires administrative intervention. Whether Equazicon is "right" or "wrong" with his assessment of Wikipedia:Politeness_Police in the MfD will be borne out by the discussion. Shereth 21:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Equazcion is one of the most open-minded fair individuals I have "met" during my experience here at Wikipedia. I saw nothing wrong with his MfD and cant imagine Eq being "uncivil" or trying to unfairly "poison the well" by putting his ideas in an unduly POV spotlight. We need more people like Eq and not ANI threads like this that may discourage or demoralize him or others.Camelbinky (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that all editors who, like me, have previous experience with HarryAlffa refrain from participation in this thread. Unfortunately I couldn't make this suggestion without (sort of) breaking it myself. Hans Adler 22:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an uninvolved editor but I see nothing wrong with the nomination of this essay for deletion. At the risk of angering the Politeness Police, I also assume that this ANI report is retribution for the nomination. -- Atama頭 23:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asked to merge the edit histories of User:Dagypt/Gender aspects of globalization in China and User:Angelalhan/Gender aspects of globalization in China into that of the article Gender aspects of globalization in China. I have never done a merge in my life, and I have a horrible feeling that I would create a total mess of the matter. Do any of the rest of you, particularly those who have more experience in mergers, feel up to this? If I don't get an answer in the next day or so, I'll try it myself, but I can't guarantee the results will be pretty. John Carter (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. I've probably hosed something up, and generally 'dual' history merges are problematic because of simultaneous editing on different 'parent' pages. I suggest that we write something explaining this in the talk page so that investigating wikipedians don't get confused. Protonk (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds good to me. John Carter (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot have admins causing confusion. That would be just immoral now, wouldn't it?--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 22:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A grossly unhelpful comment, as many of your comments at ANI are today, if you don't actually have anything to add to the discussion, that will help resolve any of issues at hand, please don't say anything at all. Nick (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Hi,

Today User:Brandon posted the following at the above editor's talk page: I have blocked you for one week, I wasn't kidding. Brandon (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC) No template was placed and the block log states: (Block log); 23:27 . . Brandon (talk | contribs) blocked Scott Free (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (Disruptive editing: logging out to disrupt User talk:BOZ/RFCU Asgardian draft). I think further explanation is needed as there seems to be no evidence that User:Scott Free was disruptive or that they were warned. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you asked Brandon about it? LadyofShalott 00:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It just seemed irregular to me, no template was used and no warnings had been given - and on the face of it the user doesn't seem to have had anything to do with User talk:BOZ/RFCU Asgardian draft. I cam across this as I am reviewing an artcile for GA ststus that Scott Free has been working on. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving me 8 minutes to respond. Brandon (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the statement made in the block log is accurate, based on checkuser evidence. Not familiar with the specifics of the case, and short for time, but that much I can say for now. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but should't a template be used, with information about appeal, etc. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally a block template should be used so that an editor can ask for an unblock, yes. In a situation like this you should leave a note for the admin and wait for them to reply rather than bringing it straight here to ANI—it might well just have been an oversight. There's really nothing to be done here and if a block template still needs to be added simply ask Brandon to do that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - I hadn't realised that the blocking procedure was so unstructured, I had assumed that there was some sort of due process, which mandated using templates. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much that's the deal I think, but ultimately the admin has to remember to do it, and some might forget or occasionally be lax in doing so. That's not the end of the world as I believe blocked users also receive a message while blocked as to what to do if they want to request an unblock, but as I said the best thing to do in this situation is just leave a note for the admin in question. No need for any action here so I'm going to mark this resolved. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it's a page in my userspace, and Scott would have been more than welcome to comment as himself (and still is), and that I have now semi-protected the page to prevent further such shenanigans, could I request a lowering of the block? I agree that he should spend some time in the corner for being sneaky, but a week seems like a bit much. BOZ (talk) 01:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; I have PRODded three articles - I Will Be By Your Side Forever, Manah Sharif and Chondron - as none of them quite fit into any of the CSD criteria. However, I feel that all three ate 110% non-notable and should be speedily deleted; I could backtrack 10% and still be entirely in favour of speedy deletion. What's a boy to do? GiantSnowman 01:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DEADLINE. There is no deadline, even for deletion. If we wait 7 days or we wait 7 minutes, the world will not end because of it. Its no big whoop. For the record, the second one doesn't seem to be deletable at all; it seems to be a real settlement or administrative division; unless its a hoax, settlements and administrative divisions are generally acceptable subjects for articles. Even if it should be deleted, PROD is not a substandard process compared to CSD. On the contrary, PROD allows interested editors to spend some time actually fixing problems, and should it turn out that the article gets fixed up to where it is apparent that it shouldn't be deleted, what is the harm in that? --Jayron32 01:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the answer, just though I'd check. I'll let the PRODs run their course and, if I need to, take to AfD. Thanks again, GiantSnowman 01:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the second article Manah Sharif is not deletable and unless GiantSnowman can tell me (feel free to go to my talk page and post there) why I'll take the prod off. Being poorly written and/or written by someone who doesnt know "our way" of doing things is not a reason to delete either through prod or AfD.Camelbinky (talk) 02:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the place doesn't seem to exist - I refrained from speedying as a hoax to allow further research, if any can be found, to show that this place exists. GiantSnowman 03:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's an romanization of an name from a different writing system... there could be a dozen different spellings. Google results really don't prove the place doesn't exist. We're quite possibly dealing with a language barrier here, I think AFD would be a fairer venue to decide this. --74.138.229.88 (talk) 03:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Camelbinky has said that he can't find anything about this place, "even using a plethora of alternate spellings"...GiantSnowman 03:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating it for speedy deletion after this entire thread seems like a pretty bad call. If it is a hoax it's not a blatant one. A blatant hoax is "Bob is the emperor of France. He's 10 feet tall". You're talking about nuanced tests being run... if you're having to have someone run dozens of alternate spellings through Google, it's reached the point where it needs to be discussed at AFD. --74.138.229.88 (talk) 03:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would kindly direct you to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manah Sharif, which another editor just beat me in creating. GiantSnowman 03:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You would, huh? Except what? --74.138.229.88 (talk) 03:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Except what?" what? GiantSnowman 03:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. This was not a blatant hoax. But we all make mistakes. Live and learn and you'll know for next time.--chaser (talk) 03:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's not a blatant hoax, but I still feel it is a hoax nonetheless. However, I'm glad I came here with this - surely, after all, this is what ANI is for? - and I'll know for next time. Thanks for creating the AfD. GiantSnowman 03:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For reference: Remember Civility (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have not blocked this user outright, but this account is editing in direct contravention of the policy on the use of alternate accounts, specifically where it states that alternate accounts should not be used to edit the project space; i.e. anywhere outside of the article space. This policy is reinforced by this Arbcom case where it states that secondary or alternate accounts "are not to be used in discussions internal to the project". I have engaged this account several times and requested that either

a) they disclose the connection to their main account or

b) that they only use the account in a way which is acceptable under existing policy, which includes avoiding all editing at the project space.

Since I have had these discussions with Remember Civility, they have claimed that their main account has never been blocked or banned, and that their alternate account has been not used "abusively"; however these statements are not any defense of the problem, and miss the point. If you check the user's congtribution history, the account exists almost completely to make comments in the project space. They have continued do to so even AFTER I had asked politely to adhere to policy. Before I actually undertake a block, I wanted to open a discussion here to see if a block is warranted, and to clarify the policy in question. Are alternate accounts allowed to exist primarily/solely to comment on Wikipedia: prefixed pages (internal project pages)? This seems clear enough to me, but maybe I am misunderstanding something. --Jayron32 03:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

evidence that the account has been notified of this discussion. --Jayron32 03:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SOCK, using an alternate account for the purpose of editing project space is prohibited. It may be legitimate to use an undisclosed alternate account to edit articles that might be controversial or embarrassing to an editor who's real life identity is known. That legitimate use is not what's happening here. Clearly, they have created a sock to edit project space, which is prohibited. Therefore, I am soft blocking the alternate account. The editor is welcome to continue contributing through their main account. Jehochman ^Talk 03:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jehochman. I would have done that myself, but I wanted some back-up that it was the right decision. --Jayron32 03:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's always good to get ask before taking an action, rather than after. The account only had a small number of edits, and the user still has their primary account. There is no reason to link them publicly. (I don't even know the primary.) Hopefully they will quietly go back to using the main account, and there will be no inconvenience to them. Jehochman ^Talk 03:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:RazerCrane is User:CosmicLegg. 202.108.50.22 (talk) 03:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, RazerCrane is obviously a sock of somebody, his contribs history indicates that he obviously had a prior account and has been editing here for some time. What is the connection to CosmicLegg? I'm inclined to block as an obvious sock of someone; but it would be helpful to have some evidence to tie the two accounts together beyond a doubt. --Jayron32 03:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See User:DavisHawkens. 202.108.50.22 (talk) 03:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=100&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=DavisHawkens&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=&month=9 Month ov Septembre. 202.108.50.22 (talk) 03:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Atsftuv (talk · contribs)
• Meatwod (talk · contribs)
• Meatwood (talk · contribs)

These three accounts are pretty clearly controlled by the same user, with a dubious grasp of WP:RS, WP:WAF, WP:GNG. Most of the content they've restored (replacing redirects) has been reverted back to redirects by me and a few other users -- but, with this third account active today, it looks like this person is toeing if not crossing the line when it comes to multiple accounts. No AfD stacking, no multiple-chiming-in on talk pages . . . but, basically a pattern of, "oh, most of my edits have been reverted and I've gotten a lot of talk-page warnings; time to register a new account." I wonder if stomping out these alternate accounts and constraining this editor to a single voice could better compel them to abiding by consensus and policy? Thought I'd broach it here for more-experienced insight. --EEMIV (talk) 04:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]