Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive586

Serious insults! This person does NOT stop insulting me and he does not stop smearing my name with false accusations!

Resolved

 – Editor blocked. I will continue to watch the situation. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This person, in the name of Peter Lee has been calling me, now already for over 5 years, a vandal, a deceit and many other insults. Most of the time he does that in the edit summary. I have totally had it with him. He has been warned by admins so often, but so far no admin is actually taking further steps. How many more warnings does he need to get, before finally some admin will punish his constant incivility with a block??? By now he "knows" that he can get away with his constant insults and incivility, because he will only get warnings anyway...

The most recent insults can be found here:

On the talk page of GKIF

• reverting my good edits, which I thorougly explained in the Talk Page and was agreed by NeilN. In the summary he calls my edits "vandalism" and accuses me of starting another edit war
• Same thing. A unnecessary revert with insults like "vandalism and speculation"
• accusing me of starting an edit war, after I removed an external link that has no business in the article (link did not contain the information claimed in the article
• A revert by Peter Lee, calling it "crap done by Mario Roering", where it wasn't even my edit, but that of a person using the name TenChiJin
• Again saying in the summary "Undoing Mario Roering's vandalism", whereas it was a contrib of TenChiJin, not mine

On World Genseiryū Karatedō Federation

• Read the summary! Reverted my edits. He calls it vandalism, but what I did is I removed disputed, unreferenced information that is from the point of view of ONE person only
• undid the changes by TenChiJin, then claiming that it was me! I am NOT TenChiJin!
• undid my edits, where I removed unsourced, false accusations in the article. Peter reverted it and claims in the summary that it's ME who is making the false accusations and spreading slander. Humbug! It's obvious that it's HIM who is slandering people's names and putting false accusations in the article(s)

On the talk page of NeilN

• On NeilN's talk page he again accuses me of vandalism
• here he is not just insulting me, but also another Wikipedian, NeilN
• Again, accusing me of starting edit war, claiming I have more than 1 account on Wikipedia, claiming I am TenChiJin (another Wikipedian) and many other insults that would raise somebody's hair!!!

And so on, and so on... This list is just a part of all the insults and false accusations I had to take for the last 2-3 weeks but really, it is endless!!!!! Have a quick look in the summaries of his contributions!) There is NO end to it... Constantly insulting me and also other people, making false accusations and so on... UN-acceptable!!!

And I won't even go into his accusations of socket puppetry. After a strong final warning by NeilN, he did stop that...

I had to take his insults now for over FIVE YEARS. With his insults and (false) accusations, my name gets smeared over Wikipedia (and therefor over the entire internet!), which is absolutely unacceptable. Can somebody please do something more than just giving another (final) warning?!?!? Thank you! MarioR 13:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I see KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has left them a final warning of sorts. –xeno^talk 13:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Nods, and he hasn't edited since. I'm watching. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that that wasn't what Mario asked for, surely five years of this is a bit excessive and deserving of a bit more than a warning. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 14:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Also you're ignoring that I issued that warning before this thread on ANI, so I could hardly have known what he'd "ask for", and noting also that just because you ask doesn't mean I'm going to block without issuing a final warning. Otherwise I'd be really popular with the POV pushers, edit warriors and trolls, as a "block on demand" admin. No, thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake. I originally spotted the original post on Wikiquette alerts and at that point no warning was on Peter Lee's talk page, so I assumed you'd just done this now. My apologies. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 14:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No apology needed: I don't always notice the date/timestamp myself. But your implication that ANI is a short-order drive through for getting blocks is a bit more worrisome. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Was this ever brought to ANI, WQA, etc before today/yesterday? Tan | 39 14:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, user issued block in the past [1]. Gerardw (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

May I kindly point out that the block mentioned above by Gerardw was for edit warring, not for his incivility, insults and false accusations... MarioR 16:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement of blocking admin was "To clarify, your conduct in this matter has been quite unacceptable, both in your engagement in an edit war and the extreme incivility in your edit summaries." Gerardw (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. It was written in the text below the template. I missed that... MarioR 19:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Peter_Lee_and_Mario_Roering and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive579#World_Genseiry.C5.AB_Karate-d.C5.8D_Federation. Both editors are here to push viewpoints but Mario doesn't overtly cross the civility line and has made some contributions to other articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I have just notified Peter Lee of this discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The accusations put forward by myself, are in fact defense against those attacks put forward by Mario Roering himself. I will refrain from putting an extremely long list of violations here done by Mario Roering, as I see it deserving no purpose. The fact is, that Mario Roering has dedicated his hole life to lying, defamation, accusations, slander, copyright violation and smearing my name and that of the Genseiryū Karate-do International Federation, our president, Kunihiko Tosa, and more. He has dedicated a great number of pages on his own homepage to reach his goal, and he has and is using free webhosting such a guestbooks, YouTube and other video sites, he has and is using sockpuppetry (on sites different from Wikipedia, shown and proven by indisputable evidence) etc. etc. Mario Roering's intensions are not noble in any way whatsoever. His contributions here, aside from Genseiryu related articles, are of no concern. Mario Roering is trying to portray himself as an innocent person, who is attacked for no reason by myself. That is not true either. I will here, once again, request, that you all are not taken in by his candy talking, decitful behavour and the like. He is not a person to be trusted. This is indeed my honest opionion, and no insults were intendedn. But if Wikipedia admins/sysops cannot or will not see the situation and the violations in its proper context, people like Mario Roering will be able to continue his manipulation and exploitation of good people here. In fact, Wikipedia is the only website on the Internet still making it an issue, where endless discussions has to be made over and over again. In my view, there is nothing to discuss, as the true intentions of Mario Roering and his violations are clear, not only violation of guidelines/rules on Wikipedia, but violation of regular legislation and law such as the penal code etc. If Wikipedia would stop Mario Roering in this regard, being civil, show good faith and show that I am wrong about his attentions, by completely removing any and all contents on the Internet dedicated to defamation on my person, then perhaps we could get started on a friendly talks. Before that happens, I will take no part in direct talks with Mario Roering, as he has shown on any and all occasions for the past 5 years, that he is a man of lesser moral, lesser ethics and no remorse towards breaking the law, violate my copyright etc. I hope that this sets things into perspective, and shows the true nature of this dispute?? Peter Lee (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours, with advice to AGF, comment on content, not editor, accusations without difs are worse than useless, etc. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

As a suggestion to all... and sorry if I soapbox here... the article itself is/was messy. Facts are important and we should get them right. But beyond that it is important to edi articles to be clear and informative to the reader. Too often I see parties fighting over a single issue to the point where an article sustains damage from careless rapid-fire changes. Although not the best copy editor in the world, in a few minutes I've managed to make an improvement,[2] with things like putting the punctuation before, not after, the footnote reference, making sure it is clear what pronouns ("this", "it") refer to, and using active verbs in a sentence actually rather than being indirect ("Bob flew to Moscow", not "Moscow is also the city where Bob flew"). If you find yourself getting frustrated with other editors, sometimes it's best to refocus your attention to simply improving the article in any way you can, instead of where the dispute is. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:CANVAS and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (4th nomination)

Resolved

 – After reviewing the messages left, they appear to rest squarely on the "friendly notice" side of the WP:CANVASS scale –xeno^talk 22:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

.

I believe that User:Ikip has violated the canvassing rules by notifying every one of the users who !voted here about this re-nomination AFD. As all of the comments on the first AFD (held over a year and a half ago) were speedy keep, it could grossly affect the outcome of the AFD and this is not very neutral. Much time has moved on, and attitudes have changed, but it looks like this user notified the old !voters because the discussion was not initially going "his way". WossOccurring (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It appears per WP:AGF that he is merely doing the courteous thing. I would advise also notifying all the editors who commented in the other two discussions and everyone who ever edited the article as well. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

He has notified over 20 "regurlar editors", who would all presumably vote keep (otherwise they wouldn't be regular editors), some of whom he appears to be familiar with. This is ridiculously excessive. Note that User:A Nobody voted speedy keep in the AFD too. WossOccurring (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

A much bigger concern is why an article for which two discussions that closed as clear "keeps" is being renominated on factually inaccurate bases? The claim that it is not covered in multiple reliable sources is untrue per such New York Times articles as "New Hot Properties: YouTube Celebrities", for example? Unquestionably the phenemonen of YouTube celebrities has been covered in reliable sources. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Diversion tactics won't wash. Please leave AFD-related discussions to the relevant AFD page. This discussion is about canvassing. I'd appreciate it if someone else, preferably an uninvolved admin, now had their say. WossOccurring (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

A Nobody, this is irrelevant. Ikip (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

When you bring something to ANI, the discussion can take on all sorts of direction, especially if we see a more troubling issue than what was alleged in the first place. In this instance, it seems someone did the right thing by giving those familiar with the article and therefore those with a good likelihood of knowing what kinds of sources exist a heads up on a discussion for which their contributions and insights could prove particularly valuable. I even recall the deletion guidelines saying something about it being good etiquette to notify article contributors. Ergo, Ikip did nothing wrong, which leaves us with why something backed by mainstream sources is dismissed as if it does not have such sources? I see you are a new user who registered earlier this month (Welcome to Wikipedia!) and simply encourage you to please note WP:BEFORE, i.e. it is crucial to do a thorough source search before a nomination, because having done one reveals what I and User:Mandsford point out in the discussion. Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

A nobody, that all maybe true, but we are talking about notifying other editors here. Ikip (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Rules:

Wikipedia:Canvassing#Votestacking: "Posting a friendly notice on users' talk pages in order to inform editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be appropriate under certain circumstances on a case-by-case basis."

Rules:

Wikipedia:Canvassing#Votestacking: "Posting a friendly notice on users' talk pages in order to inform editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be appropriate under certain circumstances on a case-by-case basis."

Discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Canvassing#Addition_to_votestacking

Another editor is welcome to notify the editors in the other 2 AfDs.

WossOccurring, I wish you would have discussed this first with me before bringing it here. Unfortunately your tone and the words you are choosing "nightmare", "ridiculously excessive" shows that a civil discussion about rules is probably not possible.Ikip (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding notifying significant editors. User:Erwin85Bot does exactly this, contacting editors with 5 or more significant edits, which is within policy. I specifically mention this bot on the AFD page.

Rule:

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Notifying_interested_people: Notifying WikiProjects that support the page "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." Ikip (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A_Man_In_Black#Ikip_warned. Protonk (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

One of Protonk's more recent personal attacks: "This has trended into the absurd. It literally transcends mockery."[3]

My two personal favorite section from this arbcom Protonk:

"On April 26, (admin) blocked Ikip for canvassing...(admin) should not have blocked Ikip..."

"(admin) desysopped (admin)’s administrator privileges are revoked."

Ikip (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hardly a personal attack and hardly germane to the issue at hand. Protonk (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I refactored that section, it is much more germane and clear now protonk. Editors have been banned for saying less. Protonk's correct, alleged personal attacks are not germane to this discussion. Ikip (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, strictly speaking Ikip is correct. Notifying all !voters of a previous discussion is accepted by WP:CANVASS and he notified everyone, even the nominator from last time[4]. Yes, all !votes the previous RFA were in favor of keeping but that's not ikip's fault, is it? The guideline does not say that notifying is not allowed in such cases. Regards SoWhy 22:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3) Doesn't look like canvassing to me, whether it's "large-scale edits which may be interpreted as canvassing" (as per the arbcom case quoted above) is another matter, one editor has interpreted it as canvassing, but I think he's wrong.   pablo_hablo. 22:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The plot thickens

(New sub-section to improve readability) Another user has now provided evidence that the user has been warned about canvassing before (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A_Man_In_Black#Ikip_warned). Please can another admin come and have their say? WossOccurring (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that by notifying everyone in the previous discussion, he notified at least the nominator who said to delete as well, which means that for all we know maybe everyone who said to keep won't even comment and the only notified person to show up will be who said to delete? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ikip's actions, while possibly looking like violating WP:CANVASS, were actually justified by the guideline that allows notification, provided that the notification is a.) neutral in tone and b.) not only sent to a specific subset of people from the previous discussion. If you want to request action to be taken against this editor, please provide reasoning based on the guideline in question as to why they have violated it. Regards SoWhy 22:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If everyone would feel more comfortable, I will gladly volunteer to notify all the participants of the first two discussions with a neutral message as well? After all, an admin had in the past once requested that I notify participants in the event of a renomination. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

WossOccurring, two things to point out in that arbcom:

First the admin was desopyed for blocking me

Second. The arbcom failed to find that I had canvassed: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A_Man_In_Black/Proposed_decision#Ikip_has_engaged_in_canvassing.

Also WossOccurring, you have not responded to the rules which I have posted.

Do you have any rules which support your position? If not this is probably a frivolous posting. Per the top of this page:

"Frivolous complaints and unsubstantiated requests for administrator intervention do not belong here. Please do not clutter this page with accusations..."

You also did not follow the statement at the top of this page:

"Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page."

Can someone close this please? Ikip (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No, just one thing to point out from that arbcom. "Ikip ... is warned to refrain from making large-scale edits which may be interpreted as canvassing ..."

The other results of the arbcom case are certainly not relevant here.   pablo_hablo. 23:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

As I have already commented in the discussion, perhaps someone who has not and therefore is most unbiased, maybe Pablo X?, should therefore in the interest of total fairness and neutrality notify everyone who commented in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (2nd nomination) as well with some kind of neutral: "Hello, you commented in a previous discussion concerning List of YouTube celebrities, which is being discussed again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (4th nomination) and we just wanted to give you a courtesy heads up of the new discussion should you have anything to add to this new discussion. Thank you!" Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but I'm not going to do that. Perhaps WossOccurring should.   pablo_hablo. 23:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Admin help needed

at WP:AIV - there is an apparent open proxy attack (fresh open proxies ?) getting out there + new registered users too, all targeting same page Talk:Timur. Wise blocking needed. Materialscientist (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done I hope... MBisanz ^talk 23:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Lester Coleman

An IP hopping editor is causing disruption at Lester Coleman. Can range 213.229.87.x be blocked temporarily or the article semi-protected (whichever is more appropriate)? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done - short-term rangeblock on 213.229.87.0/26. Materialscientist (talk) 01:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Range blocking for Rcool35 2

Hello, sorry for making a second thread about this subject but my previous thread did not get a response for my latest rangeblocking proposal. I'm just wondering if the IP ranges can be blocked since these are the IP's that he mainly uses.

• 76.193.170.00/76.193.255.255
• 76.197.170.00/76.197.255.255
• 99.140.180.00/99.140.230.255
• 99.147.180.00/99.147.230.255

I have constantly reverting his vandalism edits for a long, long time and it has not worked at the least bit. He keeps vandalising the pages even though after literaly a thousand reverts he would of given up by now. Protection does not work as he will literaly wait out protection, even if it is for 6 months or a year, the only type that'll work is infinite protection but that'll take certain cercimstances to get. I have tried talking to him but this guy is just so ignorant and pardon my language but stupid. Sure I can revert every one of his edits but I do not want to do this forever, I'm at the end of my ropes here. Taylor Karras (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I sympathize, but I'll restate my objections to a rangeblock of that magnitude: That's simply way too many IPs. Perhaps a C/U would like to investigate and see if AT&T uses dynamic IPs in Rcool's area. Vandalism of this type is usually a violation of TOS, and they might have better luck stopping it than us, particularly if we mentioned that the alternative would be to rangeblock the entire block of IPs. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this has a chance at working. Since a rangeblock is proven to be unviable, your solution might work. Now all I need to do is figure out what C/U means and if this is actually going to happen or not? Taylor Karras (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

A c/u is a checkuser. They are editors with a special bit that allows them to look up personal details of editors. They are usually the people who deal with sockpuppets. If there are any checkusers seeing this, a response on the feasibility of my suggestion would be appreciated. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... I don't think a checkuser can be done on him. First of all, the Dynamic IP's that AT&T issues and that Rcool35 uses expires within one day, so he'll be using like 365,000 IP's yearly and that'd be impossible to block, secondly Rcool35 has not had made a sockpuppet since Roccompaq01, a sockpuppet of his, was blocked so I don't think that a checkuser can do any good. But if we can figure out a way to call AT&T and inform them that a user has been violating the TOS by vandalizing wikipedia. That'd be great. Taylor Karras (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure that'll do the trick. That's sarcasm, by the way. Seriously, though, does that ever actually work? HalfShadow 04:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No, but it was worth a shot. He himself has proven to be an unbannable user in his own right in the fact that we cannot find a way to uphold the block that he was originally given, every method has been exhausted and yet he manages to outpace us all. Weird. Taylor Karras (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

As much as I like dynamic IPs from a personal liberty POV, they really are bothersome in cases like this. He hasn't "managed" to do anything, he simply figured out /relese & /renew. Can we ban MAC addresses? Input from someone more knowledgeable in the Ways of the Wiki than myself would be appreciated here. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

MAC addresses work at the physical and data-link layers, they are not present at the network and transport layers, so no, MAC addresses can't be banned. Or more accurately, IP and TCP packets (which is how almost all of us communicate with en:wiki servers) do not have a field for MAC address, so there is no way for the server to differentiate based on it, and I'm not aware of any HTTP header field for MAC address either. However, the ISP would see the MAC address - but it's not all that difficult to change MAC addresses in software either. The ISP would have to care enough to match their log entries with ours and warn/disconnect the actual account holder. Franamax (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Now the only problem is how are we going to contact the ISP? Taylor Karras (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

So are we going to do this or what? I don't want this to be like the others where no action is taken. Taylor Karras (talk) 01:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't get your hopes up, Taylor. History has shown that we will allow 99% noise and disruption on the off chance there is that 1% good edit that might squeak through. JBsupreme (talk) 01:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That's needlessly cynical. The proposal is not to block a few IPs to get rid of an editor, the proposal is to block a few hundred thousand. The collateral damage is simply too great, as big a pain in the ass as the editor in question is. As to your question, Taylor, that would really only have a chance if one of WP's employees contacted AT&T. Even if a 'crat did it, ISPs tend to ignore "volunteers". We might have a shot if our lawyer pursued it, but I highly doubt MG would get involved, even for the most egregious vandals. The only way I could see that happening is if the editor in question was continuosly posting libellious information that could open Wikipedia to legal liability. [[Throwaway85 (talk) 05:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Serious concern

Resolved

 – /me resolves and archives thread early, leading to demands that thread be reopened immediately, edit warring over the resolved tag, (and more cries of "CENSORSHIP!") --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There have been no new threads on this noticeboard for 9 hours. This concerns me. Is everyone off doing something productive? Because if you are, this is a terrible development. Daniel (talk) 12:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

/me blocks Daniel for 2 minutes for trolling (and in order to stoke some Drama to keep Daniel happy). ;~)--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm ftw. :) Daniel (talk) 12:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

/me starts endless thread arguing about the validity of the block, the definition of troll, whether "troll" is a personal attack or not, and make sure I include ADMIN ABUSE and CENSORSHIP several times. There, that ought to cover it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This is what happens when users accept the invitation to have cups of tea and cup cakes. It all ends in tears. Mathsci (talk) 12:42, 15 December 2009

Bah, just another blatant attempt to silence the "disruptive" minority. Equazcion ^(talk) 12:50, 15 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Unarchived because... um... I#m an admin, I haven#t been very active recently, and I#m sure I will want to say something profound about this (or, indeed, any other) matter before Christmas. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This thread cannot be closed until someone mentions WP:DEADHORSE. Truly disruptive, I call for the heads of any admins who let this happen! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This thread made my morning, sitting here w/ my coffe, laughing my ass off. Merry Xmas y'all. Thanks. Ps, CLIMB DOWN FROM THE REICHSTAG!!!Heironymous Rowe (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Abuse of process. You cannot mention Reichstag climbing on Wikipedia without also mentioning Spiderman costumes. I call for immediate sanctions and a posting on several other pages, per WP:FORUMSHOP. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This thread is a copyvio of my IRC witticism. The nominator will be tarred and feathered for releasing zomg private logs. This decision has been made after a quick canvass and consensus of five 14 year old virgins on IRC and cannot be overruled.  Skomorokh  15:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyio? I will sue you in a court of law in Trenton, NJ! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"This decision has been made after a quick canvass and consensus of five 14 year old virgins on IRC and cannot be overruled." -- Great line, I LOL'd :) Equazcion ^(talk) 16:19, 15 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Daniel, I'm sorry, but you have forgotten to notify yourself all named and anonymous editors of Wikipedia of this thread, as you are of course required to do. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Everyone relax. Dramam levels at normal levels. Viridae^Talk 05:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:12.239.22.131 a.k.a. User talk:75.141.100.115 (again)

Resolved

 – blocked 3 months. If this comes back, or shows up in other manifestations, keep us abreast--Jayron32 06:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:12.239.22.131 a.k.a. User talk:75.141.100.115 from the previous discussion (permalink) is at it again, and proudly keeps track of the trouble he's causing.... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible copyright/personality right problems at User:Kils#Students

Unresolved

 – Serious issue of userpage content and/or deletion of images from Wikipedia needs to be addressed. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 22:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Another possible problem related to User:Kils. It seems highly unlikely that this editor owns the copyright and has the permission for the pictures found at User:Kils#Students. Highly unlikely as the pictures are of a very low resolution, and given that they look like they were taken from a facebook, the kind most universities allow instructors to access. Pantherskin (talk) 12:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The best thing to do in this situation is ask if Kils has permission to post these images, I'm sure she does, just being "students" Secret ^account 14:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I recommend nominating the images for deletion as they are unencyclopedic. We have no need for low quality images of non-notable people. I think a user can post some images of themselves to create a profile and improve collaboration, but creating a gallery of one's students is a step too far. We're not a hosting provider. Jehochman ^Talk 15:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Most images are 25 years old. They all have own Corporations in Dubai Monaco Caribbean. Most pay no taxes and have a different passport and look totally different today. All are extremely successful, some are dead. For the low resolution images all gave me the copyright. It is no fun anymore to work for Wikipedia with such users like cert. Now they are even destroying my user page. I have Webpages elsewhere, I dont need space on W. Uwe Kils 15:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't have space on Wikipedia, your user page isn't to be used as personal webspace in that way. Plus we have no evidence you have the copyright for these, and they serve no encyclopaedic purpose. Canterbury Tail talk 15:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd been wondering about the images for quite some time. Fair Use is a bit different on userspace, but no proof of copyright is still no proof of copyright. Saying they're from a webpage of some sort actually lends to a violation. ... and... *scratches head*, do see WP:OWN and WP:UP explaining why no one has carte blanche of web hosting here. CanterburyTrail is spot-on in the last comment, as well. For be in an encyclopedia, content needs to be encyclopedic and verified by third party sources. I believe the Uwe Kils article was significantly reduced since most all the resourced offered eventually lead back to the same educational facility. Having no tax, or being a company, etc etc., none of that matters... it's part of what we've been trying to explain during this all. I'm not sure how many more times we can link the same things. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Use a social networking site for the sorts of things a lot of your user pages have. ::As a whole, this entire matter is ironic since this started with legal threats some 2 weeks ago now. Whatever the Foundation did that you felt wronged you, we're here to help. There's tons of information around and chances are someone might have advice, and if we draw a total blank you can be pointed to the right place. The Foundation is organized such that there's always a continuation of communication available, assuming conversation remains civil. If there's one lesson learned from all this, hopefully it's that Wikipedia is a community. Sometimes you might love it or hate it, be all are treated equally best we can, with the guidelines and policies of the encyclopedia applicable to all. 00:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC) ♪ daTheisen(talk) 00:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Putting on {{unresolved}} before this drops to archive in a few hours, since this does need a solution. Gut instinct is that the user's userpage is beyond our scope of them, and I question the presence of so many images. Wikipedia shouldn't be a yearbook, work diary, or collection of personal photos, and that seems to be enforced swiftly in most cases. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 22:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Tagged the images as lacking source information. Cirt (talk) 07:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

...Thanks. I'd been pondering that for quite some time, but since the issue as a whole has been of community concern and deep discussion I didn't want to jump the gun on something that large. Honestly, it kind of would have felt like "the easy way out" for the end resolution of something intently debated as a whole. I'll say I completely endorse this since at least one other human being independently came up with the same reasoning and it's proper action with what in image sourcing I know of. That should fix it on its own. Should. ... ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Federer–Hewitt rivalry

I started the AfD process for this article just now but found that it has already been deleted via AfD. It has been recreated today and should be removed in line with the previous AfD decision. Could an admin please take the appropriate action. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 21:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, comparing to the text of the original article, and the reasons for delete listed at the AFD, this new creation seems to address some of the problems related to notability, especially in the much expanded lead section, which was entirely missing from the first time around. It may be worth it to run another AFD because of the improvements since last time. --Jayron32 22:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If I saw this come up at CSD as Gwhatevernumberitis as a recreation, I would decline it. There is prose now and links that may indicate notability, and is sufficiently different to the previous version to need a seperate AfD. GedUK  10:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Request review of my actions on Kent Hovind

Kent Hovind's copyrighted doctoral thesis, which he and his alma mater have steadfastly refused to release to anyone's view for many years, has recently appeared on Wikileaks, complete with the information that Hovind, along with his alma mater, Patriot Bible University, has consistently refused to allow his dissertation to be offered for public reprint or scholarly inquiry. and that at the time of appearance on wikileaks: At that time was classified, confidential, censored or otherwise withheld from the public.. Well intentioned editors have been readding the link to this ever since, and been reverted by multiple editors. I protected the article in order to stop the near continuous violation of copyright, and then found I'd protected The Wrong Version^(tm). I followed WP:IAR and removed the offending link, and now place myself here for review and commentary. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

A good call that is appropriate per WP:LINKVIO. NW (Talk) 02:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Good call as anon editors seem to be unaware of WP:ELNEVER --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that was my rationale as well, but as I'd protected then edited I felt it best to put it here for review by others. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 04:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Per discussion, my thoughts were that dissertations were always public. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Just realized we're talking about different articles. The same discussion is being held at Patriot Bible University. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

On both Talk:Kent Hovind and Talk:Patriot Bible University, both the policies above have been linked and on the second page at least it has been explained that the content is copyrighted, copyright usually being held by the university. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 04:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I've now repeated the action with Patriot Bible University, where a similar situation has been occuring. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 04:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Good call.   Will Beback  talk  05:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify KC, you haven't protected the article, but merely removed the link, correct? There was no edit warring occurring at PBU, merely the inclusion of that link. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• To state that it's been leaked needs a reliable independent source that says it is Hovind's and not a joe-job; to link to the thesis requires a copy that is provably not hosted in violation of copyright per WP:C. Those promoting the link have done neither so far, as far as I can tell. Guy (Help!) 09:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

So strictly speaking, can one not say that it has been leaked on wikileaks, and then reference wikileaks to support that claim? Throwaway85 (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - WP:ELNEVER says never - and with no exceptions. So no - you can't use that wikilinks page as a reference. I suppose you could reference wikileaks in general though. SteveBaker (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, as Guy has pointed out, there is no way to determine whether the document on Wikilinks is the actual document. One might be able to add a footnote stating that a document alleged to be Hovind's doctoral thesis has been posted there -- but just how important is the content of Hovind's work? I'd be more inclined, as a disinterested observer, to accept a mention of the document at Wikilinks if the article had some indication of the subject of his doctoral thesis. For all I know, Hovind wrote about how baseball is mentioned in the Bible. (It's true, didn't you know? In the very first verse of Genesis, in fact -- "In the big inning".) -- llywrch (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Support blocking Llywrch for that awful, awful pun. The subject of his dissertation is why Creationists are right and scientists are a bunch of big doodoo heads (I hyperbolize--barely). It's pretty central to his public persona, and stands as a fairly damning critique, on its own, of both his Doctorate and the institution that granted it. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I"m going to have to agree with Throwaway on that, Llywrch. Of course, I also plan to repeat the pun, first chance I get. The subject of the dissertation on WL is History of Evolution. Cliffsnotes version: Satan made it up before the fall to confuse humans, and has been pushing it ever since. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 09:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Support pun block, but only so there will be more time spent with wonderful new arrival. (Congratulations.) P.S. This in no way means I'm not going to drag someone to Arbcom ... after I see if I've successfully rigged the election. lol Meanwhile, happy holidays. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 09:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

So does that mean we can't use this in any way? Dougweller (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(Ignores calls for pun-itive measures.) Okay, I spent a few hours yesterday following links discussing this alleged doctoral thesis of "Dr" Hovind, & the problem seems to boil down to this: is this matter worth arguing over BLP concerns? On one hand, there is no definitive proof that this essay is the one Hovind submitted to this diploma mill, although there are persuasive third-party assertions that it is. On the other, being identified as the author of this document is negative information, which is the doctoral thesis equivalent of the Z-movie Manos, the Hands of Fate without the MST3K commentary: it makes the person a laughingstock. I think it would be proper to link to a site (like this one, which is already cited in the article) that provides a summary of the alleged essay by someone who is a reliable source, but to repeat the point of my post above, until someone adds a summary of Hovind's thesis to Kent Hovind, I don't see a reason for the link to Wikileaks in the article. And as for linking it to the Patriot Bible University article, that's a clear case of undue emphasis: of course diploma mills are going to accept questionable material -- that's why they are called "diploma mills". -- llywrch (talk) 17:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

As a comment, if it is a forgery, then copyright concerns cannot apply, so if Hovind has asserted that it is a forgery, there can be no copyright problem with linking to it. If any independent discussions of its contents make it into reliable sources that might be acceptable content for the article. However, such a source would have to be more than just a blog. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think copyrights work that way. Somebody wrote it, even if it's a forgery, that just means Hovind wasn't the one who did it. I suppose you could rationalize that nobody will sue for copyright infringement because doing so will mean confessing to being the author, but I'm pretty sure that we don't weigh the likelihood of a lawsuit each time we consider whether or not we include something in Wikipedia that might have a copyright claim attached. Please correct me if I'm wrong here. -- Atama頭 18:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Bogus PA warning from User:MBK004

After a user reverted one of my changes, hereby adding a misinformation, I wrote this on his user page:

Please stop destroying Wikipedia. If you don't have a clue about a topic, let others write the articles. (Are your really sure nothing else I did was in any way objectionable?)

After this, User:MBK004 twinkled me an "only warning" about PAs. I can't ask him about it on his user page, as it is locked. (Will someone please notify him?)

My question is: Is this warning justified? --91.55.204.136 (talk) 09:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Non-admin's opinion: the implicit accusation of malice (one doesn't ask someone to "stop destroying Wikipedia" unless they are destroying it) was garnished with a put-down as clueless — deprecating both motives and capacity, a two-fer. Way to punch anyone's buttons. So, yeah, 91.55; how would you feel if that had been said to you? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

(I did put a note on User talk:MBK004, as you requested.) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

But looking into the background, 91.55 has some basis to be miffed too: a legitimate edit to My Life Without Me got repeatedly reverted as "vandalism". That could account for some flaring temper, too. I've reinstated and vouched for it, in edit summary and with a note to the reverting editor. Hope that helps. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Warning was OK, but a level 4i-only warning? I've seen worse attacks before... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 10:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This editor has been engaged in some IP-hopping edit warfare in the Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag and doesn't appear to be be a genuinely new editor based on their posts, so a high-level warning seems appropriate to me. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Right. Didn't see that... WP:FROG err... WP:DUCK Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 11:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

"IP-hopping edit warfare"? My ISP changes my IP from time to time, why is this relevant?

You implication is that participation in an unrelated edit warfare is reason for sterner measures than usually called for?

I've never claimed that I was a new editor. --91.55.204.136 (talk) 11:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

To clarify this: After an edit war on an unrelated article, the user I allegedly attacked was following me around to My Life Without Me. There is no indication that his involvement in My Life Without Me is anything but WP:WIKIHOUNDING. So I think my choice of words is appropriate. This PA warning is only reasonable if you pick some details from the context and ignore others. --91.55.204.136 (talk) 11:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

And I gather that there was some display problem (in your browser) from the formatting on Varyag? This is not a WP:ANI topic, it's techie, but just as background to your edits...? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, discussions on AN:I do have a tendancy to wildy spread over all kind of topics; I don't want to compound that. Let's just say that the changes on the carrier's pages do not change content and are thus not as significant as the one on My Life Without Me.

This should be about the bogus PA warning however. --91.55.204.136 (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Two articles have been semi-protected because 91.55.211.58 (talk · contribs) / 91.55.204.136 (talk · contribs) has been removing hidden lines. The 3RR rule would have been broken on Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag and CVN-79 if they had not been semi-protected. His remarks to other users seem to have been uncivil and factually incorrect. He played the same game on My Life Without Me, until Sizzle Flambé proxy-edited for him without adding sources to the article (an edit summary is insufficient). I don't think Sizzle Flambé is particularly helping here: he does not seem to have looked carefully at the edit histories of the two IPs and on the last article appears to be enabling the disruptive IP hopping. Mathsci (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You are again picking details from the context. Please stop doing this, it does not help to explain whether or not the PA warning is justified. Only an unobstructed view on the context can do that. (I would also recommend to follow WP:AGF, but I get the impression that you're past that.)

User:Sizzle Flambé: You should be ashamed! You should have known that disabling recalcitrant users is always more important than fixing Wikipedia's content. I hope you learned your lesson! --91.55.204.136 (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Forgot one: 3RR was broken - but not by me. Do you propose any sanctions against User:BilCat? --91.55.204.136 (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

If you show us diffs and a warning that has been issued and that it is a current problem that needs to be stopped and yes, we would. Toddst1 (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Now, let's play a game: When User:MBK004 blocked the page, which version do you think was The Right One? You have one attempt.

Correct! So of course there is no ongoing problem that needs to be stopped. (Of course there is also no warning by the blocking editor, except the one I got.) --91.55.204.136 (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Studies have shown that the wrong version is always protected ;) Rather than edit war in the articles and abuse other editors then complain here when you're warned for this, please discuss your views on the articles' talk pages. As you're not a new editor, you should know better. Nick-D (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Moreschi, my edit summary noted that the official Sony website (which was already linked in the article) supported the plot description. However, just for you, I have added a second link to the same website, as an explicit <ref> for that paragraph (previously not reffed). Making a legitimate edit (which is all this IP user was trying to do) isn't disruption or vandalism. As for "disruptive IP hopping", are ISPs' dynamic IP assignments now to be blamed on their users? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

As usual in cases of admin abuses, the actual matter got out of sight. So again: Is this kind of warning justified? (If you want to respond, please do not blank out part of the context.) --91.55.204.136 (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Could we mark it all down to misunderstandings, note that tempers got heated, but try to cool them off and go on from there? That seems like the resolution with the best and fastest chance of happy outcomes for everyone. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 01:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

All a ton of brinkmanship. "Destroying Wikipedia"? Um, a tad much. The later sections including the somewhat disparaging edit summaries from BilCat, including saying "I don't trust vandals" after harmless messages left suggesting a discussions merge. WP:VANDALISM is kind of picky about definition and evoking it is a serious matter. The warnings against personal attacks given from that seem 100% justified given a total ignoring what vandalism means-- actually, those messages were polite in that they suggested just walking away for awhile. Then to here. As to "who started it", IP user technically did but not automatically in bad faith, if not questionable. BitCat dragged on the matter with free-floating use of "vandal", to which any experienced editor would take offense to after feeling they acted in good faith. In hindsight, just a rewording of a few edit summaries could probably have prevented this. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 02:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: Case of a mutual open apology on "destroying" vs vandal; WQA vs ANI closing the matter? This is well within the range of inability to blame either party and since both parties know the bigger picture sanctions would seem kind of silly. 'Tis my suggestion, since no other resolutions proposed. At least one uninvolved agreement needed, please. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 02:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

There may be a glimmer of hope; will it spread? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a bit of missunderstanding, the term vandal/vandalism is often used on Wikipedia and can seem a bit harsh to new editors. My first impression is a bit of storm in a teacup, the IP didnt explain the edit (no edit summary) and carried on adding it while others (it was first reverted by another editor before BilCat) assumed (due to lack of explanation) that it was some form of vandalism. I suggest we just leave it behind and all get on with improving the encyclopedia. MilborneOne (talk) 10:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Read again: I used the word "destroying" as a synonym for vandalism after he wikihounded me to another article. He called my change there vandalism (and reverted me) without knowing anything about the matter. Turns out that my change was justified. --91.55.230.143 (talk) 11:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever, what about User:MBK004's actions? Regarding the whole context, is this warning justified? --91.55.230.143 (talk) 11:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I think everyone involved came on too strong: "vandalism", "stupidity", "destroying", and "final warning". Now the question is, can everyone involved lower their hackles and make peace? Or are we stuck at hostilities? 91.55, having taken the lead to bring this up, can you take the lead to calm it down? As you did with Guerillero? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

OK didnt want to prolong this but had that point not been addressed by User:Sizzle Flambés first comment above. A 91.55 IP changed My Life Without Me without any explanation, it was Twinkle reverted as vandalism by user User:Guerillero, the 91.55 reverted with the comment Reverted 1 edit by Guerillero identified as stupidity to last revision by me. (If you don't know the movie, why don't you just keep quiet? User BilCat reverted the apparant vandalism again with apparent vandalism, and uncivil comments) which was again reverted by a 91.55 IP without explanation but then left a message on BilCats talk page Please stop destroying Wikipedia. If you don't have a clue about a topic, let others write the articles. (Are your really sure nothing else I did was in any way objectionable?). BilCat removed the comment from his talk page without comment and MBK004 was probably watching BilCat's talk page (assumption) issued the personal attack warning on the 91.55 talk page. All looks reasonable to me an editor makes an unexplained change to an article and then attacks both reverters an admin sees the comments and issues a warning. User Guerillero and BilCat acted against unexplained edits which provoked comment from the IP which was dealt with by a warning from an Admin. All we need is to move on and the IP should use edit summaries in the future. MilborneOne (talk) 11:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries are recommended but not required. Labelling 91.55's edit to My Life Without Me as "vandalism" was hasty and mistaken; his edit was not "blatantly wrong", in fact it was not wrong at all, let alone obscene or otherwise vandalistic. Things went downhill from that precise point, and got worse with each repetition of the "vandalism" charge. Now, are we done re-hashing this, and can we get back to the "peace" concept? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 12:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but I could not accept the point that 91.55s edit was not blatantly wrong and the two reverters were in the wrong. At the time of the reversion it was seen as an IP making an unexplained change which is why two editors reverted the addition as vandalism a fairly common practice with any unexplained edit. After being reverted the IP still did not comment either in the edit summary or on the talk page but attacked both reverters. It was only when Sizzle became involved that the edit was deemed to be factual at no time had the IP explained the change. As for peace fine just accept what was done and move on. MilborneOne (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverting an unexplained change as vandalism shouldn't be a fairly common practice. If it is, the people doing the reverting need to reread WP:VAND and WP:AGF. The IPs response was rude, yes, but I think the edit summary says pretty clearly that they believed their edit to be correct and that the reverter must not know what he's doing if he's reverting the edit as vandalism. --Onorem♠Dil 13:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite odd that you expected my to assume good faith, but aren't willing to extend the same to me! Per WP:DUCK, it looked like vandalism to me. Now I know I was incorrect, but at the time it appeared to be antoher part of unexplained edits by the same IP. Note that in my second revert I did say "apparent vandalism", expressing some doubt. As this IP is not a newbie, he should know to be using clrear edit summaries in his first edits, and to be civil in all of them. (Summaries are not required, but it is good sense; civility is, and that edit summary was not in any way.) I stand by my edits, reverts, and comments. While I made an error in judgment, I did nothing wrong here. And I have 3 and a half years of edits to show that I generally try to do the right thing on WP, as I've not chosen to hide behind an anoymous IP. My record speaks for itself. - BilCat (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Neither edit summaries or editing as a registered user are required by Wikipedia. Seems to me Error in judgement implies something wrong. Nothing huge, nothing requiring drama, but a oops, messed up would be nice. Characterizing an anonymous editor as "hiding" isn't cool. Gerardw (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"While I made an error in judgment, I did nothing wrong here."

I don't think there is anything to add to this. --91.55.230.143 (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, what about User:MBK004's actions? Is the warning reasonable, especially considering that neither the editors starting the personal attacks nor the one violating 3RR got more than a pat on the back? --91.55.230.143 (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe the IP user is acting in good faith. Per the IP's comments here, and the baiting in teh post before this one, I am withdrawing from all discussions in which this user is involved, per WP:DNFT. Admins may contact me privately if they desire to pursue this further. Thanks, especially to Jimbo. - BilCat (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, right, if an IPs is impertinent enough to call an established and respected editor's lie, he's a troll. Figures. --91.55.230.143 (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The three IPs, including noew 91.55.230.143 (talk · contribs), should be blocked for disruption in their short communal period of editing wikipedia. See this example of forum shopping.[5] This is unacceptable behaviour. This user is wikihounding User:BilCat and has contributed nothing to the encyclopedia. Two pages are semiprotected due to their actions. Mathsci (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

(It still gets better.) This entry here is about the bogus PA warning from User:MBK004. Look above to see me again and again trying people to focus on that.

Your link points to my Wikiquette Alert about BilCat's incivility. There is no room there to talk about a possible admin abuse.

Your problem is exactly what, that I use proper forums to address issues? --91.55.230.143 (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The IPs are obviously not here to improve the encyclopedia but to cause disruption. Here is one of a series of personal attacks. [6] Their three editing histories speak for themselves. However, given their knowledge of WP:ANI and WP:WQA, they do seem to display prior knowledge of wikipedia. Possibly they might be a logged off registered user. Mathsci (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, this would be an example of calling a spade a spade. --91.55.230.143 (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you not in fact call User:BilCat a "liar"? Mathsci (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I did, after he lied.

Please let's continue this on my talk page (if at all). --91.55.230.143 (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that is a personal attack. Do you have a registered account? Mathsci (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Please let's continue this on my talk page (if at all). --91.55.230.143 (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, what about User:MBK004's actions? Is the warning reasonable, especially considering that neither the editors starting the personal attacks nor the one violating 3RR got more than a pat on the back? --91.55.230.143 (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the warning was reasonable. Doesn't matter who started anything, each editor is responsible for their own actions. Gerardw (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

A warning was reasonable; but jumping all the way to "final warning" (on the first warning)? That's the question 91.55 has been asking. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I can see the argument that the final warning was premature but it seems like hair splitting to me. What is the implication of the question? That 91.55 should be allowed 2 more personal attack before being blocked? Gerardw (talk) 12:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

We do have levels of warning, e.g. uw-npa1 / npa2 / npa3, for a reason. This was uw-npa4im, skipping three levels of warning. No such warning was given to those who made the false accusation of "vandalism", or to the user who followed 91.55 around to revert all his changes (which is after all what 91.55 was objecting to with his "destroying" comment). That does seem rather uneven. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 15:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to continue beating a dead horse. Mathsci (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

So, to sum up the dispute resolution process from the pov of the offender:

• Break some policy (NPA and AGF seem to be the most popular).
• Watch that you are reported somwhere in WP:Dispute resolution.
• Ignore it.
• Watch other editors attack the reporter.
• Keep quiet.
• Watch other editors rush to protect dead horses.
• Carry on.

In conclusion, I think a lot of editors are putting to much effort into protecting what they perceive as their own, using what seems to be selective reading among other things. I'd recommend perusing Cognitive dissonance, but the nature of this very cognitive dissonance makes it difficult to accept this as good advice.

The attempts to moderate are very much appreciated. Carry on! --91.55.208.131 (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone ought to write Wikipedia:How to destroy Wikipedia, beginning with the fact that the only sure-fire way to do it is with a large axe & access to the server room. Accusing anyone of doing this in any other way (e.g. vandalism, POV-pushing, personal attacks) is an overstatement & one should avoid saying it. -- llywrch (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I assume that with a large axe, you would have access to the server room. -- Atama頭 21:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Only if reception couldn't remember what the number was for 911. -- llywrch (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Clearly you've met some of my co-workers.GJC 14:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Rangeblock for socks of Orijentolog

I've never done one of these. We have a number of IP addresses following the pattern of edits described at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orijentolog/Archive. The latest is 93.142.175.163 (talk · contribs) and two others can be found here. Also 93.142.147.100 (talk · contribs) Most of the edits are particularly unpleasant personal attacks or comments about Jews. Is there anything practical we can do without a lot of collateral damage? Or an easy way to keep track of them other than watching the pages they edit? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Ask a checkuser or CU clerk to get a rangeblock. Somebody with CU should look at the possible collateral damage before action is taken because your range in question seems to be large. Jehochman ^Talk 16:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

An admin tried out a rangeblock for Orijentolog in September but, as Thatcher observed, "There are a number of editors on that range, it's also not effective at blocking user:Orijentolog as more than half of his contribs come from a different (non-contiguous) range." It would be a public service if you could tag all Orijentolog's IPs that you know about so they show up in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Orijentolog. (You could do this by adding {{ipsock|Orijentolog}} on their user pages). Then a new filing could be made at SPI, with a request for checkuser attention. Admin Toddst1 worked on this case before. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, didn't see this before I asked about a rangeblock. So I'll probably be told no. Dougweller (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

donate money

Resolved

n'est pas? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

is there a way to turn off permanently these appeals to donate money i see every time i log in? for example just now i see a message with giant characters: It's really starting to get on my nerves.  Dr. Loosmark  01:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, its a gadget in your preferences. Surely you could have found it on your own, or used a more appropriate place to ask? Nathan ^T 01:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, as long as we are here: at the top of the page, click "my preferences", then Gadgets -> Browsing gadgets -> Suppress display of the fundraiser banner. Materialscientist (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Materialscientist!  Dr. Loosmark  02:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

On this subject, we got mocked on Probably Bad News here. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 02:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

We could always have a soundbite of Tom Cruise from Jerry Maguire - "Show me the money!!!!" Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

External link review

Can a couple other people take a look at the contribs for Jdicker (talk · contribs · logs)? I'm waffling on whether or not these interviews are appropriate or not, and it's compounded by the fact that the editor is probably the interviewer. Does this fall under WP:ELNO? Am I being obtuse here? Tan | 39 16:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

IMO they are not appropriate in the way they are being added (ie without discussion and even without edit summaries). Syrthiss (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Obvious self-promotion, no need to overthink it. Gerardw (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, clearly self-promotion and COI. Dougweller (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the last additions, clear COI. Left warnings regarding spam and COI on the user's talkpage, and suggested the user to discuss further edits first. Let's see. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

New Block

Resolved

 – Blocked by User:SarekOfVulcan. MuZemike 19:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This user has vandalized the pages of Nerd(disambiguation) and barbie (Disambiguation). Gunner768 deserves to have a temporary ban, and possibly any IP address that he uses. Please Consider this request. Captain Cookie —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainCookie (talk • contribs) 17:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Please take vandalism reports to WP:AIV. Thanks! Tan | 39 17:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Grundle2600 and the Diane Francis article.

I'm quite a bit concerned here, when i noticed Grundle2600's comment[7] on my talk-page. Earlier this week i reverted this[8], which was introduced by Grundle here[9]. Now normally i'd consider this a regular revert of a synthesis on a BLP article. But, it seems that Grundle's synthesis has spawned off this[10][11][12][ - and that he is rather proud of it [13](see edit-comment).

Considering that these kind of edits have been the basis for many of Grundle's problems here on Wikipedia, i believe that this is an issue to be handled here. If this is nothing to worry about, then i am sorry to have brought it here, and the issue can be closed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want us to do. If it is true that she made these remarks, and has two children, then we actually did our job right by reporting that. That pundits and drama-mongers are using it elsewhere to promote their own agendas is out of our control. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

My problem is not that she has 2 children - but that we as Wikipedia have implied something about her integrity - and that this synthesis (2 children + support of China's one child policy) has now become news. This is exactly what we must avoid on BLP articles. And it seems to me that Grundle knew exactly what he was doing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Kim D. Petersen: Millions of people turn to wikipedia every day for information. On websites, blogs, and message boards all over the internet, people are referring to the Diane Francis wikipedia article's claim that she has two children. The fact that you removed such information in this edit is something which should be of concern to anyone who favor wikipedia's policy of openness. It is very common for wikipedia biographies to cite the children of the article's subject. Please stop trying to remove this relevant, well sourced information from this article. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is very common that we mention how many children that a person has. It is not however wikipedia's job to connect that to a person's view. That is a synthesis, and it is a very serious breach (imho) of our BLP policy. That this has now become news, makes the breach of BLP even more serious. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Regardless of its previous form, it's apparently now being used as self-promotion and bragging rights [14], etc etc... see edit summaries also. If they want to brag about not understanding our BLP policy they can do it elsewhere. Biographical info on persons is secondary and 100% superfluous, technically, as the focus of the article is why they happen to be a notable person. Trying to attach a dubious claim to such harmless secondary info is just cruel and not in the spirit of BLP. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 23:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Ok, let's look at it that way. Unsourced controversial information about living persons should of course be removed ASAP. Is it "controversial" that she has 2 children, or is that point not in debate? Perhaps putting this fact in the lead as opposed to right after the current incident would alleviate your concerns? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, this doesn't really belong here, as it's not really a matter requiring admin action. I think maybe this whole thread should be pasted over to WP:BLPN. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that an editor by synthesis has done real world harm to a living person. And that that editor has a rather long history of doing exactly the same (synth of this kind, not real world harm (i hope)). This is rather more than the simply BLP violation i reverted imho. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• That was my concern - BLP's basic philosophy is: Do no harm. And this has caused real world harm. And Grundle is proud about it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Per the edit summary claim of "famous on the internet!", I suppose that's a relative term. It's not that it's about having 2 kids, it's that the kids were used as golden idols for a wider bit of writing. After thinking of it further, I failed to even realized why on earth there's a claim of notability attached to one blog post. We've cracked down really hard on where possible recent events and the time scope of WP:NOTNEWS and the whole notability is not temporary, etc etc. Just because this is "harmless" compared to Tiger Woods and the like doesn't mean it can just slide through. Good BLP patrolling. Fair notice on pointless edit warring and a re-read of WP:BLP all around. etc ♪ daTheisen(talk) 00:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a fact that the subject wrote that she favors global adoption of a one child policy. And it is also a fact that the subject has two children. I added both of those facts, with sources, to the article. I did not do anything wrong. On the contrary, I provided true, sourced information to the readers of wikipedia. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Kim D. Petersen: please explain how I have caused "real world harm." Who did I harm? What harm did I cause to them? Grundle2600 (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You apparently "created" those news-stories, with your synthesis, which now will haunt that person. At least that is what i surmise from both the dates of the newsblurbs and your edit-comments. Whether it is true or not is secondary. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. It has a lot to do with the fact that this one matter isn't exactly encyclopedic vs claims on notability of the other. It's an op-ed comment that's been turned to holding the kids hostage as a talking point. Direct quotations are needed about relation with her two children, otherwise the two are indeed a WP:SYNTH matter of tying two separately-mentioned topics together to push a POV perspective. No one said you'd done anything wrong, we're just trying to fill you in on the finer points of Wikipedia articles on living persons WP:BLP. You've had offers of advice on your talk page, so I'd suggesting talking this out over there. This isn't particularly an admin issue unless anything pointless disruptive continues. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 00:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked at Grundle's history and why he is currently indef topic banned on US politics[15]. A lot of that is because of such synthesis, so by now he really should know why such shouldn't be added. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, we had to deal with this same issue in Obama-related articles as well. Grundle apparently lives to find contradiction in the words and deeds of politicians, doing the same "Source A says John Doe did B", "Source B says John Doe did !B" shtick and gluing them together to paint a picture of hypocrisy. Tarc (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm still looking for the part where admin intervention is required. I renew my call to close up and move over to WP:BLPN. Grundle does not appear to be violating his topic ban in this case. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

A user is indef'ed from one topic area for a certain type of tendentious editing behavior, and appears to be repeating same in another topic area? I'd say that warrants at least a discussion here. Tarc (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Tarc is referring to my indefinite topic ban on U.S. politics and U.S. politicians. None of the people who favored my topic ban had the decency to answer these 7 questions that I asked about my topic ban. Tarc claimed that my questions had already been answered. But when I asked him to quote the answers, he refused to do so, because such answers never existed. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The dreaded "7 questions" again? Yes, let's all review the WP:AN thread to see how well that went for you the last time. Tarc (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The people who favored my topic ban were afraid to answer my 7 questions about why I was being banned. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Your questions are goalpost-shifting designed to distract from the issue at hand (your behavior). No one's biting at the hook. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The information that I added to the article came from the subject herself. It was the subject's own opinion column on her support of a one child policy, and the subject's own personal blog about her two children, that I used to source the information. The subject herself chose to put all of that information on the internet for people to read. How did I "harm" the subject, by citing information that she herself put up on the internet for people to read? Grundle2600 (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You didn't, just let this die. Arkon (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I am curious to hear Kim D. Petersen's explanation of how I caused "harm" to the subject. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

<-Content dispute. Should be resolved. Arkon (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's-Call-It-A-Night Proposal?

The continued (continuous?) editing of the article despite it presently being in ANI isn't terribly well taken, especially since nothing seems to be changing. Smelling and hoping to avoid any coming temporary blocks, I generally propose the following 100% voluntary actions:

• Any of the following terms may be extended by any uninvolved administrator at any time so long as a message is sent to both directly involved parties.
• Length: 1 week to 1 month. Everyone should be bored enough to not go back to it.
• A revert to before the edit war and manually replace unrelated content removed in the process,
• Voluntary avoidance of the article by all article editors of this evening and participants in this ANI, except in matter of BLP libelous content or legal threats.
• Grundle2600 voluntarily avoid talk pages of any persons here or involved in editing that article unless directly related to libelous or legal threats in this article.
• Grundle2600 voluntarily avoid articles recently contributed to by Kim D. Petersen except in matter of BLP libelous content or legal threats.
• An uninvolved party may evaluate possible violations of 3RR on either side and report if considered appropriate.

Objections? ♪ daTheisen(talk) 00:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Added

• Issues regarding changed to the article can be discussed at the Biography of Living Persons Noticeboard during this week, though civility should be strictly enforced.
• Kim D. Petersen voluntarily agrees to avoid this article for the same week as a sign of good faith.
• Any violations should be considered as evidence of continued disruption and may be weighted heavily in any further Admin/ANI interventions or any other dispute resolution.
• Future participation of User Grundle2600 in any BLP discussion are open to posting by any editor of this diff which first proposed this, as a reminder of weight on the situation and possible administrator consideration. This should be heavily enforced, for at least the full length of this agreement.

I object. I added well sourced info to the article, which is what wikipedia editors are supposed to do. I should not be punished, because I did nothing wrong. How can people say that I caused "harm" to the subject, when it was the subject herself who first put the information on the internet, because the subject wanted people to read it? Grundle2600 (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

There's unanimous consensus (that I've seen) on the BLP concerns raised. Wikipedia's BLP policy is basically a 100% enforcement once reported and evoked. ...I'll add a few things on the list to balance it off. Ok, done. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

[EC] You really need to add something about Grundle2600 using sources appropriate to BLPs. He's not new here; he should know better than to use junk like prisonplanet.com for anything in a BLP. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Considered and added more above. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, content dispute only. Is it really surprising that reporters use wikipedia as a source of information? Is it a bad thing that an editor includes factual (and indisputed as far as I can see) information to an article. Nope and Nope. Resolve this, it's silly. Arkon (talk) 01:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This is meant to resolve, by getting everyone to move on with things for the night and taking it to BLP/N if nothing else can be agreed to. Everything else is just general civility. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

When resolving a non-issue, there is no need for a bullet point list of made up remedies. We already have nice little policies for such things, 3RR, Civility, BLP. If/when these policies are broken, feel free to propose something or another. At this point, it's just pointless rulering (if that's not a word, it totally should be!) Arkon (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm - you don't think that there is a problem with Grundles combination of this biography and this article (synthesis) into this[16], stating by implication, that Francis is a hypocrite. Which was then taken up in the news, here, here here and [ here] which basically all are harmful to the persons reputation, by restating Grundle's synthesis that she must be a hypocrite. In effect Grundle created the news/information combination - not the other way around, and that is a non-issue? Especially when Grundle is already sanctioned for creating exactly such synthesis' other places? Ok. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Content dispute. Arkon (talk) 01:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow ?! --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Since this wasn't getting anywhere, I figured this might actually get people's attention. It's put in bullets for clarity and to split up text. Just trying to be precisely. ... Look. It's an attempt to drop this issue on the spot, move it to the correct forum, and try to avoid any blocks that just further waste everyone's time. This is also one more desperate attempt at AGF on assumption blocks might be highly reasonable if any violations of specific civility mentions are broken. Sorry to spam up the discussion, then. Whatever. GO TO BLP/N ON THE CONTENT, but the civility issues still have to stopped. This started as "mostly" a content dispute but ... forget it. No wonder blocks are so common. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Well - i will abide by all bullet-points, i just think they are about 180° off course about what the issue was. But oh well. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit war over content

I urge the administrators look more closely at the conduct of both sides this edit war. There appear to be several editors on both sides of a content dispute.

The issues, as I see them, are

1. Is it permissible for the article to mention that the subject has two children, a fact that is stated on the subject's own web site?
2. Is it permissible for the article to describe editorials that accuse the subject of hypocrisy in advocating a one-child limit, since the subject herself has two children?
3. Is there justification here for departing from Wikipedia's normal policy of including relevant content supported by reliable sources?

According to one of the reverted edits (I have not looked at the sources), the subject had her children before 1981. If this is the case, that puts any alleged hypocrisy in perspective, since the subject's one-child advocacy apparently began about 28 years after she had her own children in a very different environment. Presenting all the facts, rather than suppressing them, appears to be the best solution, as it usually is.

William M. Connolley reverted 4 edits by Grundle2600 with the edit comment "rv: you can't use prisonplanet in a BLP". However, the revert also deleted statements cited to the National Review and the American Spectator. This appears to be a legitimate public controversy, and I don't see why Wikipedia's coverage of it should be censored.

PhGustaf reverted an edit that added the words "despite the fact she has two children", immediately after the statement about the subject's one-child advocacy, as vandalism.[17] The Magnificent Clean-keeper reverted a similar edit with the comment "vandalism of some apparent sock".[18] Participating in a content dispute is not vandalism, and sock puppetry should not be assumed absent some evidence. There were also some statements in the course of editing that were clear violations of WP:NPOV. However, the proper solution is to edit them to neutrality, not suppress the facts.

Please take a look at the situation and intervene to restore compliance with Wikipedia's behavioral and content policies and guidelines. Thank you.—Finell 00:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. In my opinion, the principal BLP issue was resolved when Grundle moved Francis' (cited) family size to the lede and left her (cited) policy statement in a line by itself. Such issues as whether the policy statement passes WP:WEIGHT and whether editorial comments are notable could, I think, be worked out on the talk page.

I did flag two especially egregious drive-by comments as vandalism; this was an overreaction, and I apologize. PhGustaf (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

What was so "egregious" about simply stating the fact that the subject had 2 children? What about the accusation of socking?—Finell 06:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm. You're right. One was a simple statement, and didn't deserve "egregious". The other was pretty bad.[19]. Ironically, I did not revert the "egregious" one I was thinking of[20] because I felt I had done enough reverting already. I've apologized for my quick finger already. PhGustaf (talk) 06:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

My comments were not directed at you alone. William M. Connolley reverted an edit that added 3 sources on the basis that 1 of them was not reliable. The Magnificent Clean-keeper reverted an edit that added content as "vandalism" and accused the editor of socking. I'm all for being vigilant about BLPs, but calling a content dispute "vandalism" and accusing an editor who agrees with the "other" side a sock (apparently without any independent basis) is improper. We cheapen our policies and damage our credibility by throwing words like vandalism and sock around indiscriminately.—Finell 21:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Indef-blocked

I've indef-blocked Grundle for his behaviour here, highlighted by this edit summary. It appears that Grundle, who certainly knows better, attempted to use Wikipedia to encourage negative public commentary on the fact that a BLP subject has two adult children. It is an attempt to manipulate public opinion via Wikipedia, on a sensitive subject, via a clear WP:SYNTH violation (claiming that a 2009 call for a global one-child policy has anything to do with personal decisions to have children 30-odd years previously). I believe this behaviour constitutes an egregious violation of WP:BLP; of WP:SYNTH; and is part of a long-term pattern of disruptive editing.

Although I've indef-blocked here due to Grundle's long-term behaviour pattern as well as the egregiousness of this incident, I'm open to other length blocks, or to an immediate overturn without consultation if another admin thinks I'm way off base. My view is that if BLP is to mean anything, then an editor of this experience and with this history, should be blocked if not indefinitely then for a substantial period. Rd232 ^talk 17:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• I concur in the block in that Grundle has shown a long-term pattern of behavior that is disruptive and because he has yet again brought up the "questions" that he agreed to not bring up as a condition to his prior unblock. MBisanz ^talk 18:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The edit highlighted by Rd232 is from December 11. The underlying content issue of whether and how to note that a commentator calling for a one child policy has two children appears to have been resolved with a reasonable compromise. There is no ongoing problem. So this is an atrociously disruptive block by an admin with a history of disruptive behavior on one side of political subjects. I think Grundle needs to do a better job of staying on the straight and narrow, but his impressive content contributions stand in stark contrast to the trolls harassers and baiters who haunt his talk page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like a block over PoV. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The block looks reasonable. This is an editor with a history of tendentious editing with respect to political figures, and who is already under a ban on U.S. politics and politicians. Apparently, he has chosen to move that tendentious editing north to Canada. It is also worth noting that his insistence on yet again bringing up his 'seven questions' here is a violation of his extant topic ban. This editor does not, at this time, seem prepared to let go and move on. While an indefinite block may or may not be necessary, a minimum of a few weeks away might do him some good. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue was resolved. It was a content dispute. Drudging up old issues and dragging people who we don't agree with to ANI is insidious and it's one of the most disruptive and bullying tactics employed on Wikipedia. There was no consensus to block. The clear consensus was that the issue was resolved. This is an outrageous block, and it shouldn't be gone along with because people have disagreed with the targeted editor in the past. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I post this diff of my comment to Grundle which explains slightly more my reasoning, and also the synth edit in question. I've also noted it in the BLP log [21] though that's no obstacle to amending or removing the block if there is agreement for that. Rd232 ^talk 20:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The only person who keeps bringing up his 'seven questions' (in violation of his topic ban) is Grundle himself. Perhaps if he weren't so keen to refight old battles and dredge up old fights, then we wouldn't be discussing his block now. Further, your ongoing personal attacks and inflammatory remarks directed at other editors in this discussion are almost certainly not helping to get your point across. I've said my bit. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

So the user is blocked indefinitely for the same thing he was blocked for back in November. Am I allowed to put the {{indefblock}} template on his userpage, or will I simply be reverted by William S. Saturn and be accused of "defacement" by Grundle? It would seem Saturn is accusing the blocking sysop on Grundle's talkpage of blocking Grundle over personal bias. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Grundle has an unblock request pending, so I think the template would be precipitate. Let's hand on for a day or two and see whether a compromise of some sort can be worked out. (On Grundle's page, not here.) PhGustaf (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just removed the indef-block template for the above reason, but don't mean to edit war over it. Let's wait until this is all done before blanking the user page, okay? - Wikidemon (talk) 07:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This use just refuses to get it; the reason why he was indef'ed from political articles is for posting and re-posting the same stupid shit, over and over for months and months on end. And it always boils down to the same things; synthesizing several sources in order to create a particular point of view where none exists, or finding sources to show that it does exist but those sources are not within spitting distance of being reliably sourced. Grundle cannot behave in political articles, thus earning a topic ban. Now the same behavior extends to other areas of the project...where else is there to go but an indef? ChildofMidnight is here to, once again, fan the flames of faux outrage as well, which will not help matters any. Tarc (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to reduce block length

I disagree that there is nowhere else "to go but an indef": Grundle2600 has never been blocked for longer than 48 hours [22]. Additionally, indefinite blocks are categorically problematic: they encourage evasion by eliminating the prospect of a more severe sanction ever being imposed. In consideration of this user's light block history, there's every reason to believe that a longer, but time-limited, block might be effective. Therefore, I suggest reducing Grundle2600's block to one month. Andrea105 (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC) This post was made by a banned user. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I support the indef block, but am somewhat open to the possibility of some other outcome. While the block log does not look that bad, this is an editor who has been sanctioned by ArbCom, topic banned twice by the community, and indef blocked once before (which was then lifted pending a promise to improve apparently). This most recent incident is, in my view, quite egregious (a synth violation on a BLP, what one can only term a "gotcha edit" about someone Grundle apparently wanted to make look bad), and unfortunately it's part of a longstanding pattern (on political articles from which he was eventually banned, Grundle regularly edited in such a SYNTH fashion where one statement made by someone was put in contrast to some action (often misconstrued) as if to say, "look at the hypocrisy"—efforts to explain the problem with that to Grundle led to a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT replies from Grundle).

The only way any sort of change in the indef should even be considered would be for Grundle to acknowledge the problems with his behavior. I'm not talking about a forced apology (that kind of stuff is pointless), I'm talking about an acknowledgment/understanding that the kind of editing evinced at Diane Francis is not okay and absolutely cannot happen again. Even then I'm not sure that it's not more trouble than it's worth to let Grundle come back to editing. Too many people have tried to help this editor stay within community norms to little or no avail. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd support a reduction in length upon submission of a genuine mea culpa. Arguments such as whether it is "worth it" to keep an editor around are problematic, as it's really not too much trouble to indef should he reoffend. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

General thoughts on bans and indef-blocks: While I'm not well-read on this specific case, my general thoughts are that bans and their associated indef-blocks should be reconsidered periodically, upon petition of the banned person, a promise to obey the rules of the wiki, and either an off-wiki demonstration that something changed or some type of short-leash parole for a few months along with a mentor if necessary on-wiki before they are allowed to edit without restrictions. In some cases, such as harassment of a given individual, or COI or POV-editing, long-term restrictions lasting more than a year before review may be needed. In cases where the editor has a habit of editing while drunk or some other episodic disruptions but is otherwise contributing well, other tools may be required. In cases where the person has a previous history of socking, even an old one, they may need a checkuser to be on standby until all editing restrictions are lifted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I see absolutely no reason to expect Grundle2600 to behave any differently if he is unblocked than he has behaved all along. My sense is that we should take 1/100th of the effort spent in trying to coax something valuable and encyclopedic from him, invest it more wisely, and move on. MastCell ^Talk 05:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The logic behind the proposal up above is totally flawed. Rules have no teeth if they are not enforced. Saying that indefinitely blocking someone who has repeatedly been problematic is useless because there are no "more severe sanctions" is backwards, and insinuates that blocks are punitive, not preventative. If we operate under that logic we may as well stop blocking everyone and let Wikipedia become a massive spamhaus and attack site. As blocks are preventative, not punitive, editors who have repeatedly shown to break the same rules over and over and over again, ignoring editing sanctions, etc. should be blocked to prevent them from repeating the violations again. Promising to follow policy and adhering to editing restrictions eliminates the need to prevent someone from violating. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 05:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you were talking about the main proposal to reduce the block on Grundle2600 or if you were talking about my general comment that blocks should be reviewed. There are several good ways to give an editor a second chance. The canonical one is to have him propose substantial improvements to articles or new articles on his user talk page then have an established editor who will take responsibility for the edit review it, and if appropriate, make the edit, repeating until there is a good comfort level that this isn't a snow job or an unstable personality on one of his good days. If the editor is unblocked, he can be kept on a short leash, topic-banned, banned from interacting with certain other editors, forced into involuntary mentorship, or under other editing restrictions long enough to make sure this wasn't a snow job, an unstable personality having a good day, or an editor who occasionally edits while intoxicated. In general, once an editor has been editing responsibly and frequently for over a year there is little use in keeping additional restrictions, unless there is the editing equivalent of an alcoholic, where the restriction is in place for the editor's own good to protect him from himself and the project from collateral damage. See Template:Second chance. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block. Grundle has demonstrated no capacity for change. Crafty (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment While Grundle's actions have indeed been problematic, and I support the imposition of a block, I don't think he has used his last chance. Keep the block in place and let him compose an appeal to Arbcom. If they decide to reduce his block, then keep him around on a short leash. The primary thing I've been trying to get across to Grundle is that we need to see a change in attitude and behaviour from him. If he's capable of making that change, then by all means let him edit. If not, then reimpose the indef. Either way, I think the best course of action right now is for him to take the appeal to Arbcom. Decline the unblock, and go from there. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • ArbCom is a last resort - the community would be expected to attempt to come to a consensus first. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block. Indefinite does not mean permanent, so if he chills out a bit in a couple months, let him come back and request an unblock. Frequently, all that is needed is some time for everyone involved to cool out a bit. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I had to warn Grundle a few days ago for BLP violations on Tiger Woods and the article's talk page. Enigma^msg 19:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block. --John (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The truth will not set you free on Wikipedia

Let's be absolutely 100% clear. Grundle is being blocked indefinitely for noting in the Diane Francis article that "although she has two children, she favors having every country in the world adopting China's one child policy in order to protect the environment."

That's it. That's the edit he made. A true statement, and the only issue was whether it was sourced properly or synthesized. It's since been modified and there was no outstanding issue when he was blocked indefinitely days later. But apparently it's okay to indefinitely block those whose perspectives and editing interests we disagree with, and don't anyone dare point out that this is being pushed by some of the most pernicious and persistent POV pushers on Wikipedia. Drag anyone who doesn't share our viewpoints to ANI repeatedly, label them as disruptive, dredge up abstract accusations about their "history", and hound them off the site.

The complete and utter bullshit arguments that this is over concern about sourcing and BLP is completely disproven by the consistent attacks on article subjects that aren't popular or PC by the very same editors calling for this indefinite block on Grundle. These individuals hold our Neutral Point of View policy in contempt, and use this website for propaganda purposes. The Francis article is a perfect example. It's full of fluff sourced to her own biography and her own writings. But heaven forbid Grundle makes an imperfectly sourced edit noting a discrepancy between her her policy statements and personal choices (something that's been reported widely on if not in the mainstream media).

Grundle must be banned forever by the very Tarcs, William Connolleys, Bigtimepeaces, rd232s and Magnicifcentcleankeepers who have abused this site to push their personal perspectives and to relentlessly go after those with whom they disagree. I've been subject to their harassment and biased enforcement and so have others.

These same admins stand as witness to clear Arbcom violations and say nothing. Yet when it's those they agree with they have no hesitation in assuming bad faith making accusations and going after them with full force and fury. Make no mistake, Grundle is not a perfect editor, but this disgusting hypocrisy and censorship is outrageous. The entire Francis article is full of nonsense and the bits added by Grundle are probably the most notable and well sourced, even if those parts too had problems. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Your treatise is based on a convenient fallacy. "Grundle is being blocked indefinitely for noting in the Diane Francis article that "although she has two children, she favors having every country in the world adopting China's one child policy in order to protect the environment." Nope. Tan | 39 19:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Which is ironic, given CoM's section heading! Ravensfire (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It might be convenient for C of M to list out in full (I assume the above list is not complete) each and every editor guilty of one or more of the following Wikicrimes described above: "pernicious and persistent POV"; "hound[ing]...off the site"; offering "complete and utter bullshit arguments"; "consistent attacks on article subjects that aren't popular or PC"; "hold[ing] our Neutral Point of View policy in contempt"; "abus[ing] this site"; "push[ing] their personal perspectives and to relentlessly go after those with whom they disagree"; "harassment"; "biased enforcement"; "assuming bad faith"; "making accusations and going after them with full force and fury"; "disgusting hypocrisy"; and "[outrageous] censorship". Once there is a full list of all the editors guilty of these dastardly deeds I think it makes sense to proceed to a community discussion about banning the lot of us. Of course there's no need to provide even so much as one diff making the case for such serious accusations, rather we should just take ChildofMidnight's word for it.

Sorry for the snark, it's just that the endless fantasyland accusations from C of M get rather tiresome after the umpteenth time, even if no one pays them any attention. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd appreciate CoM providing diffs to prove his assertion "These same admins stand as witness to clear Arbcom violations and say nothing.". If CoM has proof of this, then this needs to be conveyed to ArbCom. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Further, perhaps CoM would like to create a user subpage with the diffs I refer to, and the list of editors referred to by Bigtimepeace. This could be used as an evidence page for the ArbCom case which I'm sure CoM is considering filing in the near future. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you suppose Arbcom will do about it? All anyone has to do is to set up an "alternate account" (as admin socks are referred to euphemistically) and try adding notable criticism and balance to controversial articles. We are a community and we have to hold ourselves to high standards. Harassment, hounding, and the abuse of admin privledges to advance personal and political biases is totally unacceptable.

Grundle is an excellent editor who has added lots of great articles and content. Occasionally he takes liberties that aren't entirely helpful and these issues can be resolved amicably. If it weren't for the aggressive and abusive tactics employed by many misguided individuals here who use an ends justifies the means approach to advancing their personal preferences and opinions on others there wouldn't be a problem. It's time to stop the censorship and to uphold our core principles and values that notable perspectives should be included appropriately. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a noticeboard for incidents that require administrative action. What action are you looking for an uninvolved admin to take, and upon what evidence would you suggest they base such an action? If you cannot provide specifics on both fronts then I suggest this entire thread should be closed. No admin seems inclined to lift the indef block of Grundle, and it's probably for C of M's own good for this to come to a close lest he head off into Plaxico B. territory. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

We all know by now that these claims made by ChildofMidnight are spurious and disruptive. Usually they are the sort of drive-bys as above, but the last time CoM was up for discussion here, he started a section about me titled "Tarc's relentless antagonism and trolling", which was so thoroughly debunked and discredited that someone apparently deleted the entire sub-thread before archiving, as I cannot see it in archive583, the only place I can find a trace of it is in my last comment there. Tarc (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"A true statement, and the only issue was whether it was sourced properly or synthesized." I think that neatly sums up CoM's complete misreading of the situation and of basic policy. Rd232 ^talk 19:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment There's now yet another unblock request on his talk. Enigma^msg 22:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment CoM, these kind of comments don't help when you've been the subject of several AN/I threads lately. I appreciate your defense of those who are otherwise undefended, but there's a line to be drawn. Perhaps if you focussed on defending those who have been wrongly accused, and stepped back from the personal accusations, the threads in question would cease. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

CoM and Grundle are having an at-length soapboxing session discussion on Grundle's talk page about how unfair and biased Wikipedia admins and BLP patrollers are. Fine by me, but what's the resolution here? Is anyone willing to unblock Grundle? His userpage was tagged with the indef template by Hypicrite and quickly reverted by Wikidemon. I've re-added it since no admins seem willing to unblock and three requests have been declined. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that tag should be added until this thread is closed or archived. Rd232 ^talk 10:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: FWIW, I've further clarified my view of the incident on Grundle's talk page here. Rd232 ^talk 10:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Time to Protect His Talkpage?

Grundle continues making his odd and non-neutral edit suggestions on his talkpage [23]. Given that unblocking seems unlikely, is it not time to revoke his talkpage access? Crafty (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No. I see nothing abusive. If it bugs you, unwatch it and pretend it doesn't exist.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Aww Walt, passive-aggressive is not a good colour on you. ;) It doesn't bug me, I just thought I'd ask. Crafty (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to unblock

Grundle suggested on his talk page that he would like to be unblocked to edit science and pop culture articles. I am proposing here that he be unblocked with the following sanctions:

1. Grundle is to refrain from posting his list of seven questions or referring to them anywhere on Wikipedia.
2. He is topic banned from editing or participating in discussion of any political or politically controversial article, as well as BLPs. This includes articles directly about politics, but also includes politically controversial topics, like climate change.
3. Grundle agrees to take note of and adhere thoroughly to WP:SYN
4. Grundle agrees to disengage from and avoid those he has had disputes with, especially political disputes.
5. Any posting of his seven questions or referring to them, or breaking of his topic ban, or deliberate engagement with those he has had dispues with will result in his indefinite block being immediately reinstated for a period of no less than 4 months.

Yea? Nay? What say you? <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with #4, as it sounds like the "user X shall not interact with user Y" type of restriction that ArbCom loves to hand down. This sort of wiki-restraining order is just ridiculous, as it adds another layer of red tape and hoops to jump though; can one comment on an article that the other has edited, participate in the same XfDs, post in the same AN or AN/I thread, etc... If a user cannot behave themselves while editing alongside someone else, then enforce the policies we have already on civility, personal attacks, and so on. Don't make a meta-level of extra rules. As for the rest, I dunno, do you think this would really work? As Jayron32 put it in the last unblock decline, "I'm not sure how you could turn an article about an animal or science or pop culture into a political battleground, but I am sure you will try hard to do so." Tarc (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That may be, but reblocks, should they be needed, are cheap. (Drama-inducing, but cheap. Can we tack a clause to the end that says "...and in the case of a reblock, the community agrees not to get all riled-up about it"? (Yeah, yeah, I know. If you're throwing stones, please aim at my head--I could use a few hours' nap.))GJC 14:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This edit[24] to Tiger Woods may be notable. Any restriction should include anything vaguely construable as a BLP. The problem is, I think, that Grundle wants to be an investigative reporter rather than an editor, and as long as his motivation for posting is based on "Ah hah!" he's going to get into trouble. PhGustaf (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I have the same feeling, and almost suggested as much on his talk page. I'm sure there's a place for what he wants to do, maybe a blog or a "news" site that accepts submissions from non-staff. Wikipedia isn't the place for journalism, because this isn't a journal. What I thought was telling was how he seemed excited that someone else picked up on his synthesis and reported it on a site other than Wikipedia. A Wikipedia editor who both understood and wanted to follow BLP rules should have been horrified by that result, the last thing we want is for Wikipedia to be the source of information damaging to living persons. -- Atama頭 18:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

My feelings exactly. Perhaps Wikinews would suit better. Rd232 ^talk 18:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I've amended the proposal to include BLPs since that was a major isssue. As for any drama that may ensue if he were to violate the restrictions and be reblocked... well, that is probably unavoidable in this stage of Wikipedia's life. Grunde does a lot of good work, we just need to restrict him from the BLPs and political articles where he may be tempted to engage in investigative reporting. Or maybe everyone should start carrying little yellow swords around [25]. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose If anything, Grundle's behaviour on his talk page suggests that he is simply not suited to editting wikipedia. I laid out a clear outline for writing a successful appeal to Arbcom, and he ignored it and continued to engage in "gotcha" type tactics, attempts to discredit other users, and other disruptive behaviour. He just doesn't seem to get it, and his opinion of what is considered acceptable on Wikipedia is simply wrong. This has been pointed out to him numerous times, and he simply refuses to acknowledge it. Rather he composes argumentative diatribes as to why his edits are appropriate. He doesn't seem able to accept community feedback, and I fear that, were he to be unblocked, we would find ourselves in the same situation in a matter of weeks. I usually support giving editors the benefit of the doubt and second chances, so long as they make a commitment to change the problematic behaviour that got them into the mess in the first place. Grundle doesn't seem willing/able to do so, and for the protection of the project I strongly suggest he remain indeffed. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

User:OutOfTimer and bad faith

While trying to improve the Little Big Adventure‎ article, we have been faced with multiple bad faith accusations of vandalism and even sockpuppetry from User:OutOfTimer after attempts to warn him] and discuss the issue on the talk page it continues and it's getting a little tedious, edit war issues aside. Rehevkor ✉ 16:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I have protected this page for three days due to the edit warring. Rehevkor, it appears you are just as guilty of edit warring as the other editors - you cannot keep reverting simply because you disagree with the edits (or that there's "no consensus"). That said, the reversion due to "suspected sockpuppetry" was also out of line. Bottom line - everyone at this page needs to chill the hell out. Tan | 39 16:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I only reverted 3 times. You can see on the talk page I was trying to bring up discussion on the issue long before I did any reverting, which I only did when bad faith accusations came into the picture. Rehevkor ✉ 16:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say you violated 3RR; I said you were edit warring. I agree that there are "bad faith accusations", but I think the larger issue is the ongoing edit war. It needs to stop - by all involved parties. Tan | 39 16:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Bringing the issue here was my way of washing my hands of the article, I will no longer have any involvement in it. Sorry to have been of any inconvenience. Rehevkor ✉ 16:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to worry about the well-being of this article as there are several editors that consider it a high priority. We will do everything we can to keep it in good shape. OutOfTimer ^{Wanna chat?} 17:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I am deeply sorry for engaging in an edit war that ultimately caused trouble for the Admins. Even though I regret it came down to this, I believe there was a serious reason for my actions. User:Eik Corell is well-known for blind content deletion in various parts of the encyclopedia, which is prominently reflected by his talk page. There are dozens of instances of users complaining about his behaviour. It also seems to me that content deletion is at the core of his "contribution." In addition, neither User:Eik Corell, nor User:Rehevkor have sufficient knowledge of the topic of the article in question. Furthermore, it was not myself that first accused the latter party of sock-puppetry, which in my opinion implies that there were well grounded reasons for such an accusation. However, I do realise that this accusation is most likely far-fetched and want to apologise for it. Last but not least, I want to assure everyone that my only concern is providing accurate and valuable information to the visitors of our encyclopedia and that I have acted in good faith. OutOfTimer ^{Wanna chat?} 17:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It might be sensible to consider locking Little Big Adventure 2 as well. User:Eik Corell engaged in content deletion in that article, too. The only difference is that I was not as determined to stop him and he only bullied other editors. I have to admit that having this edit war in dispute resolution is a shame. There are very serious problems discussed here (legal threats, for example), whereas we have a problem with a user that deletes content from a game-related article. Just sad. OutOfTimer ^{Wanna chat?} 17:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Eik's Talk page looks to me like only edit warriors keep complaining about his edits there. Have you discussed his edits on the article's Talk page and/or followed the procedures at WP:DR, or are you merely happy to keep edit warring to get your version of things into the article in question? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Admins watching this may wish to note that OutofTimer is making personal attacks against those he had this issue with at [26], along with some against myself. Similarly the editor who communicated with User:OBrasilo, is apparently helping this "friend" in the dispute above and also engaging in personal attacks (referring to myself, the Erik Corell mentioned here, and two others as "idiots").[27] Whether there was edit warring going on or not, it seems clear that there is more to the issue here and OutOfTimer seems to be far from acting in "good faith" as he claims, considering his remarks about said editor and others, and the calls for assistance passing between two of these involved parties. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I have the right to talk whatever I want in my private conversations with other people. That should be none of your concern. I am a world-class expert on Little Big Adventure, therefore (1) assuming that I act in bad faith towards my favourite game is ridiculous and (2) I will not engage in a discussion with you until you prove to me that you completed this game at least once, which would make you a little more than a n00b in this field. OutOfTimer ^{Wanna chat?} 22:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

1 - conversations on Wikipedia are not private, and no, you don't get to insult other editors on your talk page either (nor here in calling someone a n00b). 2 - thanks for proving the point of the complaints here, and go read WP:OWN. Declaring that no one can discuss an article unless they have played the game is not only a strong display of ownership, but also completely against Wikipedia's actual nature and guidelines. Thanks -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a lie. I did not insult you and only mentioned that you and I met before, which you are well aware of. I'm a man of highest intellectual capacity and do not use direct insults. When I first came here I had great hopes. However, you and your pals crashed them. I don't have the time and energy to be part of a community that does not respect my knowledge and skills. Depending on the field, they may be proven by rankings, certificates, dyplomas and so on and so forth. Here, however, I'm forced to defend myself against teenagers who have no idea what they're talking about. You'd be ridiculed in any serious community, because nowhere else are people with no expertise allowed to make any judgements. Maybe you have no expertise in anything and that's why you waste your life engaging in all this. Let me tell you a little story. Not so long ago I talked to two famous Supreme Commander players and commented on a Replay we watched. One of them asked me "What is your ranking?" and I answered "I'm World Top 1000." Then the other guy said "then shut the hell up, n00b, and be thankful that we give you the chance to listen to us and learn." So I did. When you decide you need somebody with actual knowledge to write articles in your encyclopedia, you know where to find me. I'll be glad to write something about FullMetal Alchemist, Little Big Adventure or anything else you fancy. For now, however, I'm tired of disrespect I get from people like you. Feel free to edit your Little Big Adventure article and have a good life. Oh yes, and don't foget to stay here forever because someone may decide to change it someday. I hope you'll still be around to defend your decisions against their incompetency. Otherwise you may end up just like me. Wikipedia, on the other hand, may end up in the hands of a huge corporation to be used as a marketing tool. OutOfTimer ^{Wanna chat?} 22:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Collectonian: Declaring that no one can discuss an article unless they have played the game is not only a strong display of ownership, but also completely against Wikipedia's actual nature and guidelines. - Yeah, let people who have no idea what they're talking about discuss these issues. LOL OutOfTimer ^{Wanna chat?} 23:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, because telling people they are a "n00b" is not an insult, and your whole response here isn't? Perhaps you might try reviewing WP:CIVIL, which others have pointed you to several times already. It is a bit amusing to have a self-declared undergrad student claiming he is having to defend himself against "teenagers", when you appear to be the youngest person in the conversation (of those who have actually declared their general age). Your playing the game does not somehow make you an expert, it does not give you "authority" over the article nor the discussion, and it does not give you the right to speak to others in a false superior manner or declare them incompetent to work on the article. Go write a bunch of video game books, get published, speak at conventions, etc, then you may at least make the argument that you are a expert being ignored. Otherwise, you are no more an expert than any other video gamer, and on Wikipedia your "expertise" is irrelevant. Again, no, you do not have to play the game to be able to work on article about it or discuss any article, particular with regard to the seeming issue here of what is and is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I have asked OutOfTimer repeatedly, in the nicest ways possible to: Share his specific complaints, remain civil, not call my edits "vandalism", read the policies I link to. Thus far, no dice on any of them. I deal with these types of accusations often because fans don't understand the policies I edit by -- WP:GAMECRUFT, WP:GAMEGUIDE, and WP:OR --, and that's why this keeps continuing - Vandal! Outsider! Meanypants! It doesn't what I tell them, it doesn't matter if I explain the policies and how they relate, they want their gamecruft and gameguide stuff - And I have no right to edit it because I haven't played the game. I have linked OutOfTimer to these policies several times, and I am frankly tired of this. I am however impressed how quickly he composed himself once this was taken to ANI. If only he could do that in his normal edits and discussions. Eik Corell (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

OutOfTimer, I will give you this advice, which I suggest you remember: this is an encyclopedia. To keep the site a functioning encyclopedia, we have policies. Read the policies listed above. Just because I'm the lord of all penguins doesn't mean I am the only one qualified to edit the penguin article. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 23:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

IMPORTANT MESSAGE: I promise not to engage in the disruptive behaviour that was kindly pointed out to me by several users both above and on my talk page. I neither have the time, nor do I have the will to continue this argument or any other future argument of this sort for that matter. I accept User:Collectonian's interpretation of recent events. I will not edit Little Big Adventure anymore (unless a minor correction is needed). I will also do my best to avoid any future confrontations with other users and minimise the risk of producing edits that may not be considered valuable by the community. I'd like to underline the fact that my intentions were always positive and I hope Wikipedia will survive the weight of all its policies. I will also stop posting my personal remarks on Wikipedia as they're either ignored or making others angry. I hope this concludes the discussion. I'm sorry for all the trouble that I might've caused. Thank you. OutOfTimer ^{Wanna chat?} 23:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Collectonian, how nice of you to be so much against insults and inappropriate behavior, when I attmepted to civilly talk about you on your Talk page about Tokyo Mew Mew international adaptations, and you kept replying with excuses, and when you were finally left with no proper excuses to use, you simply deleted the conversation. You know, you won't solve disagreements by censorship. Also, you need to teach yourself a lesson as well - while expertise doesn't give you ultimate authority on an article, bringing one to FA status doesn't either, yet, you used that as reason, why you're more qualified to edit the Tokyo Mew Mew articles, than I am. Instead of elitistically marking any disagreements with how FA-status articles are written, as insults, and deleting them in an attempt to censor the talk pages, you should be able to discuss them.

And talk about bad faith, and assuming good faith - when I once made the article about plagiarism by Green Day, which was well-sourced, to several YouTube video's, and press pages, it got speedily deleted as a personal attack, even though it could have just been modified to be more formal, and less accusatory. Why didn't people assume good faith there? After all, my intention with the article wasn't to attack Green Day, but to point out, how a lot of their songs sound at least similar to other people's song, which in my humble opinion, is worth noting. I notice a lot, how the Italian Wikipedia has no problems mentioning that the song has plagiarism issues, or stuff like that, whereas Wikipedia avoids it even on the cases, where such was argued in court.
Also, I do apologize for my insults posted in my talk page, I shouldn't have done that. But fact still stands, that I currently have problems with you, Eik Corell, Rehevkor, SchmuckyTheCat, and Ned Scott.
To Lord of all penguins, yes, we have policies, but one would expect people to have some brains, and attempt to change policies, when needed, since the current policies are creating a lot of problems. Just look at the article on danah boyd where users keep saying the article can't use the lowercase spelling on her name (which, BTW, is the one preferred by her, AND her legal name at that), just because "reliable sources" don't use it. This "verifiability, not truth" approach won't help Wikipedia in the long run, since with such an approach, all Wikipedia will ever be, is a cherry-picked collection of knowledge, that was published by major press/TV/sites, mostly ones from the Anglosphere, and as such, only barely useful, and mostly only useful to the people from the Anglosphere.
Whenever I search Wikipedia on legal matters, I nearly universally only find US law stuff, which I couldn't care less, since I'm not in the US. When I search about TV stuff, I get US and UK (and Canada) stuff, but no other stuff, except if I specifically list the country's name in the search (the main articles don't even link to those per country articles, LOL). Maybe you people should realize, that the whole world can access, and does access, Wikipedia, and English is an international language, so the vast majority of the users of the English Wikipedia are from outside the Anglosphere. So making the English Wikipedia so Anglosphere-centric is, IMO, a bad idea.
And about Eik Corell, and Rehevkor - they need to explain to me, why can the article on the japanese Visual Novel games have detailed lists of all their versions, whereas the articles on Western games can't. And Collectonian should explain to me, why is an Non-English versions of The Simpsons article OK, but a Non-English adaptations of Tokyo Mew Mew not. - OBrasilo (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The list of people you mentioned is gonna grow with the attitude you've taken. As for what might seem like double-standards, the WP:OTHERSTUFF guideline might be of help here. It deals specifically with the kind of comparative articles you mentioned, too. Now, we've gone far off topic here, how about leaving it here. Eik Corell (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

OBrasilo has been doing off-site canvassing[28] to force his own edits through. Eik Corell (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Likely User:Bravedog/User:Dalejenkins sock

• Bravedog (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Dalejenkins (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• GaGaOohLaLa (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Windhover75 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

User:Windhover75 is a newly registered account acting in the same unconstructive manner as the accounts recently confirmed per checkuser and blocked at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dalejenkins/Archive, specifically the anti-Article Rescue Squadron commentary and use of WP:JNN style of non-arguments. The account's very first edit was to antagonize ARS member User:Dream Focus at ANI: [29] and all subsequent edits have been to AfDs. I therefore strong suspect that this account is evading a block. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

SPI case reopened. NW (Talk) 23:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, upon further research, I strongly suspect it is someone else rather than Bravedog/Dalejenkins. Compare Windhover75's "whatever the ARS block vote thinks" with User:Verbal's "the ARS block vote". It is clearly the same person or is an impersonation. How do I open an SPI report on this user instead? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I see that a checkuser has confirmed my suspicions and that action has been taken. Therefore, this request can be marked as resolved. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, done at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Verbal. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Note - the below was in response to a prior version of the above comment, which the below editor reverted.[30]

Checkuser shows this is Dalejenkins, and not Verbal. Skinwalker (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to a retraction of the gross unsupported and untrue accusations of improper behaviour made by A Nobody at the SPI report. I am an active member of the ARS. Verbal chat 20:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't hold your breath. Are you the record holder for frivolous sockpuppet allegations against you? Fences&Windows 22:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

According to Frei Hans (remember him?), I'm a sock of Verbal's too :)Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Haven't we all! Coming soon - six degrees of Verbal!   pablo_hablo. 00:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Inner Mongolia People's Publishing House

I'm trying to create a redirect of Öbür mongγul-un arad-un keblel-ün qoriy-a to Inner Mongolia People's Publishing House. But apparently it's on the blacklist --- any reason why? Thanks, cab (talk) 04:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, and I have confirmed it is indeed blacklisted. I suggest that might be a highly unlikely search term on the english wikipedia and likely to be deleted at RfD, but I can create it for you if you want. Viridae^Talk 05:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you go ahead and create it then? They're listed by the Mongolian name in a number of English-language bibliographies both on and off Wikipedia, so at least to me it looks like a fairly useful {{R from alternative language}}. Thanks, cab (talk) 05:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It's hitting the blacklist entries for mixed Latin and Greek characters. It looks like the 'γ' is the character in question: are you sure you're using the correct character, and not a Greek-script lookalike? --Carnildo (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Impartial editor needed to conclude RfC at Talk:French people

If someone has a few minutes to review the discussion at this RfC with a view to determining consensus (if any), I'd appreciate it. It was closed by the initiator after the other participants stopped replying, and I'm not sure the stated outcome was entirely reflective of the discussion. Mahalo,  Skomorokh  23:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

User:JHunterJ violating WP policies.

Resolved

 – JHunterJ can't breach policy he writes himself. (Duh, lol)

Suspect this resolution will need replacement due to WP:COI of resolver, but who could resist a Christmastime swipe at the "Navigation-priority disambiguation cabal." Humor license invoked. Holiday season pardon invoked. Too much beer license invooked. That ought to cover it. Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 04:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

User:JHunterJ is violating WP policies. There is a WP:RM Calbuco, Los Lagos -> Calbuco pending from 11 Dec. But he is moving anyway. There is Calbuco (disambiguation) where he deletes valid content. He deletes pages claiming the deletion falls under G6, but G6 says "Uncontroversial maintenance", the deletion is not uncontrovertial. He has been warned, his reply shows that he had no valid reason to delete content and also that he has no complete understanding of the policies he cites. This misunderstandings in his head are showing again in another reply by him. Such admin behavior drives away editors!!! Please can some admin review whether Calbuco Island was deleted and by whom? I think I created that page in the last 48h hours but can see no evidence. TrueColour (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Calbuco Island has never been an article on the English Wikipedia. You apparently did not create it; it has not been deleted.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I see nothing wrong here. You could try to work with him rather than taking an adversarial stance from the first contact you make on his talk page. This appears to be a content dispute between the two of you, and if you tried to work it out together, I don't think there's much to do here. You should also notify him of this discussion. --Jayron32 22:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Calbuco Island note. Still his other policy violations apply. After I warned him he went on to violate G6 etc. Are you here for proper process or are you just defending a fellow admin??? I notified him of the WP:ANI thread, took a little longer since I included some extra info. TrueColour (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick statement to confirm that I am aware of this AN/I. I am happy to see that the rest appears to be clear. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• It appears this was the first attempt at discussing this (let me know if I'm wrong). I wonder if this place would work better if MediaWiki was tweaked to disallow the phrase "warning", or in particular "formal warning", to appear on user talk pages. A conversation that begins with a "formal warning" is unlikely to evolve into a productive discussion without lots of wasted time, energy, and bad karma. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Now he also closed the WP:RM. What is this? The private WP of some admins? He was acting in violation so I had to warn him to stop this! The bad karma comes from admins like JHunterJ. Who violated the policies in the first place? Me or him? Who has no complete understanding of WP:MOSDAB and is making up own conditions for MOS:DABRL and even after being asked for clarification defending this own creations. This is not official WP policy: Red links are used on disambiguation pages when (a) the red link is also used in a Wikipedia article and (b) the red link entry on the disambiguation page includes a blue link to a Wikipedia article that discusses the ambiguous topic. This is private policy of him and maybe some other editors. TrueColour (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • TrueColour, your consistant refusal to assume good faith in other users is disheartening, and is likely to be a self-fulfilling delusion here as people begin to become stretched thin by your adversarial attitude. Others (and myself) have already told you that if you tried to work with, rather than against, JHunterJ, and took a tone of voice which was collegial and cooperative, you would get much farther in resolving this issue. From the first, you have basically set yourself up as an opponent rather than a collaborator, and such a stance makes it hard for any of us to help you. --Jayron32 23:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry, this is nonsense. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Calbuco_(disambiguation)&diff=331922488&oldid=331908855 - JHunterJ is just sticking to delete valid material. Only because he is an admin he cannot override rules and invent his own. TrueColour (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You do not appear to be hearing what Jayron32 is saying; why not discuss your concerns with JHunterJ in a manner which indicates you are willing to work toward an agreed solution? Coming here and complaining that JHJ is abusing his admin bit when it appears that this is simply a content dispute with someone with a great deal of experience of editing Wikipedia is not going to get any traction. You can choose to either attempt the collaborative editing model that forms the core of Wikipedia editing, or you can simply assume that as Jayron32 and I are also both admins we are simply ganging up on you... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem not to care about his editing. That he is "Experienced" - what is the value? He makes up his own rules. Do you call "Collaborative editing" when he makes up his own rules out of his mind and enforces them? Is it collaborative if he deletes valid references from a dab page? Is it collaborative to move a page while there is a WP:RM pending? This behavior is very bad. And yours too. It seems here are a lot of people that have the same attitude as him. You are making Wikipedia bad looking if admins do what they want even if it is against policies and against the very core of WP: create a good encyclopedia. TrueColour (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

No one has displayed any "attitude" here. You came here seeking a solution to your problem. We have given you a solution. Here's how to fix your problem, in three easy steps:

1. Understand that JHunterJ is not an enemy or opponent
2. Start a civil discussion with him about the issue
3. Work with him towards building a consensus solution

Your approach to this point has consisted of: 1) see something I don't agree with 2) demand that the person doing it gets punished. That approach is unlikely to yield positive results for you. Why not at least try the plan we have laid out for you? --Jayron32 15:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• JHunterJ deleting several blue links. And the reference to the 2nd Calbuco Department! TrueColour (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

  And restored the new blue links from your 3RR violation nearly an hour before you complained about the deletion here. [31] -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

TrueColor blocked for 31 hours pursuant to JHunterJ's WP:ANEW report -- and yes, I did read through this first. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

A small concern

Resolved

 – A malformed external link, that, even if it was correctly formed, is permitted (almost encouraged) by Wikipedia:SIG#External links. –xeno^talk 14:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at User:Heterodyne's user page. Although he didn't link it correctly, a bit of self advertising, me thinks. I won't touch it, but an admin might want to deal with it. Who knows?--Jojhutton (talk) 13:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(1) Have you notified the user of this discussion here as instructed at the top of this page? (the answer is no). (2) Have you perhaps asked the user if he would consider removing it? (the answer is also a redlinked User talk:Heterodyne). IMO, its well within the bounds of acceptable userpage content especially since it isn't an active link and isn't "HI PLEASE VISIT MY FABULOUS SITE". Cheers. Syrthiss (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Syrthiss. We're open minded here. If he had said "I work for [IBM.comm]. Buy our fabulous computers." I don't think anyone would have given it a second thought.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Um... What exactly is the problem with identifying as Canadian? LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with being Canadian ... it's the Torontonian part that's offensive ;-P (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Man's entitled to exhibit his shortcomings.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Crikey, I hope you're not recommending full-frontal nudity! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That certainly wouldn't be self-promotion. Toronto's cold this time of year. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I was referring to his nationality, wasn't that clear? (belated cred to David Niven, btw).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow.... And this is *exactly* why I never bother contributing, and why Wikipedia has such a hard time being taken seriously as a legitimate source of information... It's when wikinerds are more concerned with a single link in one's personal page (not an linked to an article, mind you... a link in someone's un-promoted, orphaned not-linked-to-anything-else-and-not-touched-since-it-was-created-several-years-ago Wikipedia Userpage featuring a link to a non-commercial, advertisement and revenue free hobby website) than actually addressing issues that matter to Wikipedia. Absolutely shameful, and thank you for everybody who stuck up for me in this sordid affair o_0 ... Wow. just..... wow.... --Heterodyne (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, I am ashamed to be from Toronto, which is why I live in Calgary these days :P --Heterodyne (talk) 02:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

CIA conspiracy

It's that time of year again.

I don't know how we deal with conspiracy theorists, but 89.164.16.105 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is trying to use his conspiracy beliefs to win his way in a dispute. This user (on a Croatian ISP) has edited under 89.164.104.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 89.164.22.83 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 89.164.39.114 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 89.164.0.22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 89.164.10.135 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 89.164.115.136 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), etc. (it seems this ISP is 89.164.0.0/16 and any edit by an IP in the range to pages in Category:Gackt songs or Category:Gackt albums is him). He has been removing external links and references to websites that he does not believe should belong (Allmusic reviews, Japanese ranking websites [sorta like the Billboard], etc.) and has been constantly referring to the CIA in his comments to me and MS (talk · contribs).

How should this be dealt with?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I just left a warning on the IP currently in use. I don't care what their conspiracy theory is, but if they're edit warring with you and others and removing information then it's approaching vandalism, and definitely not OK.

If they won't stop, I recommend blocking the current IP, and if they reset IPs and keep going then semiprotect articles until they will discuss reasonably and work in a collaborative manner.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, PMDrive1061 blocked the IP for a month. Doesn't stop him from coming back tomorrow to edit the pages again.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Let us know if he returns, we semiprotect everything they're touching until they get the point and stop doing that... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That would require semiprotecting every single page about a Gackt album and single.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

We have had to do worse in the past. There's only 20-30 articles in there, from what I saw earlier... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

35 articles on individual songs, 21 articles on albums.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat by SPA

Let's try this again, as my previous attempt went nowhere. I'm guessing a case of TLDR...

An SPA editor, User:Debora999, recently reverted an edit with a summary of "Reverted to revision 307690212 by Uwishiwazjohng; improperly cited; legal history section libelous."

Could an admin please explain NLT and NPLT to this editor? Thanks, Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I see this edit as deleting an overly criticizing section, not as a legal threat. There was literally a section called "legal history" that was removed. Calling something libelous isn't a threat. Tan | 39 00:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

When is an accusation of libel not a legal threat?

WP:NPLT says editors should "refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion," and uses "libel" as its primary example of what's understood as a legal threat. WP:NLT says "Legal threats should be reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or an administrator."

I'm not asking for a block per se, just for an admin to discuss this policy with the editor in question. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The user did not imply that they were going to take legal action. Libelous material is routinely removed on sight as per policy. Triplestop x3 01:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The edit summary just says that s/he thinks the content is "libelous"; not that s/he is threatening to take legal action over something perceived to be libelous. I agree that you overlooked it a little and that it's probably not a legal threat. MuZemike 01:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Was the information sourced appropriately with neutrality in mind? Can it be rewritten with the proper sourcing? A SPA removing anything possibly negative-sounding in a BLP deserves some extra scrutiny, for fairly obvious reasons. I get the feeling it's not going to be all that awful and it's going to look like a major WP:OWN-looking issue. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 03:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The entire article has lousy sourcing, primarily due to ① novice/SPA editors who think WP:COI means only those with a favorable opinion of the subject can edit the article & WP:BLP means any less than glowing text (no matter how well-sourced) must be removed, and ② the inability to find an admin who actually wants to take on cleaning up this dog of an article. Yes, it has to be an admin; I've gotten the "You're not an admin, so your policy links don't mean squat" enough times, tyvm.

Everything in the legal history section (as seen here) was sourced. A good-sized chunk of it, though, was sourced only to San Francisco County Superior Court rulings (found here). I don't see how a court ruling can be considered libelous, myself, so I saw the edit summary as an attempt to scare off a new editor, User:Devsdough.

I honestly don't think that there's a content conflict here; or at least I don't have one. The legal history section was previously removed as failing WP:PRIMARY, which I've been fine with in the hope that other sections without sources or with primary-only sources could similarly be trimmed. No joy there, though. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

IP harassment towards another editor

An IP range has been harassing User:Wjemather since the 4th of December posting personal information on the userpage and his talk page, all of which requires oversight. Because of this, both pages got protected but the range has found his subpages listed on his userpage like this one and this one. I was able to locate the range, it's 65.92.124.0/22 and it's been blocked before because it appears that a banned user User:ScienceGolfFanatic is using this range but the newest IP 65.92.124.252 self proclaimed himself as User:Editor XXV. I don't know if it's one or the other but I would like to find out if this IP range can be reblocked again? Momo san ^Gespräch 07:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Copied from Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests, probably belongs here

This was posted @ Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Warn or Ban Suggestion

Hi,

This person, who has the user name: Puppyph and is also using the IP: 124.106.168.42 is trying vandalize SkyCable and Global Destiny Cable's Wiki Pages and is also acting up like a Wikipedia Policy police.

He thinks that the sub-article, Future channels is considered as a vandal when in fact the sub-article itself already has a disclaimer.

Is there a way you can ban this person or warn him?

Thanks in advance. --202.128.48.224 (talk) 13:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Cableguy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.128.48.224 (talk) 11:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

(end of copy)

It seems like both parties in the dispute are mudslinging ([32], [33]), socking or threatening to sock Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

(users have been informed [34], [35])

User:InkHeart

I started a sockpuppet investigation for User:66.199.237.22 and User:72.11.138.103, but since the anon has begun removing my comments from an admin's talk page, I thought it would be best to report it here before she can become more disruptive. Anyways, I believe these are sockpuppets of the blocked user InkHeart. She has been blocked indefinitely for creating sockpuppets. These recent ones have pretty much only edited stuff that Inkheart had, and is following the same MO of removing improvement templates and removing comments about her from talk pages. When I reverted the removal of one of the templates, she told me to "f*** off!". Ωphois 12:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

And after I posted this, the anon attempted to remove the report. Ωphois 12:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Started Vandalism-warnings templates @ level 2. All files/targets on my watchlist. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 1 week for disruptive editing (The IP that is) - no comment on the relation between InkHeart and the IP. Something to note however is that the IP has previously been blocked as a sock of Garydubh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - not sure is that helps. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

User switched to 72.11.138.103 Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

User switched to 72.11.138.117 Ωphois 12:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This edit suggests that the anon is a meatpuppet of InkHeart. Ωphois 13:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Extremely fast, too :P... reported to AVI Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the latest sock/meatpuppet and semi-protected File:Gourmet(SBS) Poster.jpg, File:Hero(MBC) Cast.jpg and My Girl (2005 TV series) for a few days. (File:InvincibleLeePyungKang Poster.jpg, too.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Concerns over expected FFD vote-counting

In the last days, I've been doing some image patrolling in contemporary History articles. For instance, I've spotted a lot of problematic images in articles about the history of Puerto Rico, and later I moved to contemporary Greek history.

Just liked to express my concerns that the admin willing to close the FFDs discussions for December 11 will have to master some excellence in weighting popular vote, policy knowledge and our core-value commitement.

The specific problem in these recent history articles (aside from the usual widespread lack of knowledge about WP:NFCC) is the belief that if a picture was taken during a notable event, we should use it regardless of copyright status or how much the picture is necessary for understanding the notable event being discussed. --Damiens.rf 17:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats by User:AP1929

Resolved

I shan't write-up an essay here on the behavior of User:AP1929, which is more-or-less self evident. What I'm primarily interested is his newest "rhetorical tactic". He has apparently decided to get rid of me quickly by searching out some statement he or his affiliates can sue me for. I'll be brief, here's the post, and here's the attempt to conceal it. The user has been promptly warned for the blatant threat, but knowing him, what followed is merely his "standard issue" attempt to avoid action after yet another report. His threats are obviously to be taken dead seriously at all times.

I would also like to add that the post which gave User:AP1929 the excuse was indeed inappropriate, but also that it was a terrible joke on my part taken partially out of context. I called an author a "Nazi fuck" after another user mentioned his KKK affiliations, his apparent characterization of non-Caucasians as "non-human" and such. I am aware of my mistake and can only sincerely apologize for my blatant lack of taste, and I'll add, my sporadic lack of self-control. I have apologized to User:AP1929 if my choice of words was offensive to him.
My error of judgment, however, should not be an excuse to sidetrack the topic of this post. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, what WP:NLT seeks is the withdrawal of the legal threats, that has been done. I trust you have notified AP1929 of your starting the thread?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have, of course. [36] No such withdrawal has been made, the user merely apologizes to User:ShadowRangerRIT for inconveniencing him. I must admit I am highly skeptical that the User intends at all to sincerely withdraw his threat, due to the intense animosity he claims to feel towards me for my political position on a number of Yugoslav history issues. I hold that he shall no doubt try to inflict some form of harm to me for not sharing his political viewpoint. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

AP1929 said "Not a problem" when asked to withdraw their "quasi-legal threat" and removed their comment. That looks like withdrawing it to me. Until they repeat a legal threat, there's not an ongoing issue as far as WP:NLT is concerned. Fences&Windows 02:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

All right, thought I'd check it with you guys here and I did. Thanks for your time. One day I'll just get used to these threats... :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

And those you are engaging with may get used to "Nazi fuck". I will tell you that if I had seen it at the time (I avoid Balkan articles, personally), you'd have been blocked instanter.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Wow, I feel dumb for not digging far originally. This is a personal squabble that's gone on for a full year with an ANI a few weeks ago. First trouble I can see is here, and apparently nothing has changed. I do get a massive vibe of WP:OWN, and there are a number of persons sitting about the talk pages of both users that I recall in previous ANIs that some editors in this "group" have some... underhanded tactics. Honestly, the version that was reverted by AP1929 was appropriate sourced, and to me it appears the user is striking back out of personal anger [37] versus any use of objective terms or Wikipedia policy. imo the lead cited to Britannica is correct per Wikipedia standards and anything on top is a POV and an issue of personal morals... not necessarily for ANI, and . ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

btw, we're allowed to re-write other's posts? [38] ...? Instances of immediate concern on a BLP issue are one of the things rollback was tailored to since it's practically instantaneous. I didn't think we were allowed to ever to do such edits other's posts. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I will admit to bending the rules by rewriting a portion of the post. I didn't notice it when it was first posted, so my options were:

1. Leave it intact (and sending a request to DIREKTOR to fix it, but given the legal threat related issues, there was some justification for haste)
2. Remove it (making the thread confusing, as there would be replies to a non-existent parent)
3. Rewrite it in a minimalist way such that the relevant, BLP violating parts of the post were removed, while the information remained the same.

While I recognize that refactoring another's talk page comments is generally verboten, the alternatives were similarly bad. I figured that in this case, WP:IAR applied. I left a comprehensive edit summary, and did my best to avoid putting any words in DIREKTOR's mouth. He keeps a close eye on that page, so presumably he would be notice and object should I have misrepresented him in any way. Yes, I feel a little icky about it, but at least he replied, indicating approval for the change. Given this is the first time I've *ever* cited WP:IAR, I would hope people would be understanding. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 04:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries, really. Far odder things happened in even my limited experience that needed a quick instant decision, especially on a complicated topic. For the kind of "shoot first, ask questions later" approach, I pick whatever version in the article history looks "stable" before any recent of conflict, then run the total comparison on the diffs in the middle to see what ended up "okay" to add or remove and manually do it if there's no intermediate version that looked safe. That's my IAR way of screaming in panic, and I can see how it'd look like total hijacking in some cases. I'd never wish any wrong upon an intervening editor if something gets bent at the sides a bit. What's the undo feature policy page say? It's okay to make mistakes in undos and revert edits because you can undo them? I'll extend that to AGF, since by definition no harm is wished to be done :) ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

My reverts had a purpose and I would highly appreciate other moderators to take a look at the talk page, to view NDH related articles as well as articles concerning Josip Broz Tito and his communist totalitarian regime. User:DIREKTOR is surely displaying WP:OWN as well as making constant insulting remarks to various users. Thank you for your time and patience. AP1929 (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

What is going on with the tagging of edits in the Donal Murray article history?

I added sourced information to the article about Donal Murray and the sex abuse scandal: "and described his actions - or lack of - as "inexcusable". (The reference was given as http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8417507.stm "Irish bishop Donal Murray resigns over abuse report") and see on the history section that next to my edit is "(Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism)". What is going on here? Who has tagged my edit? More importantly - why? It is a perfectly good edit, cited to the BBC website article. Are edits that are critical of Murray being tagged thus? Is it an attempt to stifle valid editing? I resent the tagging and want it removed. 81.156.126.212 (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That's tagged automatically by the software, I think because of the words 'sexual abuse' in there. It's just to highlight that the edit might be a WP:BLP issue. There's no stifling of editing going on, the edits stand. It's just a feature to help combat disruptive editing, which this certainly doesn't appear to be. GedUK  16:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I see tags like that all the time that aren't relevant. If the tag isn't really true, then whoever reviews the edit (if anyone does) will see that. Don't take it as an automatic indictment of what you did, your edit can stand on its own merits. -- Atama頭 19:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Martial arts styles

I see these show up in the recent changes IRC channel every so often (because almost every time they have the string "ryu" in their name which notifies me of their existance). Articles like Shinjuken ryu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Shin Shinkage Ichiden Ryu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Fukui Hyoemon Yoshihira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and users like Tenswords (talk · contribs) and Bushikan (talk · contribs) show up all the time but they are never caught. We need a concerted effort to expunge all these mom and pop martial arts styles from Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I for one distrust anything with "ryu" in its name. (Just kidding.) How would we go about doing something like this? And I agree that there seems to be a disproportionate number of non-notable martial arts-related articles, especially on "styles". I'm a former martial artist, and I know how passionate and even evangelistic some martial artists can be about their chosen art and how they'd want to "spread the word" on Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 21:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

For example, go through templates like Template:Navbox koryu and see if there are any pages that have it transcluded but are not in the listings.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Stockholm

Resolved

 – sockfarm confirmed by checkuser, blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's going on in the Stockholm article, but White Nights in Stockholm (talk · contribs) was reverted as a sock of Historian19 (talk · contribs) by Marek69 (talk · contribs). WNiS later reverted Marek69s edit. I don't know anything about the sockmaster so I'm bringing this up here for review. I will inform WNiS of the thread. Mjroots (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know one way or another if this is Historian19, but Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historian19 may be informative. He's known for maintaining large sockfarms, so if this is him, then someone should likely file a new SPI report to root out more socks, even if we decide this is WP:DUCK enough to block... --Jayron32 21:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

SPI case reopened and checkuser requested. NW (Talk) 21:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Requesting temporary block of bot

Hi. I brought up an issue here regarding an undesirable consequence of User:BOTijo's edits. The short of the issue is that some of the bot's edits require administrator intervention to reverse. The bot's operator has not responded in the nine days since I notified him/her of the issue, and does not appear to have visited Wikipedia for the last 12 days: [39]. I'd like to request temporary blocking of User:BOTijo until these concerns can be addressed.--Father Goose (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried to see if they are active on the Spanish Wikipedia? I note that the bot owner is only intermittently active on en-WP, so it does not appear to be an unusual absence. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, no, I didn't realize that this is not the user's primary wiki. Nonetheless it would be reasonable for someone running a bot on a wiki to check in on that wiki periodically, or at least give instructions on where they can be reached more expediently. But that's a matter I'll have to take up with Emijrp.--Father Goose (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I blocked the bot per Father Goose's concerns, and that a bot operator needs to maintain control and supervision of the bot. Once concerns are addressed/fixed/alleviated, bot can be unblocked... Tan | 39 00:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The bot operator has responded, and disabled the bot. Therefore I am requesting that the block be lifted.--Father Goose (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done –xeno^talk 00:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Harassment by admin

Resolved

 – ArbCom is working on it, nothing else to do here. Ucucha 22:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Cremepuff222 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Cremepuff222, who is supposed to be an admin and set an example, has been harassing me on my talkpage for several days now [40] [41] [42] I warned him/her to stop here and got this helpful response. One minute later, an IP address made this edit to my talkpage: interestingly, the IP address belongs to Cremepuff, as evidenced on its block-log [43] It has "vandalised" Cremepuff's talkpage several times (equally, Cremepuff has blocked him/herself several times, with stupid comments) and is clearly being used inappropriately. I'll inform them about this thread; can someone please tell them to stop? It's very, very immature to keep harassing me like this, and doing it while logged out is not behaviour expected of an admin. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 07:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Cremepuff222's behaviour here is totally inappropriate. I have no idea what he/she is trying to accomplish, but it should stop. Steve Smith (talk) 07:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Without seeing any context for the random rubbish on TreasuryTag's talk I agree - looks totally stupid. I note that Cremepuff has currently blocked themselves for 31 hours. Normally a bad idea, but maybe for once a good idea (unless he/she unblocks themselves). The IP edit was exceptionally poor form. I hope that a good explanation - and apology - will be forthcoming upon Cremepuff's return. Pedro :  Chat  07:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC) I'm going to AGF here. Is it possible that a child or young adolescent has gained access to Cremepuff's computer? This is just too weird. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Either the account has been compromised, he's gone nuts, or he's decided to go out in a blaze of stupidity. If this isn't resolved soon after the block is expired/lifted we should ask a steward for an emergency desysop. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC) The more I look at this, the loonier it is. At the risk of opening the WP:BEANS, this account also has access to AWB. Between that and the admin tools, the possibility that the account is compromised or that Cremepuff has lost his marbles is troubling to say the least. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Yes, something does not read right here. The trolling on TT's talk took place over 3 days and they were his only edits during that time. This is odd too as is this. However this looks fine. If the account was compromised I'd have thought we'd have seen something more severe given the time period available. If Cremepuff is going out in a "blaze of stupidity", the blaze is more of a match than a firework. RFCU?Pedro :  Chat  09:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC) It certainly appears that the account may have been compromised. They also blocked themselves just under half an hour before the latest block (05:17, 7 December 2009 Cremepuff222 (talk · contribs) blocked Cremepuff222 (talk · contribs) (autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 123456789 seconds). I would suggest that a message be left on their page asking an explanation, and that if it isn't resolved quickly, an emergency desysop will be requested, as per Beeblebox's suggestion above. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Looks like a /b/tard, to be honest. Perhaps a youngish one, say around 14. Hacked email/password combos get posted on /b/ sometimes, I wouldn't be surprised if that's what happened. Either that or Cremepuff has a family member doing this. The behaviour is just downright odd. Also, a pretty pitiful excuse for trolling, if I do say so myself. I could think of much better things to do with an admin bit, if my intent were to disrupt. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Hm, yea maybe an RFCU. Looking through his logs, he's not doing much with the tools anyway, only 15 admin actions this year. Look at the deletion logs for giggle. Admin tools are not toys to play with for your own amusement. There's also some very weird/unhelpful edit summaries, such as "meow" "doo doo doo" and the ever popular random string of characters. The fact that there are good edits mixed in with the weirdness would tend to indicate that the account has in fact not been compromised, and Cremepuff is doing this for reasons known only to themselves. That he was so dismissive of both Treasury Tag and ANI does not bode well at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC) I second the RfC/U. The mix of edits means nothing. Given the level of intelligence displayed in some of the edits, I wouldn't be surprised if the account was compromised and left open, and Cremepuff is simply too busy with the holidays coming up to notice. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict) I honestly think Cremepuff is in charge of his account (if not his senses) but if there is concern that the 4chan crowd might have the bit, then a CU would be able to check the IP behind the edits? Having said that with such sporadic recent history it may be technically tricky for a CU to confirm one way or the other and as there's no out and out abuse of the admin tools an emergency de-sysop is unlikely - so RFCU is best pending any further "odd" activities. Pedro :  Chat  10:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC) I've left a message on User talk:J.delanoy, hopefully he'll get a chance to look at it before the block expires. I feel this is easier than going through the official channels, but if I'm in error then please let me know. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Doh. While you were doing that I filed a quick RFCU [44]. Beeblebrox (talk) 10:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC) No worries, it should get looked at either way. On going through their history, they've been making questionable edits for quite some time. It's looking less like a compromised account and more like compromised sanity. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC) I've asked User:Ryan Postlethwaite, Cremepuff's admin coach and sponsor, to review this thread and the edits in question. Hopefully he can shed some light on whether this behaviour is out of character, and what might be going on. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Sponsor? In what way is Cremepuff sponsored? Besides that, it's been over 2 years since Cremepuff became an admin. What valuable input can Ryan possibly have after all this time?--Atlan (talk) 10:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC) My mistake, I should have said nominator. I simply went to Ryan because it seemed likely he would have some familiarity with Cremepuff, having coached him. I was looking to get input from someone familiar with his mannerisms. If Ryan doesn't have anything to add, that's fine. Just trying to be thorough. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC) That's alright. I was just asking. Seems like a good call now.--Atlan (talk) 12:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Tough one to judge in my opinion. Cremepuff222 is (well was) only young when he became an admin, but did show maturity on en.wiki. That said, he lost interest in the project some time ago and this could be his way of have a bit of fun. He was relatively immature at times on IRC, so this behviour wouldn't be out of the ordinary on there, but it is a little strange to see him bring it on the project. I'm 85-90% certain that this is cremepuff222, but there is a small doubt in my mind so I'll try and find a cu. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC) I've emailed ArbCom about this - I'd say let them handle it from here. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC) This all seems a little silly. --cremepuff222 (talk) 13:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC) And jeez, how on earth would someone compromise cremepuff222's account? That it just ridiculous. I take full responsibility for my "actions"! --cremepuff222 (talk) 13:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Well, Creme, looks to me like you got some 'splaining to do. And you do know that you are not allowed to unblock yourself? Of course, you're also the blocking admin, but still ...--Wehwalt (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC) (People, you're talking to the compromiser/avatar/hacker... unless cremepuff222 is high or drunk or both Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)) Silly... this is quite the real cremepuff222. And Mr. Wehalt, I do what I want? :On --cremepuff222 (talk) 13:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC) You do what you want? Then perhaps you shouldn't be an admin--Jac16888Talk 13:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC) He could at least claim insanity. I still don't believe it's him. This is beyond stupid. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC) I've blocked him for 24 hours, technically for unblocking himself but really so that emergency desysopping can take place if warranted. Of course, if he undoes my block, he better look skyward at a rapidly approaching ton of bricks.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Throwing blocks around probably doesn't help here. Cremepuff222 appears to be quite cogent. Also, if one blocks oneself, one is allowed to unblock oneself (if not, I think most admins have broken that rule when they accidentally blocked themselves...). I'd urge for calm, observation, love and patience. Martinp23 13:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC) I ain't unblocking him. There's reasonable suspicion of a compromised account. If this is Cremepuff and he is in his right mind, then I apologize for the minor inconvenience to assure the integrity of the project.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Admins are warned never to unblock themselves (when somebody else places the block), no matter what. If Creampuff222 has done that, they will be desysopped. Have you emailed ArbCom yet? They may not be paying attention to this thread. Jehochman Talk 13:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC) But hang on, Cremepuff222 seems to have undone his own self-block. That's not an issue. Jehochman Talk 13:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Ryan emailed them. I'm leaning more towards insanity or just plain not giving a shit than compromised. I can't see someone getting an admin account and not abusing the powers before they get it desysopped. Still, I have to ask, Cremepuff: What on Earth are you trying to pull? Throwaway85 (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Jehochman Talk 13:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Leaving aside the issue of the block (grey area - he did after all block himself for giggles or whatever) Cremepuff states above he takes full responsibility for his "actions". Perhaps in any unblock request he can explain the apprent trolling of Treasury Tag's talk (the reason for this thread) as those actions seem incompatible with the admin role. Pedro :  Chat  13:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Note the result of the RFCu - two socks apparently [45] but no comment on wether this is certainly Cremepuff. Pedro :  Chat  13:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC) I've notified ArbCom. Not sure what more we can do here--Wehwalt (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Another kiddy admin. It's amazing the people who've been empowered here. Just, amazing.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC) You know, Bali, between this delightful generalization and that bit the other day disparaging a user because of what he edits, you're rapidly shedding your credibility here. Plenty of our younger admins are perfectly responsible and don't evidence the immaturity of this user, and a good share of "admin troubles" involve older admins. It's not acceptable to discard the good work they do just to score a conversational point; suggest you strike.GJC 14:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Credibility? I didn't disparage Dekkappai. I disparaged the fact that dozens of articles on non-notable japanese fetish porn movies about rape, bestiality and other forms of violence with the salacious pictures from their packaging are placed here, with no regard to what an encyclopedic topic should be. Sum total of human knowledge? Nonesense. That's a problem y'all should fix. As to kiddy admins, it's a huge problem. The vast majority of kids have appalling judgement. Generalization? Yes. Accurate? Yes. Are there grownup admins that suck, too? Yes. Are some 14 year olds safe drivers? Maybe. So what? Very few minors have the judgment to be placed in positions of responsibility over content. You have a so-called admin running around scrawling "peepies" or whatever on talk pages, and there are people here saying they will "welcome him back to the admin core" when he apologizes. So: You think my "credibility" is low. I think your opinions are harmful, and you don't really understand the purpose of an encyclopedia.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Having reviewed his RfA, he seemed perfectly capable of holding an intelligent conversation at the time. This recent behaviour is just strange. Throwaway85 (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC) And now I'm leaning back towards a child having access to the account. Check the contribs of his socks. They display the same behaviour, including sandbox-style edits. Throwaway85 (talk) 14:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC) I got a response from an arb to the effect that they know about it, they're discussing it, and if there's an emergency, to get a steward.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC) If there's an emergency. Although it's marginal, I'm not seeing a true emergency here at present. If the situation changes, and it's urgent, go to IRC rather than meta, so that you can discuss the situation and provide the information that the stewards on duty there need to make the determination that it IS an emergency. Or let ArbCom issue the request... They are well aware of the situation. ++Lar: t/c 18:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC) I've spoken with Cremepuff222 a few times and I can't say that this is out of the ordinary, but it's really harmless. Not worth all this drama IMO. If necessary, ArbCom can deal with it. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Hmm, just seen the sock thing... –Juliancolton | Talk 14:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC) I don't think anyone's saying it's harmful, just incredibly odd and possibly grounds for desysopping. Throwaway85 (talk) 14:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Well ... I'm not going to lift the block myself but if any other admin wants to, I waive any need to discuss it with me.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Seems to be a reasonable block after further inspection. I won't be unblocking. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC) I'd modify the block message myself - blocked whilst investigations are carried out regarding two childish socks and regarding his harrasement of TT. Pedro :  Chat  14:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Since I don't know of my knowledge that those are what will be done, I'd rather not. ArbCom is obviously up to something, and Cremepuff is aware of this thread. I think the block message can stand. I am content that my block is purely preventative and is not punitive. If it turns out that this is Cremepuff having a teenage moment and there are no further issues, I'd be very happy to unblock him myself and welcome my colleague in adminship back into the fold.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Yes, on consideration of those points I agree. But if ARBCOM take no action then I expect Cremepuff owes a lot of people some appologies, and even they may not stave of a request for comment, at least. Pedro :  Chat  14:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC) I'd appreciate an explanation, at least. This kind of behaviour, though ultimately harmless, still reflects poorly on the community when carried out by an editor, and doubly so when perpetrated by an admin. Throwaway85 (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Look's like either a compromised account 'or' a intoxication situation. Both theories equally difficult to confirm. GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Not likely to be intoxicated - the trolling of TT's talk started three days ago, and Cremepuff was logged off for several hours before responding to this thread; so I don't think he/she can use that as an excuse to be honest. Pedro :  Chat  14:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Then it must be a compromised account. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Or he's lost weekending it. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC) The block shouldn't have been issued in this situation, he blocked himself, no one blocked him, lets disfuse drama. I'm unblocking and prob going to ask a steward in IRC to desysop the account. Is the IP in the checkuser from Iowa? Secret account 15:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC) I unblocked, but a steward needs to desysop the account ASAP. Secret account 15:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Agreed. Reading all the above comments (particularly re: the childish socks and the trolling on my talkpage), this account should no longer have admin access. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 15:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC) I've just been advised on IRC that this request should be made at Meta... would anyone care to do the honours? ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 15:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC) I did the request. Secret account 15:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC) The arbitration Committee are well aware of this and have procedures in place to deal with emergency desysops - this is not one of those occasions where an admin is going wild with the tools so should be left to the Arbtration Committee to deal with - they have the tools to investigate this thoroughly and can decide when and if there is a need for a desysop. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 16:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC) this can't be ignored though, we can't assume good faith for that. Let the account be desysopped first then go to ArbCom. Secret account 16:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Agreed. Creating 2 vandalism only sock-puppets tells me this admin is either compromised or has gone off the rails. We should desysop before the blocking spree and not after(preventative v punitive), if there turns out to be an innocent explanation later the bit can be flipped back. At the very least there should be a block for the sock puppetry. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 16:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC) So, he's a child.. with a history of childlike behavior. And Ryan Postlethwaite went out of his way to help him become an admin? There's the problem that needs solved, folks. Blocking/desysopping this one account is relatively easy, but the "he's a good kid, let's give him some buttons" culture is what needs fixed. Friday (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Desysop request on Meta has been denied :( ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 16:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Well that's just about par for the course. A well known English phrase or saying containing the words 'whelk' 'couldn't' 'stall' and 'run' is coming to mind just at this moment.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC) How about we let ArbCom do what they have to do and stop feeding the flames? That seems reasonable. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Well, my line of thinking is that ArbCom will do nothing at every step of the way unless chased, as per usual, whereas we the community are perfectly competent to deal with the situation... ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 17:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Wow. An admin has been discovered to have created two vandal accounts, and nobody is going to do anything about it? An admin is harrassing another user and nobody is going to do anything abou it? An admin blatantly says that they will do anything they want, and nobody is going to do anything about it? And please, if as the CU thread says, Cremepuff is from Iowa, please tell me it isn't really User:Lir. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC) This IP's contributions could do with some looking into, too... ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 17:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Who told you nobody's going to do anything about it? ArbCom are looking into it, and I assume they've dealt with issues like this in the past and are perfectly able of taking care of everything. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC) What it says above is that the ArbCom said to take it to Meta, and Meta declined to do anything. Am I misreading something? Where does it say ArbCom is doing anything? In addition. I have nothing to hide except my login account name, which is nobody's business, but I do have to wonder why my contributions "could do with some looking into". What have I done that leads TreasuryTag to say that? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC) The leeway being given to this administrator is quite extraordinary, and rather unbecoming. Let's hold him to at least the standard a regular editor would be held. There would be none of this bleating about the possibility of a compromised account, that's for sure. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC) I strongly agree here, if he wasn't an admin he would have been long blocked, if the Main Page all of a sudden gets deleted and Willy on Wheels get unblocked, and pure hell happens, it's a case of I told you so. Seriously the tools need to be removed if we have no idea the account is compromised, and with vandalism socks confirmed by checkuser. Secret account 17:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Bleat. Tan | 39 17:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC) I attempted to ask TreasuryTag on their Talk page why they feel I need to be investigated for anything, but the page is semi-protected, and am therefore unable to do so. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Next time anyone complains about my attitude to admins, I'll point them to this thread. Will save time explaining. DuncanHill (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC) As someone who has never heard of Cream, and had very limited contact with Treaury tag, from the edit diffs I see, this immature baiting, while baiting, is so incredibly minor. The edit diffs I read, there where no personal attacks, just immature postings. I can see why a block, RFC, or "emergency desysop" would be appropriate, if blocking for something like this was standard, but it is not. I know a powerful well connected admin who repeatedly told editors to fuck off and was never reprimanded. Uneven enforcement of our policies makes editors lose faith in our rules. Granted maybe there are edit differences I missed. For editors to want to block, RFC, or desop this editor for something which on its face looks rather trivial says more about editor's Wikipedia network of supporters and how unevenly wikipedia rules are enforced that Cream's immature behavior. The big message I come away with, is not to make immature posting on veteran editors pages, because this is all too common, but not to cross certain editors, or else. Creams edit diffs which editors are calling for block, RFC, or desop: Treasury's edit diffs provided: "Umm Such as lol?"[46] "Such as...Nurrrr. :O"[47] "That was......mature"[48] "Gasp! Not ANI. :O Oh please, be merciful mr. tag of treasures!!"[49] User_talk:TreasuryTag/IPs: "Haha... Lol. :D"[50] Pedro's edit diffs provided: "For the lulz."[51] "Message Message"[52] I can't speak about the anon account though, if all the outrage is over the anon account a block maybe appropriate. Ikip (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC) You forgot to mention the repeated deletion and undeletion of Giggle. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 18:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Sigh. At least for myself, the conduct is not what is warranting the block. It is the fear that Cremepuff's edits represent a radical change from the way he used to edit. There is a strong suspicion the account may have been compromised. I'm not buying the "drunk/stoned" bit, as this has gone on for three days and if that's the case, I'll have what he's having. At present, there is a quick checkuser having been requested, if it shows these edits are made outside of the location where Cremepuff's known to be, then there is strong evidence of compromise. If not, we try to figure out what's going on. But the idea is not to punish him, it is to keep the encyclopedia safe while figuring these things out. No one wants to punish him, at least I hope not.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC) IMHO (I have never run into Creampuff before), I see this as either a compromised account, or an admin being stupid - including stupid use of the tools for purposes other than they were designed. The response of "I'll do what I want" shows that whoever it is, they do not believe that the community has a say in their activities. This should have been an immediate emergency desysop for that portion alone, and a block for socking for everything afterwards. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC) I've never met him either, but would be happy to have Cremepuff for lunch sometime (and perhaps User:Letsdrinktea). I think that there's concern here. We have a young admin who is well, acting in a problematical manner. If it is a compromised account, we need to deal with that. If it is Cremepuff having a teenage moment, we need to give him some latitude and hopefully make it possible for him to resume helping us build the project, though it may well be that he may not be allowed the tools in that endeavor.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Based on the giggle deletions, showing that Creampuff has done some edits which were immature before, Creampuff is not a comprimised account. I suspect that the deletion of pages for 2 minutes/less than a minute has happened before. I will ask on another page if an admin has ever done this before as a joke, and what the ramifications to the admin have been. I am curious, what exactly led up to Creampuff's immature postings on Treasure's talk page? Treasure? Ikip (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC) I can only guess that it was in response to my (then unknowing) comment here ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 22:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC) I don't know this user but it is quite clear that this an inappropriate person for adminship. The issue is, of course, "conduct unbecoming". Bali ultimate is right; the immature kiddie-admin issue is a serious problem and it has the effect of bringing the project into disrepute. Shite like this makes it all too easy to ignore admins here; as Joey Pants said in Bound, They're just cops. Immaturity is not, of course, ubiquitous among or unique to the young. The denial on meta was quite appropriate; it's not their remit and I find it amusing that the serious here are moving so slowly. Jeers, Jack Merridew 18:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC) (Applause for Jack Merridew's excellent edit summary:) "(→Harassment by admin: Grounded for a month and no dinner tonight; no allowance this week, either)"diff :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks. Jack Merridew 19:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Treasury, didn't see the giggle complaint: 02:19, 24 June 2009 Cremepuff222 (talk | contribs) restored "Giggle" ‎ (132 revisions restored: oops) 02:17, 24 June 2009 Cremepuff222 (talk | contribs) deleted "Giggle" ‎ (:D) 02:30, 5 February 2008 Cremepuff222 (talk | contribs) restored "Giggle" ‎ (78 revisions restored: Just for giggles) 02:30, 5 February 2008 Cremepuff222 (talk | contribs) deleted "Giggle" ‎ (Just for giggles) I will reserve comment on this. Ikip (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Blocked for sock puppetry I have blocked Cremepuff222 for 1 week for engaging in sock puppetry in the form of creating vandalism only accounts. It does not matter if the account is compromised, if he is just feeling silly, or if he is trying to make a point. I assume this is not in conflict with the earlier block and its reversal as they had nothing to do with sock puppetry. To be clear I am of the opinion that being an admin in no way excuses engaging in vandalism as a sock puppet. We need to be consistent here. I welcome review and any modification of this block that is in line with consensus. If Cremepuff222 decides to unblock himself then I am sure the stewards will reconsider, if not then perhaps this block will settle the issue and give some sense to this Wikipedian. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 18:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Endorse block (rather indef) until this situation is straghted out. Secret account 18:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC) I agree with blocking, and if there is not a really good explanation forthcoming for this behavior when the block expires or is lifted, I think the next step is an RFC, unless ArbCom indicates they might actually do something. Someone who acts like this should not be an admin. Others have lost the bit simply for knowing about another users sock, so I think creating your own socks and engaging in childish baiting are sufficient to merit removal of the bit. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC) "ArbCom is acting on this matter using existing procedures. Cool Hand Luke 21:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Community desysop - How about using this matter for a community desyop, if you all feel he ought not be an administrator? There are a few childish edits, and a couple of socks, but this is not an emergency situation. Perhaps he has a better explanation than he has come up with so far. The Arbitration Committee will pick it up if you don't do it, but when the facts are more or less clear and there is no emergency, why can't the administrators as a community do it? Fred Talk 19:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC) I would personally support a community desysop. The responses we have had here ("I do what I want") don't show someone interested in collaborative encyclopedia-building. ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 19:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC) I have notified him at User_talk:Cremepuff222#Community_desysop where he may have to reply as he has been blocked for a week for socking. Fred Talk 19:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Well, aside from the fact that such a thing is unprecedented, unauthorized, ineffective, wrongheaded, won't be respected, contrary to how we make and unmake admins, and it is the wrong case to try to make that part of WP, I personally think it is a great idea.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Excellent summary. Secret account 19:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Support community desysop. I tend to think that the community should have the right to desysop in clear cases such as these, and there's no time like the present. Cool Hand Luke 19:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Community desysop? Is there such a thing? I appreciate the boldness, but proposals for such community desysops have been rejected in the past, a new proposal is being considered but has not yet gained consensus. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 19:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC) That whole line about "policy is what we do, not what the pages say" has been going around recently. I feel that if the community wishes to desysop someone, it should be able to do so, but I dislike the idea of doing it on ANI. Perhaps this could be copied over to a subpage or to an RfC? NW (Talk) 19:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Sometimes it's better to say "damn the torpedoes" and not wade through the bureaucratic muck anymore. The community desysop proposal could languish for a few more months being developed, or we could have a "people's revolution" right here and now and just do it, and work out the kinks later. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC) No, when a proposal is repeatedly rejected by the community it is not appropriate to do it despite that. There is no consensus for such a process. Per the position of the stewards such a revolution will likely not be joined by the people capable of actually doing anything about it until such a consensus exists. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 19:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC) I do however support the idea of imploring arbcom to desysop this admin for the sock puppetry alone. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 19:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Comment: Per the response from a Steward at Meta, the ArbCom should request the desysop: Not done. English Wikipedia has an ArbCom that has the power to request desysop if they wish it. Stewards will not override the local community elected officials. Cirt (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Yeah. I suspect that ArbCom would have to ratify such a desysop, but I think it's worth working out how to do this for future use. Cool Hand Luke 19:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC) See also my followup to Laaknor: [53]. ArbCom ratifying or endorsing helps make it clearer. ++Lar: t/c 20:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Endorse Sock-block & Community desysop; we've an arb and an ex-arb aboard for the notion, so carpe diem. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Support community desysop - but I feel this isn't the best venue for gaining input. I've always felt such a process should exist, by the way. Brilliantine (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Support de-sysoping, but it should be done properly, via a request for arbitration request (motion) to desysop the user. Also suggest that Checkuser be engaged to help determine if it's a compromised account. SirFozzie (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Support desysop, exteding block to indef. An indef block would be justified just by the sockpuppetry alone. User has a long, long history of immature edits. Not sure this is a good case to pioneer a community desysop, but somebody better get er done. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Look guys, on the other noticeboard, they declined to remove the tools from a dead guy who had been dead quite a long time (no disrespect, but there was no dispute about his status either). They're hardly going to remove it from a living guy just because he's gone off his head/had his account hacked. Incidentally, everyone seems to have forgotten that the right thing to do with suspected compromised accounts is to block them anyway.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Maybe we should do as NW suggests above, initiate an RFC, and see where it takes us. If we can get ArbCom to act based on the RFC findings, then we more or less will have done a community desysop. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Let's go ArbCom. Get it done. MuZemike 20:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Sure, it's blatantly obvious that a desysop is the right thing to do here.. But nobody with the button to push is willing to push the button because of the tradition that only arbcom can do this. Then we have arbcom members telling the community to do it themselves? Are you joking or something? Arbcom, this is your opportunity to create a community desysop process ratified by you. But it appears you will need to have a hand in it. Friday (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Folks, I remind you all of the much maligned but well suited to this purpose WP:RFC/U (which can then be submitted to AC as previous step) I will oppose any desysop foisted via ANI.--Tznkai (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Agree that at the moment that is the logical move, is anyone working on one? I just don't want to get it all put together only to find someone's beat me to it, but if no one else has started, I'll put it together. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC) I didn't know that RFC/U was well suited for anything. I guess ArbCom has to act then... Cool Hand Luke 21:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC) RFCU Cremepuff222 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cremepuff222 is now live, but still under construction. Input welcome and appreciated. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC) An alternative would be a discussion here followed by a request for arbitration made by the administrators, and other users, who agree that a desysop is appropriate. That could also follow the RFC. Fred Talk 21:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Block made indefinite Per consensus above, and after consulting with Chillum, I have made the block indefinite. This block is indefinite as in "Until such time as Cremepuff222 fully explains why he went off the rails so spectacularly and publicly, and pledges not to do it again". I would also urge that the block not be lifted until such time as the community and the Arbitration Committee have had a chance to review his administrator status. SirFozzie (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Agree with this action by SirFozzie (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Me too. In this case indefinite would not be "forever", just without defined end. I would like to see some indication that the nonsense will stop before it is lifted. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 21:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Post-mortem Perhaps it's worth looking back at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cremepuff222 for lessons learned. At the risk of sounding old, bitter, and obsessed, it continues to be a source of pain for me that someone can skate through RfA having made a few hundred (or thousand) semi-automated vandalism reverts, while someone who actually tries their hand at resolving complex disputes is as likely as not to go down in flames as a "drama-monger". I'm sure there are admins who came up like Cremepuff222 (semi-automated vandalism reverts, hundreds of edits to his userpage with near-zero content contributions, and heavy IRC participation) and turned out fine. But you're basically buying a pig in a poke - you have no idea how this person will behave when faced with actual, complex problems or disputes. And, as the current debacle underlines, once administrative tools are granted they are incredibly hard to pry away. Did we really promote someone (in a landslide) whose answer to Q2 was: "I go on many anti-vandalism sprees in my spare time as well as tagging new pages. In the article namespace, I have made content additions to a couple of articles"? Maybe I'll just try to take advantage make something positive out of the situation by asking that we demand positive proof of maturity and sanity at RfA, rather than just the ability to make several thousand semi-automated vandalism reverts without displaying any obvious psychopathology. MastCell Talk 20:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC) In the intervening two years since that RFA, over-reliance on automated tools has indeed become a serious hinderance to passing RFA. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC) I have tried asking people to refrain from voting on RFAs for their chat room buddies, but got nothing but insults and scorn in response. This problem still exists, and a large bloc of editors are still uninterested in fixing it. Friday (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC) How is Horsey Friday? Still accusing you of being fat? I'm sure you understand.Pedro :  Chat  20:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC) I too was dismayed by how easily he passed the RfA, especially considering his lack of any real editting experience. I would much rather have an editor who is often involved in heated discussions and manages to pull out a 70% approval than one who clicks a few buttons when he's bored. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC) People seem to be forgetting that Cremepuff222 was constructive for quite some time after his RfA - he was a fantastic, well respected admin. Then about 9 months back he lost interest in the project as many editors do. This is nothing about automated edits - trying to categorise this as about automated edits is merely trying to muddy the waters for our vandal fighters passing RfA. We have many decent admins who are primarily vandal fighters - we should put this incident down as just one of those things. I'm disappointed that MastCell is fanning the flames for this particular discussion. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC) That's not my intention, and I apologize if it comes across that way. When an admin goes off the rails, I do try to look back at their RfA, because I think it helps inform one's !voting going forward. I'm not blaming people who supported him - there are tons of names on there that I respect, including yours, Ryan. I just get the feeling that we're promoting a lot of unknown quantities, which is a problem since admins essentially have lifetime tenure here and can't be easily de-adminned. I personally can't quite bring myself to oppose people at RfA solely because they haven't been in the trenches or demonstrated maturity, but each instance like this pushes me a bit closer. MastCell Talk 21:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC) It is not that hard to an admin to lose their bit MastCell. Sock puppetry seems to be a reliable way to be desysoped. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 22:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Box the whole thread The block on Cremepuff222 stands for the moment, and his sysop status is being evaluated by ArbCom's regular process. An RfC/U has also been started, which is a better forum for discussing user behavior now that this is no longer an "incident." Therefore, I think this whole heading can be safely archived. Cool Hand Luke 21:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC) I agree, but too "involved" by the bollox WP laws to do so. Some other peon may wish to however. Pedro :  Chat  22:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Also agree, no further admin action is needed here and it is being pursued in other places now. Somebody not involved please archive this. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 22:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Done. Ucucha 22:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible Threat to Former VP

The editor Thmerr posted a possible threat to the former member of government. See [54]. Is this something that needs a follow-up? ttonyb (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

He probably should be blocked for that edit, i'll let other admins weigh in on it. Momo san ^Gespräch 19:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like run of the mill vandalism to me, there is no statement like "I am going to shoot Dick Cheney." Blocking on that one edit would be premature, but he is now at the "this is your final warning" level on his talk page, so if he keeps it up, WP:AIV is the place to go with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. If a disturbing/disgusting Facebook poll can get you a visit from the Secret Service, some kind of block for that insinuation should be made. DD2K (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

What would be the point in shooting him now??? Isn't it about 9 years too late? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for review of my proposal at Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change#Locked

This article has been subject to continual edit warring, disruption, and tendentious editing, as evidenced by the protection log and the archives here. As over-long protection is damaging to the encyclopedia, I have made a fairly draconian proposal at the abovelinked thread. Advice, comments, and help from uninvolved administrators and editors are particularly welcome. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a good move. When a similar situation occurred at Provisional Irish Republican Army, the page was locked and then User:Rd232 hosted a discussion and redraft on a subpage of his, where proposals were debated and discussed with fairly heavy mediation and moderation. The result was much more successful than I would have anticipated, given the rancour that was plaguing the talk page before those measures were taken. Can you see something similar helping in this situation? If you would like to know more about the PIRA situation and how it was resolved, I'm sure Rd232 would be happy to fill you in on the finer points. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Diaspora templates

I've had a lot of trouble at Diaspora Templates. I'm trying to make an overview CAT for ethnic diasporas, and sometimes it works. Others, like now, it includes all of the links on a given template in the cat. How can we resolve this permanently? --Dudeman5685 (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC) My problem is with the Category:diaspora templates--Dudeman5685 (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Legal Threat

Resolved

 – IP blocked 6 months -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Louis Hayward

Yesterday I twice requested page protection for the Louis Hayward page given the constant attempts by an anonymous IP unregistered user to insert text alleging Hayward was bisexual, vis a vis a homosexual relationship with Noel Coward. The user cites a publication of Coward's diaries, but provides no specific quote, merely a page number, and that only after my insistence that he provide more evidence. This user has engaged in this kind of behavior at least a dozen times since May. Only the last two times did he/she even bother to provide any source, and the info provided is, in my opinion, insufficient for an encyclopaedia. Admin tedder confirmed to me that the salacious edit is a violation of WP:BLP. As my second request for page protection was apparently denied, please provide at least semi-protection for the Louis Hayward page for now so that I will not have to constantly monitor the page and rv these edits, leading to my possibly being blocked for violating WP:3RR, although tedder informed me that I would be immune from 3RR under these circumstances. Thanks, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Did some research[55] and found that the information being sourced to something that didn't even mention the information supposedly being sourced. I have semi-protected the page for a good long while. NW (Talk) 01:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I notice your reliance on the American version of Google. I prefer the British version.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 01:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

There isn't much difference; it's still the same search engine. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

They give dramatically different results for the same search criteria, however. I know this from experience, when my default browser settings in IE were putting my searches through google.co.uk and I kept getting odd and unhelpful results. (For example, I don't care how many pounds I can buy a plasma TV for in the UK.) -- Atama頭 02:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

When you get to an actual copy of the book though, it doesn't make much of a difference how you got there... NW (Talk) 02:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Persistent IP vandal in West Virginia

A number of weeks ago I came across 74.47.205.235 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). It made a number of sneaky misinformation edits, all to articles relating to automobiles or modern music albums, across a one-month period. After three blocks, the vandal moved to 74.46.214.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which also received a block. A third, 74.46.210.15 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and a fourth, 170.215.50.233 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), turned up later.

The most recent is 74.46.210.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), to which I gave a level-4 warning and the IP has since been used to vandalize again. I think a block is warranted but with the complexity of this I didn't want to take it to AIV.

After some digging I found 74.46.212.128 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which was used earlier for the same edits.

All IPs geolocate to either Charles Town or Harpers Ferry, West Virginia.

Having a centralized report on this vandal will help in taking care of it in the future, but is there anything else that can be done? --Sable232 (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It would depend on the spectrum of articles he vandalizes. If its one or two, then we could semitprotect the articles. However, if its a wide spectrum of articles, and he edits from an unblockable range (it appears he does) and he tends to change IPs frequently (it looks like he does) then its unfortunately only Whack-a-mole reversions and blocks that are likely to work. Sorry! --Jayron32 04:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandal removing references and comment hiding tags

Resolved

 – ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 04:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Since the beginning of the month, I have been dealing with a vandal who has been removing references and comment hiding tags (the <!-- & --> tags) from several articles I work on. The IPs are all similar, but the range would be too large to block outright (as far as I can tell). These are the IPs that have been used:

• 76.204.79.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 76.204.78.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 76.205.24.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 76.205.26.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 76.204.77.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (active tonight)

There is a pattern, and I do not think protecting the series of articles hit should be protected (beneficial edits come from IP addresses) but this guy needs to be given the curb. The WHOIS info says that the ranges are 76.204.76.0 - 76.204.79.255 and 76.205.24.0 - 76.205.27.255.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Rangeblocks implemented - 76.205.24.0/22 and 76.204.76.0/22 for a period of one month. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 04:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Abuse of template and possible sock puppetry

Resolved

 – ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was surprised to see this thing on my watchlist:

• (diff) (hist) . . User:JL 09‎; 12:48 . . (+2,993) . . BoyMuslim (talk | contribs) (→Boxes: )

And other over a thousand additions on my talk page and user page. Basically, this user posted the template {{indef}} several times on my talk page and user page, where he said that he is taking a revenge for 23prootie. He posted this thing (Para kay 23prootie, in English is "for 23prootie") on my user page which signifies something like vengeance.

I guess this was in connection with my several actions that lead to 23prootie's indefinite blocking, his IP range was blocked because he evaded his block and that he cannot create an account (unless he go into another computer with different IP range). Anyway, I may consider the use of the template {{indef}} several times without proper reason is a justification of abuse. Perhaps he believed that if he posted such thing, BoyMuslim (I believe he is 23prootie's sock puppet too) could make me in an indefinite block. See the diff here, I removed the edit since my browser can't support such very long, useless and baseless post.--JL 09 ^_q?c 05:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this looks like perfect indefblocking material.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorted. JL 09, you might consider opening a SPI on this one, see if he's got any other socks kicking around. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Banned user going cross project

Apparently, 姫宮玲子 (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of a user who was banned at the Japanese Wikipedia and now the user is continuing the activities he performed over there here (they even have an LTA entry for him as seen here). I would like to request that we nip this in the bud before his disruption spills over from the Japanese Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Have they done anything here that is a problem? Beeblebrox (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

And have you notified him? Apparently not, there's a talk redlink. I don't think you can characterize him as a sock anyway. So far as I know, a ban on one project is not a ban on all.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This user is a native Japanese speaker. I do not think I can communicate with him in any fashion that will be helpful. And I can characterize him as a sock because another project does. From what I know he disrupts articles relating to the Ultra Series and making way too many subcategories. While he has not done this yet here, the account has been blocked from the Japanese Wikipedia. I will try to get more information on this and determine whether or not we should allow him to edit here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you assuming that a native Japanese speaker cannot also be fluent in English? As mentioned above, why did you escalate this to ANI before (1) contacting him via his talk page, (2) knowing what led to his block, and (3) whether those reasons are relevant at en? Nobi (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Because I've had to deal with banned users going the other way and causing disruption on other projects in the past. It certainly does not appear that this individual is fluent at all in English.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I've notified the user of this thread. Basket of Puppies 02:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Well ... if he's not a native English speaker and you can't communicate with him in any meaningful sense, exactly what harm is he likely to cause here at en:wiki?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

MascotGuy level problems.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Are there any people who could translate, whether on this project or ja-wiki that could help communicate? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Try User:Jason7825. He is ja-5 and an active rollbacker on en. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

MascotGuy? Can you translate that too? Domo arigato gozaimas.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

MascotGuy is the name given to a long term abuser on the English Wikipedia who due to an assumed diagnosis of autism was a problem to have him stop making good faith, but overall harmful edits to the project.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain better the reasons that lead to the block? Creating "too many subcategories" seems like a completely pointless reason to justify blocking anyone. Were such categories vandalic ones? Did he ignore some "categories for discussion" discussion result? (or whatever system for this is there in that project) MBelgrano (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I can only glean so much from the Japanese project page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

A user Azurakkii/AZLUCKY (あずらっきー) was initially blocked in January 2008 for a week because he created articles with content directly copy-pasted from off-wiki sites, abusing his own User page as a sandbox (i.e., creating excessive edit entries) while developing subcategories about Ultraman. I don't think the creation of subcategories themselves were part of the reason for this block. Azurakkii then proceeded to evade the block, causing the block to be extended to one month. He continued to evade the block, and on 1/31/2008, Wikipedia users were able to convince Azurakkii's ISP to give him a static IP so he could be permanently blocked. In 4/2009, another set of his alternate accounts was found to be creating excessive subcategories (such as "Fictional mushrooms" and "Fictional pandas") and was subsequently permanently blocked for avoiding the main account's block. From what I can tell, all the subsequent blocks were due to block evasion, not due to disruptive subcategories, which were just used as evidence that they were the same user. Nobi (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, "too many subcategories" was deemed disruptive because Azurakkii moved (not copied) articles from a higher-level category into the subcategory, so people wanting to look for, e.g., all fictional creatures, wouldn't be able to without first accessing each subcategory that he created. And it does seem that those who supported the permanent block did use this disruptive editing against him. Nobi (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Jason7825, who may be able to help with Japanese translation. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• This sounds about right. What happens in Japan should stay in Japan. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Just throwing my two cents in, I don't think this editor would have been a remote problem on our wiki and it is rather inappropriate for any one to block him if he has done nothing at all. However bringing it to the communities attention is most certainly appropriate and appreciated and if he messes up we will know who we are dealing with. Off Topic:Also, I never thought MascotGuy's autism excuse was a good one. Rgoodermote  17:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This editor is causing (at least on the surface) good faith problem edits: the production of this blank article and incorrect categorization.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

User:SingingZombie

SingingZombie (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) mostly edits pages on opera and abortions. I don't know enough about opera to be able to offer an opinion as to the quality of those edits but the ones on the abortion-related pages are out of control. The user started by reinserting an unsourced legal opinion on a page about the Pro-life movement that was swatted down here, then moved on to trying to insert his/her own OR/synthesis to articles about persons in the pro-life movement and recently added the following gem to the talk page for the article the Murder of Jim Pouillon

• "We don't yet know whether it was murder. We cannot know until the trial is over. Maybe the shooter was insane, and, maybe this killing was justifiable homicide! Pouillon was, after all, a right-to-lifer, and a good argument can be made that at this time in USA, killing right-to-lifers is justifiable homicide, not murder. There is a terrorist war going on, but so far, only one side has been fighting it as a war. A response in kind may be unwise for the pro-choice movement, but it's not obvious whether or not it qualifies as "murder"." SingingZombie (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC) (underlining mine)

Again, I have no ability to gauge the value of this user's contributions to our opera sections but his/her pro-abortion extremism buys us nothing. This users needs to be sternly warned and topic banned from abortion-related articles as soon as possible. - Schrandit (talk) 06:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, just, wow. If that's just the talk page and it's not appearing elsewhere I'm not sure if it's a specific violation of anything past a hint of disruptive editing. That might warrant a warning-- not directly because of the opinion but because of its implied morals (and is a type of physical threat?) and that it can harm credibility on future edits. They are also incorrect to say it can't be called murder, but it would be correct to say the suspect has not yet been proven a murderer per US legal rights. We're not censored, but justifying murders is a little different if that's the sort of POV edited into an article. I'll leave it on an admin to say if this should be on a POV/I noticeboard though that's generally less 'aggressive' issues, and could leave a warning that inclusion of such a thing into an article would be ...bad? Justification of crimes is not something to be promoted. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It's soapboxing, and not ok. I have warned him. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

User In Need of Administrator Guidance

I feel that editor 2005 may need some guidance from an Administrator. He/she seems to do a good job of patrolling the poker/gambling articles for spam etc. but has (in my opinion) gotten a bit carried away and is dominating and controlling articles in a way that is counterproductive to Wiki's purpose and to encouraging the involvment of other editors especially new editors with limited experience. It appears that he/she reverts sourced text placed in articles by other editors without discussion.[56] [57] Also, this editor seems to do a lot of reverting rather than discussion and collaboration. For example I see 12 reverts on his/her contribution list, made in just the last 3 days. [58] He/she makes substantive changes to other editors contributions and places an "m" for minor edit in the edit summary box, seemingly to 'hide' what he/she is doing.[59] [60][61]When approached on his/her User Discussion Page about these issues, this editor is defensive and gruff, and selectively deletes posts from his/her User Page to "clean-up obsolete" entries which contributes to keeping this domination issue 'under the radar'. [62][63] I think this person is a good editor but is just lacking guidance that would best come from a Wiki authority figure since the editor doesn't seem to have a huge amount of respect for other editors. Can someone help with this situation?-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hiya Kbob! Unfortunately, admins aren't authority figures. But I can try to talk with 2005 anyway. -- Atama頭 23:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Try a talk with Keithbob instead. First he posted a blatant falsehood on my talk page about a minor edit, and when I pointed out that reverting myself on an edit made a few moments before is basically always minor, he then reasserted the same nonsense, and has a third time stated this falsehood here. Now he persists in this drama by suggesting me reverting vandalism is a bad thing, or reverting entries that duplicate material already in an article is bad, and that removing WP:BLP violations is bad. This editor needs to learn that making things up is not a good way to edit, nor is deliberatly causing drama helpful. His particular complaint stems from the Chris Moneymaker article, where he thus far refused to engage in discussion of the guideline-based reasons I made certain edits. Obviously he is unfamiliar with a couple guidelines like BLP, so he needs to educate himself and particpate in article discussions, not start unhelpful personalized drama. 2005 (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no. That's not a falsehood. I've looked over some of your edits, and most of them are simple content disputes that you are communicative about, so I'm not too concerned. (There's no rule in Wikipedia that removing sourced content isn't allowed.) But Kbob is correct, you've reverted others' edits and marked those reverts as minor. Your explanation to Kbob was that you mark self-reverts as minor, but this was a revert to an edit Kbob made, not a self-revert. I'm not sure if just you made a mistake, but if so that mistake has been pointed out to you at least twice now and you still deny that you did it. There are other examples of removal of material marked as "minor", such as this and this. Marking such edits as minor is not a good thing. -- Atama頭 00:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time seeing how the caribbean stud poker (which removed an EL that was duplicate information - already used as a ref in the article - which 2005 explained in his edit summary) and the powerball (which removed two spam ELs) edits are problematic if marked minor? Note that 2005 has been engaging KBob at the moneymaker talkpage with detailed explaination. Rather than respond there, Kbob opened this ANI which appears to toss WP:AGF with comments like "selectively deletes posts ... to keep this domination issue 'under the radar'." KBob, if someone removes an item from their own talkpage, it is fine, within policy, not intended as an act of "disrespect", and not a demonstration of anything other than that the person has read it. thanks, --guyzero | talk 00:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The patent edit is minor for sure. I can't imagine why you would assert changing an external link to a reference is not minor! That is exactly the sort of thing the minor thing is there for, to alert other editors that nothing substantial happened. The powerball edits were removing two spam link drops, and yes that is minor too, though not as obvious I suppose. The one edit of Kbob's you mention, that is a different one than the point of contention, and I did mark that as minor. In retrospect I should not have, but rather added a "WP:BLP and WP:WEASEL" note in removing it, but at the same time it plainly merits removal so I suppose I instictively marked it as minor. The one substantial edit I made to that article is not marked minor, and has a cleanup note, which accuraely reflects the removal of duplicate information, etc. In any case, Keithbob should have discussed this for a period of time on the talk page of the article, not started a meritless dramafest. I mostly edit in heavily spammed and vandalized areas, including a lot of BLP articles where vandals driveby and say belittling things about the person, so I revert a lot of spam drops and vandal additions. When other regular editors mark such reversions as minor, I am glad because I know I don't need to take a look. On rare occasions I might mark something that isn't a typo/dupe/vandal/spam edit as minor, but I certainly am not going to change marking genuine minor edits as minor as I want other editors to not waste their time looking at minor edits just like I appreciate it when they mark things as minor too. 2005 (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Kbob asked you to look at WP:MINOR. You have apparently chosen to ignore that. I implore you to do so, because you're marking your edits as minor in a manner that is improper. Not all of your edits marked as minor shouldn't be, but a number are.

Just a note, that's all that I'm suggesting that you're doing wrong. The edits themselves all seem productive, even the ones that Kbob is complaining about. I agree with you that BLP issues need to be handled with more care at Chris Moneymaker, and all of your other changes are improvements to articles. I'm just suggesting that you take it easy a bit with marking your edits as minor. -- Atama頭 02:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Good, so now that 2005 has been alerted to his misuse of the Wiki policy on minor edits I'm sure he will correct this practice and he and I can continue our BLP discussion on the talk page of the Moneymaker article. Thanks to all for your participation in the discussion.-- — Kbob • Talk • 13:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Even more help with edit-warring required

I'm really at a loss what to do with two articles (Bulgarisation and Doxato) and especially with a user not allowing for some reason valid tags to be added to the article. I tried to reason with him and explain on the talkpage why the paragraphs in question (pretty much the same in both articles) were one-sided and pretty much POV since they represent only one of the sides (which is clearly not ok when you're dealing with armed conflicts). I also got the support of User:TodorBozhinov on the Doxato article and of User:Ptolion on the Bulgarisation one (see the talk page section: here). Since I got the feeling this is turning into an awful edit-war with me as an active participant I refrain from making any more edits. I do realise, though, that I'm on the verge of breaking 3RR on both of them. This must be one of the lamest edit-wars ever, which makes me maybe one of the lamest edit-warriors ever. The fact is I got accused of vandalism for adding an NPOV tag - it happened twice - see [64] and [65]. This quite frankly means that me and the two other editors in question obviously support vandal actions on the wiki. Nothing annoys me as much. Maybe besides the other things I got on the talkpage of the Bulgarisation article. Thanks for any action you'd decide to undertake. --Laveol ^T 23:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a standard content dispute between Balkan editors. I will look into it and attempt to reach a compromise. --Athenean (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

([66], [67]) I explained many times my position in the discussion that he cannot overtag[68] [69] an article without any explanation on why [70] [71]. In both cases he putted the tags without discussing a word before [72] [73]. Anyway, already both of us agreed to avoid any farther edits before discussing in extend the issue [74], which makes this report just another unexplained event from his part. --Factuarius (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

My take on the situation is, both Laveol and Factuarius have been acting disruptively here. Factuarius wrote some rather POV-ishly coloured text about those historical massacres, and both Laveol and he had nothing more constructive to offer to resolve the situation afterwards than to edit-war over a POV tag. This is not the first time these two users have been editing in rather obvious pursuance of their respective national POV agendas. Ptolion and Athenean, on the other hand, made some constructive attempts at resolving the situations by rewriting the passage into something more NPOV, which is laudable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed we can call it a bad start, but as you have seen, by now the situation is rather polite and both of us had taken the initiative to refrain from any new edit before a consensus will be achieved. I believe that we will finally solve the issue given the better climate and the mutual interest to end it.--Factuarius (talk) 11:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion by long-term disruptive IP editor

99.151.169.221 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is repeatedly disrupting Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident and the associated FAQ with rants, accusations, the deletion of content and repeated re-opening of archived discussions (e.g. [75]), [76], [77]) He was previously blocked by Vsmith (talk · contribs) and Toddst1 (talk · contribs) for the same behaviour, first for 24 hours editing from 99.151.166.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), then for a month (later reduced to 72 hours) for block evasion and continuing this behaviour from 99.144.192.74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). His block expired two hours ago and he has resumed exactly the same pattern of behaviour from a different IP. He has already gone past 3RR. He is completely unresponsive to any request to desist. I've been told that the IP is apparently used by a long-term disruptive editor - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Troubles/Archive for more from the same individual. The IPs all trace to the same small area of Illinois. Some assistance is requested to deal with this serial disruptive editor. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I entered into a civil, reasoned discussion in this section here:[78] It was deleted entirely, then archived off page, then archived on page. In total, my civil contribution was hidden, deleted or disrupted nearly 12 times in total. My comments were well supported, germane and brief. If as I'm told, the subject is still under discussion (as all discussion on Wikipedia is open for reconsideration), and the supposed prohibition is found only in a suggested style guideline, then I'll suggest that brief, civil and well referenced discussion is legitimate and welcome. Brutal gagging of views that one does not support through manipulation of discussion, deletion and refactoring does nothing to further the legitimacy of Wikipedia. 99.151.169.221 (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You are a long-term disruptive editor who was supposed to have been blocked for three months from the start of November 2009 per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Troubles/Archive. You're evading your block again. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident has been semi-protected in the past because of problems like this. I'm inclined to semi-protect it again. There's no really efficient way to block someone who has a dynamic IP, short of a rangeblock - and that would probably be overkill, much more disruptive than semi-protection of one talk page, and would probably need a checkuser to scan for potential collateral damage in any case. I'll wait for a few more comments before semi-protecting. MastCell ^Talk 21:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If you do that, please also semi-protect Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident/FAQ for the same reason. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking again at this, does the block on the editor's other IPs (made on 1 November) need to be reset to take into account the evident block evasion? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a dynamic-looking IP, so I don't think that blocking his old IPs will be very useful - probably just cause collateral damage. MastCell ^Talk 18:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

User:DBaba

DBaba (talk · contribs) in this edit on the talk page of Cave of the Patriarchs massacre is accusing me of being rascist/nationalistic, running a cabal, harassing, and being POV. And all of that after I worked it all out with another editor there, due to both of us being civil and sticking to the rules of Wikipedia, as that same section testifies. DBaba seems to have a serious bias here, as well as a problem with neutrally assessing my person. I have informed him of this discussion here. Debresser (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with these characterizations of what I've had to say. Debresser's activity continues to trouble me, and I find that this is just an alternative means of obstruction he has resorted to. DBaba (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Your viscious and baseless attack compared to the discussion preceding it says it all. Debresser (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem a seriously sticky attack. Is that all there is, or has he made other statements you find objectionable? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That is all, mam. Frankly, I find that more than enough. Debresser (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

My previous post got removed somehow. It ran like this:

DBaba continues on Talk:Cave_of_the_Patriarchs_massacre#Mediation calling people by unacceptable names. Debresser (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is DBaba's post in full:

"Debresser, I find that your contributions are consistently as ethnonationalist as you seem to think you can get away with. It troubles me that you would attack Zero0000's contributions as POV, when you have racist revisionists working over the page to suggest the massacre was justified as a preemptive strike; that you have nothing to say about that, and only harass serious and neutral editors, and the comments accompanying your edits have frequently been blatantly wrong or incoherent, and that you've been blanking text as "not important" despite its being cited when it doesn't suit you personally, all of these elements lead me to ask you to please stop interfering. I requested comment to get away from this sort of ethnonationalist activism, not to invite more. DBaba (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)"

Hope this helps. DBaba, my experience is you're generally a pretty good guy, but there's a problem with calling other editors racist. Remember the fiasco on Nanking Massacre a while ago? I was just being stupid, but you and User:Flyingtiger were convinced I was a Japanese negationist. Try and assume good faith of Debresser. ALI ^{nom nom} 01:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

E.g. If I remove a sentence or paragraph, it is either unsourced, or irrelevant. And I am willing to defend any my decision to do so. If User:DBaba has any specific problems he could have raised them on the talk page, as another editor has done. In view of my edits, it seems unjust to assume I have a POV agenda. In fact, I have made edits and comments to this article and its talk page that are contrary to what I would have liked, based on the facts and a neutral way of representing them. Calling editing - "interfering", is plain ridiculous. Especially since I am not what you would call a "newbie" on Wikipedia, and have numerous edits to my name, including many on pages related to Judaism. In short, User:DBaba seems to have a bias here, both in regard with the article as with me personally, and he has a very unpleasant way of expressing it. I think a civility warning is the least he should receive. Debresser (talk) 10:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Here are six instances of Debresser using the Undo function to remove cited and neutral text, all from this same article, in the space of one week. [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84]

I do not peg him as actually participating in any FBI-designated terrorist group, as is apparently the case with some of my other foils in this area, but this hasn't stopped him from working fruitfully to the same end: blanking factual and cited information, with the claim that it is "not important". I am troubled by this and I am troubled that he still does not understand what he has done wrong; and I believe he is being manipulative when he suggests I am "calling people by unacceptable names", or that I have been vicious.

I also think he and I can work this out without any help from outside, and that his choice to come here to seek sanction against me is a stunt which further demonstrates political activism on his part. And I apologize for calling him an ethnonationalist, which only served to change the subject from how awful and POV his editing has been, as well as being needless and an inefficient method of bringing him into the light. DBaba (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. But you see, you are doing it again! Now you are accusing me of coming here as "a stunt". You just don't seem to know what Wikipedia:Assume good faith is about... As to my removals of "cited and neutral text", please see the talk page that at least part of it is considered POV by some, or is indeed plain irrelevant to this article. These are content issues that you should discuss on the talk page, not here. But your failure to apply WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, now those have to be brought here. Debresser (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, being that he calls experienced Wikipedia editors "participating in any FBI-designated terrorist group", perhaps it is wiser to just block this guy altogether? Debresser (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, is anybody reading this? Debresser (talk) 13:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested intervention for edit warring

Can someone please take a look at the revision history of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (US game show) and intervene with the current edit warring going on between Tomballguy and WikiLubber? Sottolacqua (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Both are at 3 reverts on the article. If either goes past 3, report them at WP:AN3 (not here). I've left warnings for both editors, so that they are aware that they have almost breached the limit. -- Atama頭 22:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikilubber reverted again, so I blocked for 31 hours (he had a previous 24h block for an edit war a few months ago). Also, you didn't notify either editor about this notice at ANI, which is mandatory. I've informed Tomballguy, there's little point in informing Wikilubber since he can't comment right now. -- Atama頭 23:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for that disruption earlier; I just got P.O.'ed at my edits being constantly reverted. I shall refrain from this warring...--It's my Junior year in High School! (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Chris

I note that, even though Wikilubber has been blocked for violating 3RR, their last revert is still there. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is. Wikilubber wasn't blocked because he was making inappropriate changes to the article, it was because he was perpetuating an edit war. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter which version of the article is currently there, that's a content dispute that the editors of the article need to work out through discussion. -- Atama頭 23:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request (Grundle)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved

 – welcome back Grundle. --Jayron32 00:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Just a note asking if somebody could take a look at Grundle's unblock request. By all indicators he seems to have show he now gets it. He was blocked for a BLP violation that he corrected when he was made aware that it was inappopriate. While in the past there have been issues over his edits, he is an overall constructive editor and I believe a net positive. Perhaps he would accept the mentorship of an experienced user that could help him with his remaining issues, but I feel he has shown appropriate understanding to return. Grsz¹¹ 05:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

/sigh

If this happens, there really needs to be a firm understanding that this is the last chance. No 7 questions, no sniping about the perceived flaws political articles from afar or by proxy. I also find the "next they'll come for you" allusions found at User talk:ChildofMidnight#Grundle a bit disturbing, along with the suggestion by ChildofMidnight that Grundle sock to bypass any imposed restrictions. Tarc (talk) 06:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I have left a link to the earlier ANI discussion on the topic at Grundle's talk page. I don't think we need to restart the discussion here. Abecedare (talk) 06:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I am inclined to grant a last chance to Grundle if he is to avoid all potential conflicts and controversies. The understanding should be that he has a history, cannot ignore that history, and will be held to a much stricter standard regarding behavior than other editors. If he can genuinely avoid the sort of behaviors he had before, he could be given another chance. Maybe I'm feeling particularly WP:AGF tonight, but at the very least, it would not be hard to reblock him should he go off the deep end. Maybe Grundle2600 just needs a few more feet of rope, but perhaps he can really reform. --Jayron32 06:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. Look what happened the last time we gave Pickbothmanlol a "last chance". MuZemike 08:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Responses to being blocked should be taken with a pinch of salt, and I'll add more salt as User:ChildofMidnight and others encouraged him to think he was being persecuted or something, but Grundle's responses prior to this unblock request, indicate a rather massive "not getting it". This unblock request (the fourth one) reads like someone writing a prepared statement for the press. I don't much like that he archived all that prior discussion (User talk:Grundle2600/Archive 11), or that he hasn't even referenced the discussion about the conditions for a potential unblock, which were discussed in the archived ANI thread.

In any case, the fact that he still thinks this edit (where he added the "married with two children" information to the article as its third sentence) was OK indicates that he still doesn't get it. Separating that information from the climate policy described further down avoids WP:SYNTH, but it serves the purpose of that SYNTH almost equally well, by giving prominence to a fact about the BLP subject he wished to be more widely known. (A logically irrelevant but politically salient fact.) Given the prior blatant SYNTH edit and discussion thereof, I think the edit constitutes WP:GAMEing, and that Grundle doesn't see that makes me (bearing in mind the history) highly doubtful about letting him anywhere near any political topics for a good long while. He seems (certainly looking at the history around the Diane Francis article) to have exhibited very similar behaviour to that which earned him the topic ban from US politics. I think if he's to be given another chance, the topic ban needs to be extended in some form (maybe permitting talk page comments) to cover all political topics. Rd232 ^talk 08:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

well he's now engaging on the talk page re the conditions of unblocking; I'll leave that issue to others (particularly the question of topics he mentions like nuclear power, which certainly have strong political aspects). To facilitate discussion it might be an idea to conditionally unblock (WP:BLOCK#Temporary circumstances unblocks) for the sole purpose of participating in this thread. Rd232 ^talk 12:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I see that Grundle is making certain editing pledges, but I'd like to point out that the editor still wants to be able to edit pages about "international political issues" (such as overpopulation). It's been my experience that Grundle is incapable of editing any article that is even tangentially-related to politics without doing so in an agenda-driven manner. Virtually every edit this editor makes has some sort of underlying statement. Sometimes it isn't obvious until you look at a range of edits, then a pattern emerges. I think if an unblock request is granted, this editor will need a very tight leash for a while. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• The irrelevant attacks being made against me by RD232 and Tarc, two editors with a long history of disruption on political articles, are unhelpful. I told Grundle that I thought his original edit noting that a commentator calling for China's one child policy to be instituted world wide has two childen was too much of a synthesis. I also noted that it was resolved and modified by him after objections were made. If he weren't being stalked by a pack of POV pushers who camp out on certain articles and hound editors whose view they don't agree with there wouldn't be much of a problem. Lots of editors make imperfect contributions and his mistake was relatively minor and was fixed well before RD232's out orf process block. Grundle has written lots of great articles and made many good edits to the encyclopedia. He is an excellent editor who has suffered the relentless trolling, baiting and disruption engaged in by Tarc and others. These behaviors are very damaging and should not be allowed to continue. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• My dear ChldofMidnight, you said that Grundle should create sock-puppets to evade the block on his account. Could you please elaborate for us just what your justification is for suggesting that another user violate established policy? Good edits do not excuse bad behavior; not for Grundle, and most certainly not for you. Tarc (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Enough. Unblock the guy. There are plenty of eyes on his contributions, and it's going to stay that way for quite some time. What can you warn him about that he hasn't heard, and if he hasn't listened, it will soon become readily apparent and he will be reblocked.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Update: User:Ronnotel unblocked Grundle with the summary "OK, looks like a lesson was learned and the user has made constructive edits elsewhere, but please abide by this undertaking or I, or someone else will reimpose."[85] My only question is - since the undertaking wasn't linked to in the unblock edit summary - how is this undertaking going to be recorded, so it isn't forgotten in a week or two? Rd232 ^talk 19:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Rd232, I'll just post it here:

First, Abecedare stated, "Note for reviewing admin: There was discussion about Grundle2600's unblock requests at ANI, where some unblock conditions were proposed and discussed. I have not followed this issue, and have no opinion on the merits of the unblock or the conditions. Abecedare (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)"

Then I responded with this:

I'd like to address those points:

"1. Grundle is to refrain from posting his list of seven questions or referring to them anywhere on Wikipedia."

I agree to this.

"2. He is topic banned from editing or participating in discussion of any political or politically controversial article, as well as BLPs. This includes articles directly about politics, but also includes politically controversial topics, like climate change."

I agree to avoid editing articles about politicians from all countries, including their article talk pages. I also agree to avoiding editing articles about people from all countries whose main notability is their political commentary, such as Diane Francis, Michael Moore, and Paul Krugman, as well as their talk pages. I do not agree to any such ban on BPLs for non-political people, such as Phoebe Cates, Stephen Hawking, or Bill Watterson, because the issue there for non-political BLPs (I think Tiger Woods was the only one) was not my edits to articles, but instead, some jokes I made in the comment section and talk pages. Therefore, I agree to stop making jokes about all living persons in the comment section and talk pages for articles. However, I still reserve the right to make edits about international political articles that are not BLPs, such as nuclear power, overpopulation, and sweatshops. My edits in these articles have generally been welcomed by other editors, and the histories of these kinds of articles shows that I have substantially improved them without causing trouble.

"3. Grundle agrees to take note of and adhere thoroughly to WP:SYN"

I agree to this.

4. "Grundle agrees to disengage from and avoid those he has had disputes with, especially political disputes."

I only agree to avoid having discussions with editors who specifically make such a request to me on my own talk page, and even then, I reserve the right to make one last comment to them on my talk page, to tell them that I will no longer be talking to them. Many of the editors that I have had political disagreements with, have specifically told me that they enjoy talking with me about other subjects. In addition, many of these editors have praised me for my kind, friendly behavior, and for not making personal attacks. There is no justification for keeping me away from these editors.

5. "Any posting of his seven questions or referring to them, or breaking of his topic ban, or deliberate engagement with those he has had dispues with will result in his indefinite block being immediately reinstated for a period of no less than 4 months."

I agree to all of this, except the part about staying away from other editors. If a specific editor requests to me that I avoid talking to him or her, I will honor their request. I will not avoid editing articles just because certain other editors have edited them. Staying away from articles about politicians and political commentators is enough to solve past problems with other editors. There's no need for me to stay away from other articles. Grundle2600 (talk) 10:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Grundle2600 (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Carpenter

If anyone has a few minutes, we've got quite a mess at Carpenter, Carpenter (surname) and Carpenter (disambiguation) - I'd try and fix myself but am going offline now. Exxolon (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Uh... not terribly seeing the problem - could you elaborate before you head off? Tony Fox (arf!) 22:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I can see is that Carpenter (disambiguation) should probably be moved to Carpenter. There's every chance I might have missed something obvious, though... Brilliantine (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Eik Corell, Rehevkor, Collectonian, and judgement based on no knowledge on the subject...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is a content dispute. Please pursue the normal methods of dispute resolution, and keep in mind long established guidelines and policies--Jayron32 00:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

---

So here we are again. While I don't want to say, that only experts can edit the articles on Wikipedia, I just want to say, that it should be up to experts to decide, whether a piece of information is notable, reliable, useful, important, and relevant, or whether it is not.

Here I'm having Eik Corell, and Rehevkor, juding that the Versions tables of the Little Big Adventure 1, and Little Big Adventure 2, are speculative, OR, and not important for the average reader, without having the slightest bit of knowledge about either game.

Also please note, that Eik Corell has joined Wikipedia on March 20th, this year, whereas I joined in 2006, or even before, so I don't like it how, he thinks he WP:OWNs the article, and how he has the last word on what can, or can't, be written in them.

As for Collectonian, I've been browsing her talk page, and she's utterly disrespectful to anyone, who doesn't agree with her. And just like the two above, she's judging Non-English adaptations of Tokyo Mew Mew speculative, OR, and not important for the average reader, without having the slightest bit of knowledge about Tokyo Mew Mew.

I just spoke to a contact of mine, Nakamura Hiroshi, from Tokyo, Japan, who has personal contact with the story-writer, who was behind the Tokyo Mew Mew manga, Yoshida Reiko, and he told me that she herself wishes all non-Japanese versions of it to be treated equally here, so not including them even goes against the wishes of the author herself. He says Reiko told him she's very disappointed about how the article pretends that the Anglosphere (4Kids) adaptations of the anime are the only important ones, and she says this is disrepsect to her story because the Wikipedia gives importance to an adaptation, which severely buchered it for virtually no reason [sic] (her own words, just translated to English), and none to dubs which preserved it faithfully.

And again, Collectonian is utterly disrespectful, and aggressive, to anyone, who doesn't agree with her, and even resorts to censorship, when she gets cornered, like when I cornered her by bringing up the Non-English versions of the Simpsons article, and asking her, why that's OK, but a similar one about Tokyo Mew Mew, isn't, she simply deleted the conversation from her talk page, which is an action, that I perceive as a direct personal attack at me.

And Eik Corell is now resorting to personal attacks as well (yes, saying "I'm done with you" aggressively IS a personal attack), after being cornered by Thomas Wrobel. He hasn't had the slightest bit of personal, friendly discussion with me, and all he ever did, was shoving Wikipedia policies in my face, without any explanation, or rationale, why he considers the stuff in violation of the policies. He also never copy+pasted the information he deleted to the talk page for discussion and break-down, which is why we thought he was vandalizing this page - since he didn't even start a discussion to see, what can be kept of that information.

I'd like an Administrator to take action against all three users. Against Eik Corell for deleting articles without even discussing stuff on the talk page, until an edit war started, and also for personal attacks. Against Rehevkor, for deleting articles without even discussing stuff on the talk page. Against Collectonian for disrespectful behavior towards users she doesn't agree with, personal attacks, and (attempted) censorship with the intent to avoid answering a legitimate question, put forward to her by me.

Regards, João de Camões (OBrasilo). - OBrasilo (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Where is my popcorn? Obrasilo complains about other people entering original research into an article and a bunch of experts can't get ir removed. This is hilarious. I hope there is a movie version. I have a feeling any investigation into this dispute will now show much the way it is presented here. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I guess you missed this direction: "You must notify any user that you discuss." I've done so for you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

No diffs? Using the admins' noticeboard to ask that Wikipedia completely change the way it works to satisfy you? (Only self-declared, unverifiable "experts" should have any say about inclusion.) Calling slightly curt responses "personal attacks"? This line is particularly troubling/amusing: "I just spoke to a contact of mine, Nakamura Hiroshi, from Tokyo, Japan, who has personal contact with the story-writer, who was behind the Tokyo Mew Mew manga, Yoshida Reiko, and he told me that she herself wishes all non-Japanese versions of it to be treated equally here, so not including them even goes against the wishes of the author herself."

Am I the only one who thinks that Obrasilo really doesn't get Wikipedia at all? I'm not sure where I would even start with him to try explaining what's wrong with what he's saying here. -- Atama頭 23:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

This again? What articles have I deleted? I'm not even an administrator. I'd like to see specific evidence of misconduct before I even give a second thought to these bad faith accusations. p.s. I have played and finished LBA and LBA2. Rehevkor ✉ 23:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Tokyo Mew Mew is a featured article, along with its other articles. It focuses on the Japanese version of the series, and the English adaptation of the manga, with brief mentions of the English dub and other language versions. Yet somehow we're focusing entirely on the dub? *ROFLMAO* I particularly like that I was "cornered" by a red-link? Beyond being the friend of User:OutOfTimer, who was also recently discussed here[86] (and who our complainer tried to tag team with to attack the valid points being made by others, the lies and bad faith stuff above just leaves me wanting some of that popcorn. I would, however, suggest that perhaps the one admins need to look at is OBrasilo and OutOfTimer themselves who are engaging if off-wiki canvassing and personal attacks[87] (read near the end to see where OutOfTimer's message was later deleted). And if an admin wishes to read my attempted discussion with this guy, I "censored" it at[88] (does he even know what the word means?). Oh, it should also be noted that he neglected to mention he is not uninvolved in the issue, having apparently aided in the release of an illegal Hebrew version of the LBA series ([89] linking only for evidence - link does violate WP:COPYRIGHT)...guess that would explain his desire to have those foreign languages mention even if his version would still never get screen time here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, I'll be the one to invoke WP:PLAXICO. Watch your feet while pulling the gun out of your waist. In any event, Content dispute. Consider dispute resolution. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Formal apology to users Eik Corell, Rehevkor, and Collectonian...

Hereby, I formally apologize to users Eik Corell, and Rehevkor, for my bad behavior until now. I promise I'll stop pushing my Versions table into this aritcle. I have decided to copy it onto my personal website about these games, The Island CX, and leave it there. It has more relevance there, than it has here.

I also formally apologize to user Collectonian for my bad behavior until now. I promise I'll stop harassing her with my crap, and to stay back from the Tokyo Mew Mew articles. Rather, I'll create my personal website about Tokyo Mew Mew, and copy onto it the now-deleted informations from those articles about the various non-English adaptations.

I do realize I went way over the top, so I apologize for that. - OBrasilo (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment. The above, also repeated on the concerned users talk pages, is in relation to a previous issue. Rehevkor ✉

Possible attempted death threat by an anonymous user

Resolved

When I looked at the edit filter log a little while ago, I noticed some very disturbing entries involving anonymous user 64.231.11.41. The user in question apparently tried to post a death threat and even attempted to disclose what may possibly be the target's personal information (details). I tried to report this matter at AIV, but one of the helperbots claimed that the anonymous IP in question had already been blocked and thus removed my report prematurely; the block log still does not have any entries for this particular anonymous IP. The anonymous user has since stopped, but I don't think this matter should be left unchecked due to the nature of the attempted edits. SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 23:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Something may very well up with the bot. IP blocked 48 hours. Blueboy96 23:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Dharam Pal Kirar

Resolved

(I think here is the appropriate place for this) I put this article up for PROD for the reasons I gave on the page (it may well be currently eligable for speedy deletion), but it appears that the page has been the subject of a deletion discussion, and I was wondering whether it could go for db-repost. The article was created by User:Someshkirar, who appears to have repeatedly created both this article and another called Dhanak, which have been deleted before. I think this website should be pointed out as well (it appears to be the only source on this subject I can find): [90]. Essentially what this message is about is whether these two pages should be creation protected or if the user should be blocked to some degree, as I can see no reason they would stop this if it is deleted again. Jhbuk (talk) 23:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted and WP:SALTed the article and its redirect under WP:CSD#G4 - recreation of an article deleted following an WP:AfD. I have noted my actions on the editors talkpage. If the editor continues to try and create articles based around variables of the subjects name, then they can be reported to AIV or here for further action. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Network of hoaxes needs attention

Earlier today, Xanarki spotted several apparent hoax articles about bands, including Backwoods Warriors, Four Sick Cats, Etan, and Shovel. He nominated them as A7 speedies, which was off target, since the articles clearly (but falsely) asserted notability (major label releases, etc). Some of the speedies were declined, others weren't acted on. was looking through the articles and realized that the band articles were only the beginning of the problem -- there are also fake album articles, fake band member articles, phony graphics uploaded, and who knows what else. The hoaxster, who's been around at least since 2007 [91] [92] and was editing as recently as November 28 [93] is using multiple accounts, of course, and makes some legitimate edits. The hoaxing is getting more sophisticated, and recent creations are not only mixing real people into the phony articles, but even seems to involve the creation of fake references [94] [95]. I've added PROD tags to more than a dozen articles so far, and haven't come close to ID'ing everything involved. There are articles like Nate Sidek, with apparently fake images included, where the images need to be checked and tagged. Most of the articles lead to other hoaxes of one sort or another, so I think it's a good idea not to speedy-delete them until the linked articles and related images are checked out, and the accounts involved flagged for further investigation. Nate Sidek, for example, is also listed in March 4; Shovel has been listed in Ozzfest lineups by year. Given that the hoaxster's been at it for nearly three years, if not more, there could be a lot of junk to clear out. (There apparently was a partial cleanup about two years ago, but the job wasn't finished and the hoaxing has been growing.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Very rarely do such things actually end at just the artist pages. That would be too easy :) ...Claims of being signed to labels and chart positions for notability seems to be "the thing" as of late since it's harder/slower to check, especially some of the genre-specific US charts (some never existed at all in that year). Agree also that a few existing persons with articles seem to get mixed in a little too conveniently, be it accidentally or not and it's all the more frustrating. The WP:BAND guideline of 2 notable persons almost seems to have been tailor-made just to avoid a gimmick on cycling in 1 person or an accidental connection. I'll work through contribution lists and double-check what you're catching. Haven't gotten to work on a large band hoax in awhile, should be fun. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 05:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If only they put that much effort into real articles. Let's dig through them and see what is legit and what isn't. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't we speedy these as hoaxes? Also shouldn't there be a discussion as to what to do about the account that created these? Ridernyc (talk) 06:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Permab&? I didn't think there was much discussion needed. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hoaxes are specifically usually not supposed to be speedy deleted. Brilliantine (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Some can be. – ukexpat (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

True, though I think they would need to be rather more blatant and less plausible for that. Brilliantine (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

While it is appropriate to remove hoaxes and the like, because of the the potential damage to Wikipedia's reputation, I should comment that this instance it is not something to regard as much more than usual vandalism; since these are non existant entities they are extremely unlikely to be subject to searches. At most they are a boasting example, something created to show off to their mates. Under the circumstances the probable best response is to clean up the dross and slap a block template on the accounts and then ignore them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It's extremely hard to show something is a 100% obvious hoax, which is what the CSD it meant to cover. I spent 3 friggin' hours one night piecing apart a somewhat similar hoax.. Since we don't know the logic of the patrol who had let it through originally on acceptable quality, it would be in somewhat poor taste to speedy something because we just found evidence their 1 notability claim (or close to it) was a farse. PROD and etc afterward has a papertrail to look back on if needed, as well. Frankly, I think tightening the regulations is in order. I doubt anyone expected the sheer volume of new articles that would come from the loose standards... also a terrible underestimation of the desire for a Wikipedia page to make them notable, not as proof they are. It's s point of pride in some cases. Since we've cracked down in the past year on like duplicates to redirects, merges, BLPs,. etc, so it's about time this gets the same treatment. Can't we come up with something better? ♪ daTheisen(talk) 18:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

One might argue that obscure bands are never notable so allowing all these obscure articles causes hoaxes to occur. If we just stick with Finland, Queen Elizabeth II, water, and those type of articles, this wouldn't happen. Of course, the other extreme is having every news article a Wikipedia article.Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what level of sarcasm that was, but guidelines on band notability are very established, and there are a lot of essays on the topic with wise words a lot of editors follow like WP:GARAGE, WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:ENN. Some feel the guidelines are too loose, myself included, but I I'll always comment in discussion that I need to put my WP:DUCK test feeling aside to follow guidelines when criteria being met is obvious. I like this rule of thumb offered to page authors this most-- "If no one has created an article about your band yet, you're probably not notable." There are deviations from the precise guidelines sometimes for both inclusion and exclusion, though rare. In the end, if someone thought their band was truly truly notable they would contest the deletion or come back with a stronger article in the future. Very, very few do. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 18:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• User:Shii/Hoaxes is the page presently used to document hoaxes. Please add a summary of the case(s) concerned here at the bottom of that table, for future reference. --JN466 02:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The other problem with this rat's nest that needs to be tackled is what to do with the related images. Those which were represented as being used as fair use are a no-brainer: they'll go bye-bye when the deletion process runs its course. But what to do with such examples as File:Natesideklive07.jpg, which features a rather scruffy looking fellow in dreadlocks apparently in the initial stages of a pratfall: since it's been submitted as public domain, is there any way we could salvage it to illustrate another article (e.g. dreadlock or pratfall)? BTW, the fellow behind him with the intense look on his face greatly resembles a friend of mine -- but the musical tastes of my friend is far more towards '60s rock-n-roll than industrial rock. -- llywrch (talk) 07:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for Metropolitan Bible Church

Resolved

Hello, I was considering creating Metropolitan Bible Church, but I saw that it previously had been deleted. I would like to request a userfied page of that old one. I was going to ask the original admin, but she has some medical issues and hasn't been on in months. (The User is User:Masamage) Let me know. --MWOAP (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Article now located at User:MWOAP/Metropolitan Bible Church. Via con dios. --Jayron32 03:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Tombaker321 single purpose account at Polanski

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

WP:TLDR much? If it's this hard to explain what's going on (seemingly a pattern of behaviour, not an incident), then use an WP:RFC/U, not ANI. Though maybe better use of content dispute resolution like WP:RFC would be enough; certainly wouldn't hurt. Rd232 ^talk 15:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

---

User:Tombaker321 Is a single purpose account as regards Roman Polanski , his editing has been a constant disruption there as he has over a long period of time, continually tediously attempted to add his point of view, yesterday he made imo a poor edit to a section about Polanski's bail, this edit removed details and totally removed the fact that Polanski was in jail for 2 months, I reverted and he put it back and the beginnings of an edit war were there, I stood back and opened a section in the talk, there was no support for his rewrite at all, two editors supported my position so I replaced the original content this evening, user Tombaker321 has come back and ignored the fact that he has no support, he doesn't care about that, and he has simply again removed the content and replaced it with his content, he has been here long enough to realize that ignoring the opinion of other editors is disruptive this is a constant repeated situation with this single purpose account and it is tiresome and tedious for other editors at the article. After he made the edit today I left him a note reminding him that there was no support for his edit and to please revert but he refused, I think it is time to curtail the tedious disruption of this editor. Off2riorob (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

1. My edits are in good faith, my POV is singularly to have a well cited factual record reported, which I strive to make all of my edits conform to.

2. The edit being questioned, has the arrest date, and the date when he was released in bail. (it does not type out "2 months in jail" but the math is not hard) To what issue Off2riorb is contending is POV or disruptive is unknown.

3. Just 3 minutes after spending the time to update the entry, Off2riorob reverted my edits, saying "(Reverted 1 edit by Tombaker321; This edit adds nothing to the content. (TW))"

4. Without looking at the merits of the additions of facts (in what is a time, place, and situation section), Off2riorob sought out some form of "instant consensus" which he then determined and used to revert everything. Off2riorob's modus operandi is to claim authority and insist he can gavel discussions.

5. I did not remove content, I reworded and added content. I still do not know what is objectionable about the edit.

6. Off2riorob has continued his ad hominem attacks of me in multiple venues, and now this one.

7. Off2riorob writes in the TALK page days before "Tombaker, please stop posting your opinionated summary on this talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)"

• Off2riorob continues to confront,edit war, and disrupt editors, and I am just the latest target. --Tombaker321 (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive571#Harrassment.2Fdisruption_from_User:Off2riorob

Extensions of good faith given to Off2riorob

1. 16 April 2009 - 72 hour block for disruption at WP:GA article was reduced to 48 hours, after Off2riorob agreed in the future to seek out dispute resolution instead of be disruptive [96].
2. 29 September 2009 - Sanctioned with parole of 1RR per page per day for 5 weeks, instead of being given a "lengthy block". [97]

Prior disruption and blocks

See prior ANI threads detailing disruption by Off2riorob and blocks:

• 14 March 2009 - blocked 24 hours for disruption of a WP:GA article.
• 16 April 2009 - blocked 72 hours for disruption at same WP:GA article - Off2riorob was then given a good faith reduction of that block to 48 hours, after Off2riorob agreed in the future to seek out dispute resolution instead of be disruptive [98].
• 25 April 2009 - Blocked 72 hours, for disruption at same WP:GA article.
• 29 April 2009 - Blocked one week, for disruption at same WP:GA article.
• 19 July 2009 - Blocked 2 weeks, disruption at Tony Blair.
• 21 August 2009 - Blocked 3 weeks, block log edit summary by admin Chillum: edit warring yet again
• 29 September 2009 - Off2riorob sanctioned to 1RR per page per day for 5 weeks.

Comments by admin Chillum

• 25 August 2009 - Entry in his block log by admin Chillum (talk · contribs): "User gave word not to edit war in the future, reducing block", which was citing this comment by Off2riorob: [99].

• 22 September 2009 - Comment by admin Chillum: I am considering you to be fully aware of our edit warring policy in the future Off2, and will not be considering warnings to be needed in the future. You gave me your word that you would not edit war as a condition of your last unblock, given that you have not kept this word I will not be extending that offer next time you are blocked.

• 29 September 2009 - When I brought Off2riorob's disruption to Chillum's attention, Chillum responded: It looks like edit warring to me. If I was not taking a break from my admin tools currently then I would likely hold Rio to his prior promise. . Perhaps another admin will feel the same way I do, but my buttons are currently not being used.

Comments by admin Moreschi

• 29 September 2009 - I think we have the choice between a lengthy block, an indefinite block, and a 1RR per page per day revert parole.

--Tombaker321 (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Note: [100] --JN466 04:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Disruptive WP:SPA on a contentious and sensitive WP:BLP should qualify for a topic ban. Whether that should extend to other warriors as well I could not say, it would need further investigation. My recommendation is a 30-day topic ban for Tombaker321 with a 1RR parole at expiry. We need this kind of fight like we need a hole in the head. Guy (Help!) 08:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

* JzG, I am taken aback by your comment, and have to believe that you did not familiarize yourself with what has been raised here, certainly 30 days is a classic overkill action. Since we have never interacted, I am baffled by your assertion for the overkill 30 days. maybe you juxtaposed names?..the long chain of previous ANI is Off2riorob's not mine

* Perhaps to illustrate what was raised at me here and now, I need to put down the actual sentences at question.

Here was the previous version.

"In September 2009 Polanski was arrested by Swiss police because of his outstanding U.S. warrant when he entered the country to accept a Lifetime Achievement Award at the Zurich Film Festival.[1][2] His initial request for bail was refused noting the "high risk of flight" and his subsequent appeal was rejected by Switzerland's Federal Criminal Court.[3][4] On November 25, 2009 a Swiss court accepted Roman Polanski's plea to be freed on $US 4.5 M bail. The court said Polanski could stay at his chalet in the Swiss Alps and that he would be monitored by an electronic tag.[5] The Swiss authorities announced on December 4, 2009 that Polanski had been moved to his home in the resort of Gstaad and placed under house arrest .[6]

Here is the current version which I wrote.

"On September 26th 2009, Polanski was taken into custody at the Zurich airport by Swiss police at the request of U.S. authorities, for a 2005 international arrest warrant, as he traveled to accept a lifetime achievement award at the Zurich Film Festival.[69][70] After initially being jailed, on December 4th Polanski was granted house arrest at his Gstaad residence on $US 4.5 M bail, while awaiting decision of appeals fighting extradition. [71][72]"

The above is what is being contested by Off2riorob.

My edits were a valid and earnest rewrite, regardless of any assertions. The same information is conveyed, more information is added, and word count is halved. When I streamlined the text I did not think it would be controversial. I am at a complete loss to see how the rewrite and aggregating is so problematic. Off2riorob premise seems to be those with a viewpoint other than his own, are acting in bad faith. When I look at the two sentences above, I stand by my edits, they are written well. --Tombaker321 (talk) 10:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Your edit even after you have altered it, has still removed informative detail, the reader now is not given the information the Polanski is electronically tagged, you have removed for what reason I do not know, two perfectly good citations, you have removed detail that Polanski first made two attempts for bail that these were rejected and the reason that was given was that he was a risk of flight. [Off2riorob continues in next subtopic]

Beyond content disputes (as illustrated above)

These type of changes, where none were needed, is exactly the point, your continual content creep in a tedious and disruptive attempt to alter the expression of the text to your often declared point of view, I strongly support Guy's comments that a short term , 30 day topic ban or a similar 1RR parole would help, the editor seems not to care about whether there is any support for his position and simply makes the edit anyway, under this position there is simply no point in editors bothering to discuss the issues. Also although the editor removes them, there are a multitude of warning notes have been given. This users conduct has been the same since day one and I am certain that without some form of reprimand or control it will continue to disrupt in such a way. Off2riorob (talk) 12:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Guy, I know you mean well, but heavy-handed comments like that without any adequate explanation or analysis of the situation are not going to make the atmosphere any more pleasant. You know that as well as I do. Personally, I see this dispute as a perfectly good faith content issue blown way out of proportion by a lack of clear and reasoned communication between editors, as well as a tendency on both sides to jump to conclusions regarding the motives of others. Brilliantine (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(begin 2-days later exchange)

(re Brilliantine) With all respect, you rebuke Guy for leaping to a conclusion, yet allow yourself to "Personally, ... see" what you cannot see at all ... because you have not been there. Guy is responding to Off2riorob's description as if it might well be true. While yes, the edit in question, seems a simple matter that shouldn't be that contentious ... that alone should tell you something more than the appearance of that one edit is going on. Off2riob is frustrated enough to bring this here, knowing he may have every past fault thrown in his face. Think how exhausted he must be, to come and subject himself to "all this," to finally address a problem he has witnessed and endured for a long time. I.E., With all due respect, you cannot judge this matter by looking at what one edit looks like. It's an edit in the context of much else. For more of the complexity, see the topic (... simultaneous dual edit wars) by SPA in question below. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 12:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

...I have, in fact, read through the history of the article and of the talk page. I would like to point out that it takes two to edit war, and see vaguely disruptive behaviour - though not egregiously so - coming equally from both sides. And on this ANI, I see a lot of vague and long-winded allegations from both sides that offer little of interest. Brilliantine (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

(re Brilliantine - note: outdented to highlight reply, I'll return indent to highlight mine NOTE TO READERS: This exchange takes place out of time sequence of topic flow, due to fact I did not arrive until after I was mentioned :- )

Well, you have two experienced editors (Off2riorob and Proofreader77, and a different, few-edits account Oberonfitch) saying something, and a rebuttal of "attempted character assassination" (noticed by administrator Shereth 16:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

[Quoting: Shereth to Tombaker321] "... To be honest, this kind of attempted character assassination in order to win an argument makes me extremely disinclined to take his argument on good faith at this point."

(noting) Tombaker321 is the SPA in topic question created during current events — And I hereby note that I did NOT arrive here for this topic until I was attacked.

Since your (Brilliantine)'s description of "vague" would not seem to apply to the SPA's attacks (which are very detailed), I will assume there have not been sufficient diffs provided for the allegations against the SPA to satisfy you — but rather only the mere words of two experienced editors who have, yes, experienced all that has transpired.

But should diffs be requested in the "Questions" spaces below, I'm sure that all the vagueness of the experienced editors may be made manifestly solid. (PS Happy holidays —and please excuse rhetorical tilts with sometimes insufficient grace for the season ... of our discontent ... Since [our dialogue is] insufficiently fascinating to arouse interest naturally, perhaps there can be some rhetorical verse in conclusion which, I will [suggest], is much more delightful than what came before. ;-)
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

(end 2-days later exchange)

There are, at this point, three editors still working on Polanski, with two more semi-contributors. I am one of the latter. Most have conceded defeat because of the contentious atmosphere, and most of that has been generated by Tombaker321, who early in his editing career responded to a discussion he was having with Off2riorob on his own talk page that "I take it you support the rapist of a 13 year old? Why because you like his films?--Tombaker321 (talk) 00:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)." In my opinion, the editors on Polanski have shown a great deal of patience while dealing with content creep. We have endured, and I do mean endured, pages of Tombaker321's repetitive content in Talk, in which he advises us of what we are dealing with, because apparently although we have all been on the article longer than he has, we are clueless.

Nothing much is happening at the moment in the Polanski saga, it would be nice if the article were cleaned up a tad with citation checking and then left alone. This will not happen if Tombaker321 continues to edit. There is a companion article Polanski Sexual Abuse, which could use attention, and which was bifurcated in an attempt to create stability in the main article. No one is touching it.

None of the other editors have any desire to elevate Polanski above his crime; we see that the victim has moved on, that there are serious charges of jurisprudential malfeasance, and that much is left to be decided by the courts. Were an admin to decide to block Tombaker321 for a time, I am confident that the article would not suddenly become a victim-bashing, pro-Polanski spectacle. Another completely rational (and kind to us all) choice would be to lock the article entirely, and allow the participants to refocus attention elsewhere. I appreciate that Tombaker321 is completely outraged by the assault; however, the flavor and the neutrality of the article can be skewed by a few minor edits, and he has demonstrated that he is far from neutral; that fact is reflected in his behavior. Oberonfitch (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Re: Off2riorob, edit summary of item at question "Added date of arrest, ..Added location of arrest,.. Added date of warrant, ..Added information on appeals,.. Added information on extradition, ..Kept cites and content, ..worded for conciseness" House arrest is Wikilinked which talks about flight risk and electronic monitoring, both of which are well understood as reasons for house arrest by readers. For some reason you have failed to mention Proofreader77 whom you interact with heavily, and team with in reverting. My edits are in good faith.
• Re: Oberonfitch. Oberonfitch is a single purpose account of Roman Polanski. His manner of actions suggest a sockpuppet of Proofreader77. He raises viewpoints in his remarks of viewpoints on the crime and its resolution, here as argument. He does not address my edit being questioned here which remains a good faith edit. Both fail to mention Proofreader77 as a catalyst on the Talk pages. The conversation the Oberonfitch quotes from my talk page is a sample from discussion instigated by Off2riorob, its sampling is very selective and for purpose. His remarks about locking the article before Christmas, and small wording are highly tuned to the same remarks of Proofreader77, though this SPA does not reflect Proofreader77 participation.
• Off2riob has said that citing that the victim had sex prior to any involvement with Polanski is relevant for citing in the entry. Yes I did oppose this. Proofreader77 advocates that the appearance of the victim is mitigation of Polanski's actions needing to be cited. Yes I did oppose this.
• Proofreader77 has framed this ANI about a specific edit as "Bottom line: ANI is NOT about last edit—but all before. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)" Proofreader77 is currently under ANI restriction for Polanski. One Admin said in the ANI leading to those restrictions: "This editor appears to be a personified denial of service attack on Wikipedia's consensus building mechanism. Hans Adler 07:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)"

• In opposition of this specific edit, these editors formed the following flying wedge, at a very early morning hour.

Is there any support here for Tombakers edit? [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob] 07:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No. Would elaborate but must get to bed. [[User:Oberonfitch|Oberonfitch] 07:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Off2riorb and Oberonfitch. No. [[User:Proofreader77|Proofreader77] 07:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• See also http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=331429921#Roman_Polanski_article_again._Editor_refuses_to_stop_inserting_information_to_whitewash_case

• Today and prior to resolution of this matter raised in ANI, Off2riorob had changed the specific sentences at issue here. When reverted by an editor, Proofreader77, quickly attacked the need for revision.
• Then another unsigned remark is added that has no signature and no IP address, is left. (which is possible from a IP changing utility) That message says they are leaving their seat at Polanski, reflecting WP:OWN by its author. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARoman_Polanski&action=historysubmit&diff=332124856&oldid=332123702
• Then Oberonfitch goes in to specifically and only update his signature. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roman_Polanski&diff=prev&oldid=332133242

• The specific edit being questioned here, in this ANI, I stand behind fully. They were proper and and in good faith --Tombaker321 (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I feel inclined to make specific comments on the topic dispute at hand, but I must say that the attempt to sway this discussion by dredging up Off2riorob's past transgressions demonstrates extraordinarily poor taste by Tombaker321. To be honest, this kind of attempted character assassination in order to win an argument makes me extremely disinclined to take his argument on good faith at this point. Shereth 22:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Shereth, it is a copy and paste attempt at, as you correctly say..character assassination..perhaps in future I will post it myself, as it is simply a smoke screen as you say. I am certain that at the least through this thread that more people are aware of the situation. Off2riorob (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Shereth: Please read the original remarks made by Off2riorob starting this thread for tone. Please read the two edits above, and weigh whether I am doing anything in bad faith or with bias. House Arrest is a term that both conveys bail, and electronic monitoring, its Wikilinked if anyone needs more information, but house arrest is a pretty well understood term. Offriorob's manner of action has caused a litany of Administrator interventions. Its certainly not character assassination, since the cumulative record is used by administrators to effect new actions. I am just the latest object being bulldozed. The historical record of administrator actions should give insight. Beyond that, what on earth is wrong with the edit, that caused me to be here. --Tombaker321 (talk) 13:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Please comment on the content dispute and not the contributor. This discussion should be designed to resolve the current dispute regarding the edits on the Roman Polanski article; it is not a referendum on Off2riorob's previous issues. Intentional or not, your dredging up of his transgressions (which are, by and large, immaterial to the dispute at hand) creates the strong impression that you are simply engaging in an ad hominem attack on Off2riorob in an attempt to discredit his argument rather than addressing the substance of the dispute. Shereth 16:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Are there any questions for Proofreader77?

Note: I have been BLP/NPOV "current events wrangling" on Roman Polanski since around 4 Oct (amidst one week full lock). FYI: I've been summoned to ANI twice about the Roman Polanski article. Second time, dismissed. First time, restricted from using formatting and talking more than 100 words at a time and 10 posts per day [exceeded for this intro] (which will be appealed: overlooked was that all my effort was "counterbalancing" the subject of this topic).

Comment: If you survey the territory above, you may have some flavor of the "combat" atmosphere which unfortunately often reigns at the article. But it should not be surprising given the social controversy around Polanski's fate. Historical note: The day Polanski first encountered Judge Rittenband, a T-shirt entrepreneur was outside selling two kinds of t-shirts: "JAIL POLANSKI" and "FREE POLANSKI." It is the same now. No T-shirts allowed in the Wikipedia restaurant, of course. And the content dispute above does not illustrate that dichotomy — and perhaps that makes it more suitable (for something unsuitable) here at ANI.

The question that ANI can address, of course, is whether the patterns of editing behavior and interactive communication of the subject of this topic are such that restrictions of some kind would be warranted for the benefit of the community.

I will respond to questions, if there are any for me. (Excuse delays, I'm off and on re holidays details ... In any case, happy holidays.)
--Proofreader77 (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• [bullet please]

Retort by Oberonfitch

• I do not know what the proper procedure is for addressing the allegations of sockpuppetry, however, I am offended beyond words. I am requesting a checkuser on my account, if the other named party allows the same. Tom, this is the second time you have alleged that I am a sock of Proofreader77's. The first time I chose not to reply, however, as we are at ANI I do not feel that I have any choice. It would be a fantastic trick to pull off such diverse writing styles.
• As for the IP change utility, when I noticed that it had not signed (which confuses me as I was signed in according to the screen I was working on) I went back and fixed it. I DO have other edits, if small, on other articles. It is this pervasive hostility which has created the article which we have today. I have resigned from working on Polanski and intend to resign from Wikipedia as a whole, pending the results--which I expect to be placed on this page--of checkuser. Oberonfitch (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Oberonfitch you have a similar commentary as both Off2riorob and Proofreader77, as shown in your commenting here. You have chosen to opine as a SPA on a set of specific edits, with instead, a trumped up mischaracterization of my actions as an editor. The edits in question are shown above, what is the problem with them? Your statements attempt to speak for all editors using "we" and "none of us" framing. I find it very objectionable that you seek some sort of ban on me, or locking the article completely. --Tombaker321 (talk) 12:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

<redented for readability. Tom, your behavior is disruptive. First of all, this is not an SPA. That I have limited time to devote to Wiki is none of your concern. You can follow me over to Pentti Linkola after this. Regarding other matters, you were clearly told by three editors that there was no support for your edit. I apologize for using a global "we," and I'm sorry that I am so completely done with working with you that I am leaving the Polanski article to your editorial changes. I am suitably astonished that you characterize us a cabal whose purpose was "to form a flying wedge, at a very early morning hour," completely discounting the possibility that three editors could think that you are wrong.

That you would even bother to reply to my Retort, when you deleted from your user page my request that you launch a sock puppet investigation on me and Proofreader77, which I invited you to do in a pleasant manner even though I had left the article, shows a lack of grace. You then point at my leaving as proof of WP:OWN. This continual picking is obnoxious. You could simply acknowledge quietly to yourself that you had succeeded in running off another editor. As for what is wrong with what you did, 1) you acknowledged previously that this was a collaboration and that no single editor should be making decisions (and I will add, even more than usual given the environment); 2) you were told that the other editors did not like the change but you reverted their reverts, 3) I had not brought forth here the mis-characterizations of late, preferring this not to turn into a TLDR post, but you have, therefore, I will summarize.

Within the past month you a) changed the Quaalude article to reflect that it is hypnotic reinserting a chart of questionable value that had been removed by those editors on the Quaalude article which lumps anesthesia in with prescription and illegal street drugs so that you could change the wording of the Polanski article, b) you have said specifically that the Quaaludes allowed easy entry into Geimer's teenage bottom, c) you have prophesied that Polanski will jump bail, and d) argued endlessly on whether he was hired by Vogue Hommes and that it was simply a ruse to take advantage of Geimer. I will take these in chronological order.

• On the 25 November, you forecasted that "The odds that Polanski will escape (say through some daring mercenary helicopter extraction) are pretty high now." following the acceptance of bail. -Tombaker321 (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC) I suppose this could have been a joke.

• On the question of whether he was hired by Vogue Hommes, your quote: "But the context of his conversation is about Polanski sexual exploits of young girls, with a joke about getting the youngest girls he can get in Los Angeles. What happens next, he goes to LA and has "consensual" sex with a minor. The pictures taken were all of low lighting at dusk, which could not even be used for a professional magazine. Long story short. If the entry has makes the assertion Polanski was working a job, it needs to reflect the employer denies this. Geimer was never paid for the work either. The casting interview, film test, photography session that turns into naked photography, have long been cliche's of Hollywood, as a means of having sex with women, under the premise of future fame. That cliche did not come about without ample facts of many incidents. We had a version without mention of the Vogue Hommes, it may be better to go again in that direction. --Tombaker321 (talk) 11:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

  And, "Polanski states clearly that Vogue Hommes denied he was on an assignment. A citation [another editor] added and seems deleted now shows that assignment to be a joke. A group of men telling Polanski to go out an shoot pictures of as young as girls as he can get in L.A. The only person saying it was an assignment was Polanski. Further, the victim was not hired. She was not paid. She was only raped. All of the photographs were unusable for a magazine. None were lighted properly." Tombaker321 (talk) 02:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC) The article cited was unverifiable as no names were associated with the statements, and the quotes were from the Polanski biography which you contrarily deemed useful at one point and fraudulent at another. How you would know whether the photographs were usable, when they had been seized and could not be used, is another question entirely. When other editors brought up concerns regarding synthesis, you return to your argument that VH had not hired him, and graciously agree to take the entire reference to VH out, which would have left Polanski photographing the young Geimer with the express purpose of assaulting her, which is, I believe, what we call content creep. Note: Cited secondary sources all point to a VH assignment.

• And then the lengthy Quaalude discussion: "The testimony of the victim does indeed show her to have been drugged. Had she not been drugged with alcohol and a sedative-hypnotic she could well have fought him off or screamed, or whatever. The definition of the drug brew-ha was caused by a poorly worded sentence here and an attempt to reword it for readability. Quaaludes are now an banned drug, no longer able to be prescribed, but they were in use as a sexual stimulant and hypnotic in the 70s. Reflecting the drug as it is---should not have been a problem. At the rate this WP entry is being "sanitized for purpose", (your bolding). I will be happy if the given a mixture of alcohol and Quaalude, is retained, just by itself. --Tombaker321 (talk) 05:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

  "Everything points at the girl was drugged with a controlled substance, a strong sedative-hypnotic drug. She was confused, and events "just happened" to her. He effectively gave her the date rape drug (in modern parlance) and then proceeded. While I agree with Rossrs that I can not know, and did not claim to know exactly what happened. I do know that if a person is not sedated and boozed up, they will be more physical to stop being anally raped. The drugging of this girl was a large part of the problem. The drug is classified as a hypnotic, with some sources saying it a sedative-hypnotic. Conceding to voices here, I don't plan on seeking the up to date terminology of "hypnotic" people seem to be fine with sedative. I did at the same time remove the wording of "muscle relaxant", maybe people want to have that back in also. (your bolding) Sadly that function better explains the ease of the anal rape too.-Tombaker321 (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC) As I pointed out in Talk, there are many indications (including her testimony) that Geimer was not unaware or drugged to the point of being physically helpless. That you persist when you cannot know is problematic.

Therefore, an attempt to hold the line to NPOV and the responsibilities inherent in creating a BLP is seen as "sanitizing the discussion." As for your continuous claims of Good Faith, (six times on the current Polanski Talk page) yelling it louder does not make it so.Oberonfitch (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

What you are quoting for the most part are discussion within Polanski TALK. Which I engage in because of deletion of content already within the entry or the refusal to allow factual information in. Polanski plied a 13 year old with alcohol and Quaaludes, took child porn photographs of her, and against her protest sexually assaulted her. These are facts that are not comfortable for some, and reflecting the facts is no argument for asserting I am biased. The edits that I did that are being questioned here are fairly specific, and I have not seen anything written by you which addresses the merits of these specific edits. There are many threads within the talk pages, which I engaged in, so as to make good faith edits, I don't see using the talk page as being a negative. I am particularly adverse to considering the "okay I am taking my toys and going home" argument. I stand by my edits, for their content. And yes, unlike their characterization, these edits are in good faith. Recent reversion and deletions of content do concern me, as much as your request to lock the article. --Tombaker321 (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The issue is not a content dispute over one edit, but rather, as Off2riorob stated in beginning:

"User:Tombaker321 Is a single purpose account as regards Roman Polanski , his editing has been a constant disruption there as he has over a long period of time, continually tediously attempted to add his point of view,..."

The fact that the edit which "broke the camel's back" (i.e., inspired Off2riorob's creation of this ANI topic) is an edit which would, on its face, seem too innocuous to be an issue, perhaps gives some clue to the level of frustration involved. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Proofreader77 you were specifically sanctioned regarding Polanski by this ANI. One admin said of you before the placing of your restrictions "This editor appears to be a personified denial of service attack on Wikipedia's consensus building mechanism." This is the environment that I am working through. You have broken the tenants of the restrictions placed as well, and have likely not sought out mentorship which was requested of you to do. The continuing problems of Off2riorob are documented above. The edit at question you now feel is innocuous, them why did Off2riorob start an edit war over it? I believe this use of the ANI forum is an abuse, with the entire thrust being an expectation that others will assume I am acting in bad faith. My meritorious edits are in good faith and I stand behind them. --Tombaker321 (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Disruption may be executed in good faith. To my knowledge, no other editor doubts the editor in question's good faith — WP:AGF is not a license to disrupt. Proofreader77 (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The edit being cited as a problem is innocuous, well written, and expands the facts, while using an economy of works, and fixing the prior sentences disintegrated nature. Other edits I have done to stop the deleting of content by yourself, have been responded to with repeated revisions.

For example we had for well over a month, after much discussion, that Polanski stated the sex was consensual. You removed it, and then continued to remove it, while acknowledging your have broken the 3RR rule.

I am not sure how much more that you want to add here, but I would like you to complete, this started with remarks towards me by Off2riorob, I believe I have a right to respond, I don't think I should need to respond to a drip drip drip. --Tombaker321 (talk) 07:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Requesting this be closed

As I said about the entire nature of this topic is based on good faith edits, which stands as reasonable and as others have now said, innocuous. Off2riorob began an edit war just 3 minutes after I placed the edit. He has a history of this type of interaction. Proofreader77 is under current restrictions for disruptions on Polanski. Oberonfitch is a SPA account. I have used the talk pages in Polanski in good faith, however those discussions are selectively quoted above as being inappropriate. The quality of my edits seem far down the list.

I believe this should be closed, with no action done to myself, the innocuous edit as Proofreader77 now states, is not requiring of Administrator action. The constant reverting of edits done by Off2riorob and Proofreader77 are highly problematic and I will raise issues, that I have, in an appropriate time and place.

The request to this ANI is to assume I am acting in bad faith, as I am not, there should be nothing done. --Tombaker321 (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

---

• Comment by Proofreader77

  Tombaker321, replying earlier to Proofreader77, said "I don't think I should need to respond to a drip drip drip" — which I take to mean the appearance of new messages after he feels he has fully responded to Off2riorob's allegations.

  However, let it be noted that I (Proofreader77) did not post any messages in this ANI until Tombaker321 chose to attack me.

• 22:46, 16 December 2009 Tombaker321 (partial list of mentions of Proofreader77)

• "Re: Oberonfitch. Oberonfitch is a single purpose account of Roman Polanski. His manner of actions suggest a sockpuppet of Proofreader77."
• ...
• "Proofreader77 has framed this ANI about a specific edit as "Bottom line: ANI is NOT about last edit—but all before. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)" Proofreader77 is currently under ANI restriction for Polanski. One Admin said in the ANI leading to those restrictions: "This editor appears to be a personified denial of service attack on Wikipedia's consensus building mechanism. Hans Adler 07:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)" "

• 23:05, 16 December 2009 Proofreader77 (1st post to this ANI)

While I understand a large expanse of text has been generated by this ANI so far, my observation (and others as well) is that Tombaker321 has responded in large measure by attacking all the editors who find his editing and interaction disruptive. Although I understand that no sensible administrator would wade through all the words here, I believe there is still the possibility of focusing the matter sufficiently to find a good resolution. I respectfully suggest that Tombaker321's suggestion to simply dismiss all this (surely tempting) leaves a problem in place. A problem that is damaging to NPOV of the Roman Polanski BLP.

So, I ask that this not be abandoned prematurely. This is a problem which began with the arrest of Roman Polanski on September 26, 2009 ... leading to several locks in the first day ... then a week long full lock from Oct 1 to 8. Until Polanski's legal saga is concluded, there will be ongoing BLP/NPOV difficulties.... and the hard part of those difficulties arise from the infinite combative energy brought to bear by the SPA in question. I return to that unpleasant sounding phrase, because ultimately the administrators here must either believe somebody or ignore it all.

Yes, none of us are perfect, but some of us have demonstrated our investment in the community and its values. Regarding Proofreader77 the only "trouble" I have ever been in ... has arisen out of my attempting to counterbalance the SPA in question on Roman Polanski, and therefore having given the mistaken (to be corrected) impression that I have been doing something wrong, rather than the amount that was necessary to balance the infinite energy of Tombaker321.

I believe if you survey the "combat" above — the style of communications displayed — you may have some idea who you might listen to in this matter. Proofreader77 (talk) 12:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions for Tombaker321 or Proofreader77

• [bullet please]

---

Removed hyperlinking of my name in areas that resembled a signature. Unable to follow language of Proofreader. I will create a new request. --Tombaker321 (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The recent unreported 3RR vio (from simultaneous dual edit wars) by SPA in question

(Note: Yes, I could have reported that at AN3, but this ANI had already been initiated, and the issue is broader than 3RR.)

The reason for bringing this up now is not to highlight a stale 3RR vio; but rather to illustrate the disruption, which above, has been discussed in terms of one apparently innocuous edit — Note: which reduced the size of the Roman Polanski#Sexual assault case summary in the BLP (note: a [by consensus] brief summary of the article Roman Polanski sexual abuse case). As illustrated above, that edit was contested by Off2riorob.

What has not been mentioned (until now) is that while the SPA in question was reducing the summary size with edit #1 ... he was also contending with Proofreader77 (me) to keep other information in. Let us call this edit#2 (which took several forms).

To recap: the SPA in question was in the process of simultaneously contending with Off2riorob to take some information out (debatable) ... which I will characterize as making more room in the summary ... to keep their preferred information in (Note the SPA in question has previously received a block edit warring against consensus to increase the size of the summary).

[Edit to add: Correction as per Tombaker321's (unbulleted:) question: My mistake, wrong edit war:

• The "edit war against consensus to increase the size of the summary" was simply 3RR without block,
• The (3?) edit war(s) to remove POV tags were also 3RR (no block)
• The edit war which did result a block (with early release) was one, I remember now, I actually agreed with and semi-defended Tombaker321 for at WP:AN3 as a side-effect of the accuser having attacked me in the process of requesting Tombaker321 be blocked.

(Now, as you may notice, there's some other players in the mix who have not been mentioned in this ANI topic, and they might well need to be mentioned in order to reach a good solution on this. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)) End edit insert]

While ANI is not the place to decide content disputes — the question of whether what the SPA in question is doing on the Roman Polanski WP:BLP is disruptive, surely is. Clearly there are matters to be further clarified (obviously the key one of "who is disruptive" — just one, or more than one editor?). But let me stop there for now.
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 02:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions for Proofreader77 (2)

• [bullet please]

The active admin restriction placed on you regarding the Polanski article, requested you seek out a mentor, have you done so?

Proofreader77 you have entirely fabricated the rationale for the single 24 hour block I have ever received, that mischaracterization should not be used. When three editors have a meating of the minds, it does not mean they control content and consensus. --Tombaker321 (talk) 07:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

(Note - Please refrain from reordering topics in an active ANI) + kibbitzing

Proofreader77 (talk) 08:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I take it you are not going to respond to the question? --Tombaker321 (talk) 09:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me if this seems a trivial matter, but would you please (or permit me) to place your question in left column with a bullet? (It keeps formatting consistent should questions from other editors arise.) Proofreader77 (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

PS: And please ask one question per bullet (rather than a mix of question and statements implying other things to respond to). Don't try to put it all in one question bullet — ask more than one. (Within reason.:) Proofreader77 (talk) 13:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions for Tombaker321

• Question T1 - You have mentioned previous ANIs regarding Proofreader77. If responding to those mentions implied raising the name of all editors involved (and notifying them of their mentions), would you still want to raise those matters for current discussion — or would you prefer to withdraw those mentions of previous ANIs? Proofreader77 (talk) 10:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Outdent to respond to all 3 comments of Proofreader77: Pardon me, I was not aware you are thee Conductor. I am fine with you not answering a question. --Tombaker321 (talk) 22:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Mistaken phrase has been struck, and issue clarified (in response to your question).
2. Re bullet-questions format: In a previous ANI I have participated in, that format (including questions and answers being limited to 100 words) allowed a "calming of the waters" (flood?:) to bring focus to the issue so it can be resolved, rather than unlimited indent-exchanges which may tend toward rhetorical tit-for-tat. The (brief) bullet Q/A format cuts down on rhetorical tactics and knee-jerk responses (which few of us are completely immune to.) It is simply something that helps. And clearly this long topic should be brought to resolution ... but, not by abandoning it, but by focusing it.
3. Excuse me if the format request appeared to be a command. It is a request, but sometimes all the words do not make it from brain to keyboard.
   -- Proofreader77 (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for Administrator Closing of this Topic

My edits the precipitated this request are proper edits. An edit war was instigated against those edits by a trio. The content of these edits was used to create some sort of referendum here on me, as if the proponents are not interested parties.

This topic has become ever expanding clearly delving into issues of content mostly. I ask for administrative closer. --Tombaker321 (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment by Proofreader77 There is a long-standing problem which should have been corrected at a previous ANI, but due to complex dynamic of participants (as sometimes happens), the issue of Tombaker321's behavior was left aside. But in this ANI, the dynamics are different (and the participants are no-longer ANI virgins, which makes a difference).

  Although there is far too much text above to analyze it all, the remarks of administrator User:Shereth regarding the rhetorical choices of Tombaker321 (to perform "character assassination" of other editor defensively rather than discuss the issues) should be kept in mind. There is a BLP/NPOV effect on content due to the actions of Tombaker321, but that is not the issue here — the issue for ANI is the patterns of behavior of one editor which exhausts and disheartens other editors — to which my actions (previously misperceived, but to be corrected at AN or Arbcom if necessary) have been "counterbalance."

  There is a good resolution to be had here (and discussion can be focused to achieve it), however I understand this is taking up far to much space here on the main page of ANI, and I respectfully request this topic not be closed, but moved to a subpage. Too much has been invested here to walk away. The problem should be resolved, this time. Or we shall be back here again. No, let's solve it now.
  -- Proofreader77 (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Request that this topic be moved to a subpage (per above) if necessary, to solve the problem

Proofreader77 (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposals for resolution

• #1 - by User:Proofreader77: I believe (but will verify, for sure) that User:Off2riorob, [see Addendum A],User:Oberonfitch, User:Proofreader77 would (gladly) agree to all be topic-banned from Roman Polanski for 3-6 months (? until Polanski saga concludes) — if User:Tombaker321 is similarly banned from the article ... AND if two other editors who have not been named yet — but who contributed to the mess you see, would also be topic banned. (Would require a bit more discussion, of course. :-)

  As you see, it's a bit more complex than an obvious solution. Until the Polanski legal saga is concluded, there's going to be the need for someone to watch over Roman Polanski from a BLP/NPOV balancing perspective. (Who will watch out for socks of previous participants who have not benefited the article?)

  The little summary of the Roman Polanski#Sexual assault case section is consuming an outrageous amount of human time and energy ... and sensible folk would leave it alone until Polanski's legal drama resolves.

  Let me put it this way — some believe (almost religiously?) in the power of Wikipedia to define reality. I suggest that those who believe most strongly in that power, and of their own powers of judgment to arrange the facts which most fit their perspective (excluding those that do not, for an infinite number of reasons for all occasions), feel compelled to devote (apparently) all their life force into conforming a corner of Wikipedia with their view of reality.

  That is what some of us have been dealing with. And because we believe that Wikipedia should not be used that way, we "counterbalance" such a force. We are tired. We would like that force that requires so much effort to deal with be restrained. And if we all must be restrained too, that is OK — but the goal of BLP/NPOV which I have labored so hard to maintain, and have been punished for so doing (due to mistaken perceptions) should not be lost amidst this.
  -- Proofreader77 (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed - I agree to be topic banned if Tombaker321 and other participants who have demonstrated disruptive and POV editing are similarly banned.
  Oberonfitch (talk) 03:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Addendum A.1: Off2riorob has expressed to me that due to the serious matter of topic bans on one's record, he does not believe he should have be so banned. Let it be noted that Off2riorob has recently received the BLP Barnstar for his BLP work, and it is understood it would be a strange way to reward someone who works diligently to protect BLPs should have to pay the penalty of a black mark in order for a simple "ban them all" solution can be achieved. (Will stop there for now.)
  -- Proofreader77 (talk) 12:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Addendum A.2 Off2riorob has expressed to me that he declines the idea of a self-imposed honor exile from Roman Polanski (as part of an arrangement that would let us all take a break.)
  -- Proofreader77 (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Proposal #1 on hold pending determination of whether to bring two other editors (alluded to in proposal #1) into this ANI discussion. (Note: Am also waiting to determine if this topic will be moved to an ANI subpage for a focused discussion to bring a good resolution.)
  -- Proofreader77 (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Police

For the last two weeks or so an IP editor 69.228.251.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been pushing a POV on Police by seeking to add what is essentially a non-neutral POV into the lead. Whereas such analysis, even when sourced, might belong in an article dealing with political analyses of the Police, consensus seems to be strongly against it being in a purely descriptive and functional article about the Police. It is quite plain from the contributions that this is, at least for the time being, a static IP address. He/She persists in soapboxing his own version of the truth. Consensus is consistently against his POV edits, yet he persists in disrupting, without advancing any sources for his edits. See Talk:Police#Justifying the word "hierarchical" before the word "order" and Talk:Police#Threats to the establishment. I can't block since I've been involved in the content discussion, but even after a third opinion, initiated by me, did not go his way, he is still POV-pushing, and insulting other editors. In short, although we've tried to reason with this editor, he is still not getting it, and I invite comment/action/blocking as appropriate, and have notified. Rodhullandemu 02:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Does this look like Stars4change (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who was here for some vaguely similar topic POV issues last week ( Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive584#User:Stars4change ) ?

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It's possible. They seem to have very similar views, and they both believe in not indenting their comments. But I don't see any article overlap (they edit completely different articles) and the IP seems much more aggressive than Stars4Change (who likes to soapbox but doesn't get into arguments from what I've seen). -- Atama頭 05:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I find some of their earlier edit patterns suggestive but not by any means conclusive. No point to an SPI, as they're not editing on top of the same topics now, I'm not sure that there's a policy violation even if it's the same person.

However, the IP's last edit on Talk:Police was sufficient for a block for personal attacks.

And, completely independently, Stars4change violated the final warning a week ago not to soapbox, which was sufficient for a block for that.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't look too closely into the accounts in question, but it's no wonder the article attracted criticism. If it wasn't for the short section on religious police, a reader who has never heard of police before would come away with the impression that police has never been abused by totalitarian states. It's the kind of article where you must read between the lines in the same way that citizens of a communist country must read between the lines. Apparently it has been written almost exclusively by members of various police forces. In such a situation I think one shouldn't be too strict with an IP or new editor who tries to make the article more balanced but goes about it in the wrong way. Hans Adler 16:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a fine line (a blue one?) where you don't want to demonize law enforcement as thugs with badges, but you don't want to put them on a pedestal either. Going either way is bad. The IP's methods weren't going to affect any positive change in the article. -- Atama頭 23:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Without debating the finer points of NPOV, this does strike me as an example of "THE TRUTH" as Rodhudllandemu points out. WP:LE probably doesn't have a more problematic article than Police but unfortunately the project's talk page has been somewhat of a tumbleweed home recently. I'll try to step up the conflict resolution over there. While Rodhullandemu is correct to call the IP up on the contributions, and makes a series of good points with good links to policy, and considering that Wikipedia is not censored, I still feel obliged to point out that "for fucks sake" and "we don't have time for this shit" may have been an inappropriate use of language which further inflamed the situation. I don't see why swearing was necessary - just my two respectful cents. SGGH ^ping! 13:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The IP editor's block expires tomorrow; I will advise him of the existence of WP:WQA. Rodhullandemu 15:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Concerns over expected FFD vote-counting

In the last days, I've been doing some image patrolling in contemporary History articles. For instance, I've spotted a lot of problematic images in articles about the history of Puerto Rico, and later I moved to contemporary Greek history.

Just liked to express my concerns that the admin willing to close the FFDs discussions for December 11 will have to master some excellence in weighting popular vote, policy knowledge and our core-value commitement.

The specific problem in these recent history articles (aside from the usual widespread lack of knowledge about WP:NFCC) is the belief that if a picture was taken during a notable event, we should use it regardless of copyright status or how much the picture is necessary for understanding the notable event being discussed. --Damiens.rf 16:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy. Man, do I not miss dealing with non-free content here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Gauge theory needs history repair

I don't know how most of the article Gauge theory managed to spring into existence with this edit, but this is clearly a botched cut-and-paste. Based on the edit history, the content was moved to gauge theory (redirect), an article which was subsequently deleted, and the current article was simply copy-pasted back in. Could someone please fix this? Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hokay. Content was moved to gauge theory (redirect), then to Gauge theory: non-technical introduction, then to Nontechnical introduction to gauge theory, which is where it was located when it was split. I'll handle attribution. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Eyes needed at Barack Obama

{{Resolved}}

Not resolved, still ongoing

I'm topic banned (until next week, anyway), but I just spotted these edits while monitoring RecentChanges. They've sat there for a while without being reverted (and there was no prior discussion before their inclusion). Could someone take a look at them please? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If someone is topic banned, they should stay completely away from the article. It is psychologically unhealthy to keep looking at it! So that person may legally comply with the topic ban but the chances of positive change is less because of continuous looking at the article. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. If you read my comment above, you will note that I had been monitoring RecentChanges (I keep an eye on vandalism), so I wasn't "continuously looking" at the article. Furthermore, I couldn't possibly have been more upfront about by topic ban. Also, I waited for several minutes to see if someone else would sort it out, before bringing the matter here. I would not have said anything had I not had strong WP:BLP-vio concerns. Finally, my six-month topic ban expires in just a few days, so it wouldn't have been much of a heinous crime if I'd just gone ahead and reverted it myself (as suggested below). Anyway, thanks for your input. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

A balanced diet is good for the person, so is balanced Wikipedia viewing. Good luck. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverted a few minutes after you posted this, so no action needed. -- Atama頭 21:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Just as a quick follow-up, all the same material that was reverted from the article has now been added to the talk page instead. Obviously the user in question isn't getting it. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You should've just reverted it. It's a case when you'd ignore all rules, as the banning policy, and probably even an AC-applied sanction, are not immune from being ignored for the sake of the encyclopedia. Anyone who would complain over you reverting that, despite your topic ban, is, how the French say, an utter cunt. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Well that may be so; nevertheless, I am keen to return to the topic when my ban expires (appropriately on the day of the Winter Solstice), and I have no wish to stir up any trouble. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I applaud Scjessey for abiding by the topic ban and raising the issue. It looks like this editor has learned from the ban and hopefully will be constructive when the ban expires. Mjroots (talk) 05:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

User has now reverted its removal from the talk page. Grsz¹¹ 05:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• This definitely needs further attention. Jzyehoshua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edit-warred to reintroduce the same material on talk despite multiple people telling him it's inappropriate and that WP:BLP applies on talk as well. I don't think you can even start to have a rational discussion with someone who wants to include a pro-life diatribe on an article like this headed "support for infanticide". A vigorous beating with the cluebat looks to me to be desirable here. Guy (Help!) 08:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Didn't know there was an AN/I here about this til now. The passage in question has been hatted now so the edit warring on that angle has ceased, and he hasn't tried to re-insert the text into the article since either. Let's see how it plays out from here, and if need be, come back here or open something at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation/Requests for enforcement, though I'm not sure how well that is patrolled. Tarc (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Just before the moratorium is lifted, we should put this article on pay-per-view. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The edit warring and BLP violating on the Talk page continue, though. Jzyehoshua may have stopped attempting to put in the infanticide wording in the article, but the POV-pushing does not seem to stop. Woogee (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Its less of a biography, and more of a campaign page for Obama.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't always seen eye to eye with Wikidemon and indeed have disagreed with him there within the last hour. But all in all he seems to be doing a good job. I wish I could say the same for the others who have been purporting to protect the talk page against BLP violations or whatever. I can't.

There can only be limited tolerance for fringe opinions and repetition. Fair enough. But some of the people who police that page appear curiously eager to dismiss mentions of the minority opinions clearly (if not always accurately) attributed to others as themselves extreme and/or disruptive. -- Hoary (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

If one of an editor's first actions in months is to give credence to a statement equating abortion with infanticide, or to a birther's statements, or both, I think we can safely write them off as a wingnut. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It's just too early to tell which way this is going to go. I've opined that the Obama article isn't a great training ground for new editors with strong opinions, that's like taking driver's education lessons on the freeway. But what can you do? In my opinion we're not nearly at the point of exhausting WP:AGF. By the editor's tone and writing it is a serious, intelligent editor who wishes to express things that are in widespread discourse in wider society, nothing you can't hear on CNN, but that we here would consider opinion, or somehow biased, as a summary of Obama. I remember all the experienced editors I locked horns with in my first few months here, and looking back I feel for the frustration they had in dealing with me. Maybe time to pay it back and give a little extra patience. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course, the problem with wider society is that there are crazies out there. In any country, really. We really, really, need to be careful of taking notice of what the wider society thinks: 43% of them deny reality, after all. Just as many are currently in the midst of creating another Red Scare too. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, wider society probably considers all of us Wikipedians to be a bunch of wingnuts, not without some justification. My assessment at this point, from one wingnut to another, is that he's a good faith editor exhibiting the understandable headstrong reaction that happens when an opinionated person encounters a community of people with unfamiliar rules. He's trying so I think the olive branch is mightier than the blockhammer here. Cup of tea, cup of tea.  :) - Wikidemon (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Can someone explain this

Resolved

Just noticed this: [101]

can anyone explain either the addition or especially the removal? I'm willing to "AGF" as much as anyone, but the removal in particular seems rather polemic, both in the edit summary and in the timing...
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Talk to him on his talk page first. Protonk (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

  First things first... what the hell is "Autoreviewers", and why did I have it to be taken away in the first place?
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

  See Wikipedia:Autoreviewer, and I informed NW of this thread. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

  This should not have been brought directly here. Tan | 39 03:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

  well, I'm glad I did. I can honestly say that I don't care one iota about that bit. No idea how I ever got in it the first place, and I certainly won't miss it! (the issue of it's removal being polemic is something, but I'll leave that to yall.)
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

  (Useless post-resolution aside) It's never crossed my mind to want such a thing, until now. lol Nope, still don't want it. But I do want the flagged-revisions reviewer group bit, which is totally different, and so this is off topic ... but, I have been educated by this accidental misuse of ANI. The End. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I can see that this thread has already been marked as resolved. So why, by chance has someone put this discussion on YouTube?--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 07:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Uh, you want a block for that? :) MuZemike 08:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

With all seriousness (besides the last joke-comment I have made), what should be do if an admin removes autoreviewer status? The same as we do with rollback (which IMO would be comparing apples to oranges)? MuZemike 08:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• MuZemike: I would say we follow standard procedure: discussion on the administrator's talk page first and raise to ANI if necessary. NW (Talk) 14:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Ohms law: The autoreviewer usergroup is meant for people who have created many dozens of well-sourced articles that properly follow our guidelines on notability, BLP, and verifiability. According to X!'s tool, you have only created 11 articles, some of which were completely unsourced. I felt that it would be better if your articles went through the standard process of being patrolled at Special:NewPages. NW (Talk) 14:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare, did you discuss with MBisanz before reverting his granting of autoreviewer status? Or with Ohms Law before removing it from him? DuncanHill (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

As Autoreviewer was something that was supposed to be easy-com, easy-go, I did not see the necessity to consult MBisanz before removing it. I thought of it as similiar to rollback for that; people don't usually consult the granting admin before removing it. As for consulting Ohms Law, I did not see the necessity to do that either. Having autoreviewer or not does not affect his editing one bit, so I really didn't see the necessity to talk to him before removing it. NW (Talk) 16:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of rollback will usually involve some discussion, either with the editor misusing it or here to gain consensus that it has been abused. I do find it odd that it's OK for admins to downgrade an editor's status with no discussion, but that editors who question admin actions are told in no uncertain terms that they must debate with the admin in question first. In this case one admin thought it fit to grant autoreviwer, another thought it appropriate to remove it, and all this happenned with no discussion at all. DuncanHill (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You can reverse rights change from months ago without consulting the admin. You only need to consult with an admin if you have reason to think they might object, not for every non-controversial action. If MBisanz is not complaining then there is no basis for anyone else to complain. Since MBisanz has not complained, and Ohm does not care "one iota" about the bit, I am not sure what the issue is here. Please try to work these things out by communicating directly with the people involved, ANI is already over burdened and at least some attempt at resolution should be made before posting here. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Had there been direct communication from the admin to the ex-autoreviwer, then this wouldn't have come here in the first place. DuncanHill (talk) 16:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the resolved tag. NW, I respect the need to communicate problems with you directly (hence my post immediately below the request), but don't you think it is a little galling that you removed the userright without discussion (with the user) and then admonished Ohm that he needed to discuss it with you before seeking redress? Protonk (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

And, as a factual matter, 3 of the 11 articles started with proper sources, another three were listed articles with only blue links as entries (with the exception of the 989 series, which is understandable), and the rest were pretty innocuous. The user has never created an article which has been deleted in any way (check Special:DeletedContributions/Ohms_law). But whatever. I can't see the sense in removing the right, but I guess it isn't worth arguing about. Protonk (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I never admonished Ohms Law to discuss this with me before seeking redress. I didn't even comment on that matter; I merely suggested the proper procedure in future circumstances. I have no issue with this being brought to ANI first. In any case, as one having autoreviewer affects only New Page patrollers, the removal of the userright doesn't even affect Ohms Law. It would be analogous to me removing Ohms Law from User:JVbot/patrol whitelist, which he would not have even noticed. I would think that it is best if future articles along the lines of these mostly unsourced (and possibly not-notable) articles be sent through the proper review of the process. I never restricted his ability to create such pages; I just felt that they probably ought to not be automatically patrolled. NW (Talk) 21:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Tend to agree...considering at least one I just peeked at seems to be a direct copy/paste from the official website. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit war at Glenn Beck

This BLP is already under semi-protection, and there is a bit of an ongoing edit war going on among established editors, including several reversions already today. I think maybe temporary full protection is called for, and there might be 3RR violations already today as well. John Carter (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Request submitted, at WP:RFPP. Cirt (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a bit of an edit war, not a violation of 3RR but an edit war nonetheless, no engagement on talk page, and a pretty nasty edit summary.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved, fully protected. Cirt (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Rama - still trying to delete that image

Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive585#Admin:Rama ignoring previous consensus, refusing to gain new consensus

Admin Rama (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has once again (for the third time in two weeks) made a move to have File:Chicago_Spire.jpg deleted. [102] He continues to insist that it can be replaced with an image which he created himself, which is itself the subject of a deletion request at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chicago spire.svg. Everyone but Rama agrees that this second image is an obvious copyvio, as he drew it based on the architect's plans, and everyone but Rama agrees that the first image is usable under a FUR until the building is actually built and someone can take a photograph of it, which s120 of the US code confirms would be free. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Who apologises for her total markup fail and thanks Moonriddengirl for fixing it.

link fixed. Abecedare (talk) 12:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

(commons deletion request does not exist Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

This is because I suck very badly at markup :) Abecedare fixed it.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Beyond just this, I'm a bit concerned about Rama's views on fair-use and his willingness to bend the rules to get his way. For example, he is using the speedy process to immediately delete any images that are missing a rationale or he believes are replaceable. He is choosing not to wait the required 7 day period and when asked to go through the usual procedure, accused the other admin of wheel-warring.[103] This is starting to look much less like misguided use of the tools and more like an intentional crusade. Shell ^babelfish 12:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Chicago_Spire.jpg has previously been determined to be not replacable, and appropriate fair use by User:Quadell, who closed the fair-use discussion. See [104], [105]. Perhaps the latest nomination can be closed early. Abecedare (talk) 12:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I note Juliancolton has just closed the commons debate as delete, so now there is clearly no alternative image. I would speculate that the latest nom can therefore be closed early. I do find it worrying that Rama nominated the non-free image again at this time - it could easily be perceived as an attempt to get that image deleted in order to bolster his case for keeping his own drawing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm previously uninvolved, I've gone ahead and closed the most recent deletion request for two reasons. First, the discussion was just held and you don't re-nom because the outcome wasn't what you expected. Second, the "replacement" was roundly called a copyright violation and deleted. This would be a good time for Rama to take a breather and see if he can get a clue from all this. Shell ^babelfish 13:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have serious concerns about his competency to handle this area. His response here [106] and here [107] with respect to the use of non-free images of deceased persons is (a)really unnecessarily agressive, (b) completely ignores the FUR and (c) suggests that someone paint a picture of the deceased because it is no longer possible to create a non-free image by photography! Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I find Rama's position to be perfectly sound and in the spirit of building a free encyclopedia, which means no non-free content, period. That means no non-free images. This is the minority WP:VEGAN POV: while it is a minority POV, it is not forbidden to think that way (else, please block me). Rama is better than me, as he at least tries to create free images wherever possible. I personally find Rama's drawing of the Chicago spire to be superior to using the "non-replaceable" photograph: it is impossible to create a free image, but by drawing a new non-free image, we use as little as possible of copyrighted material. — Kusma ^talk 13:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not forbidden to think that way. It's forbidden to act disruptively. By analogy: it's perfectly okay to think that a particular article does not belong here. But it's not okay to nominate it again and again and again until it gets deleted, which is disruptive. Tim Song (talk) 13:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. No one is criticizing his zeal for a free encyclopedia, what we are concerned with is willingness to ignore the community or bypass a 7 day waiting period because of that zeal. For example, there's nothing wrong with nominating an image as replaceable even if others might not feel the same, there *is* something wrong with summarily deleting those images instead of nominating them. Shell ^babelfish 13:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Kusma, I couldn't agree more with Rama's intentions to use free images wherever possible. But I would be hard pressed to find someone (we actually didn't at the commons deletion) who thinks the non-free image with a FRU should be deleted AND THEN that same person believes creating a derivative work of a copyrighted design is fine and dandy. If consensus is that the non-free image shouldn't be used - fine, then delete Chicago Spire.jpg (I don't agree, but recognize this opinion). But it is contradictory to then also state that a derivative work based on that copyrighted design is NOT a copyright violation. It is a double standard. Either delete both, or keep the copyrighted with fair use. At least Chicago Spire.jpg notes the copyright and credits the author. DR04 (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse my French, but how the fuck are we supposed to get bogus fair use images deleted without getting a lynching ? Immediate deletion is permissible per the first paragraph of WP:CSD; now, to avoid further tensions, I choose to apply the tag rather than remove the image again, because I, for one, do not do WP:WHEEL. And I get this.

The image is not only replaceable in theory, which should suffice, but actually does have a Free replacement in File:Chicago spire shape.svg, which has gone under a specific review on Commons and was ruled to comply with copyright (see Commons:Deletion requests/Graphics with copyrighted silhouettes).

I have gone at great lengths in trying to explain existing policies to people who simply to not want to understand because they don't like it. I am by no means an extremist; I am not a WP:VEGAN, I do use Fair Use from time to time, but I happen to do it properly; I do not see why others cannot do things properly too, and most of all I do not understand why we get litterally lambashed when we simply apply the policies. If WP:CSD and WP:Fair Use are not to be understood the way they are written, they by all means change the policy, and stop pestering the people who enforce it. Rama (talk) 13:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:CSD does not empower administrators to delete material outside of the specific rules laid out for such deletion. The first paragraph is quite clear on this:

The criteria for speedy deletion specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus support to, at their discretion, bypass deletion discussion and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media. They cover only the cases specified in the rules below.

To reiterate, only the cases specified permit immediate deletion. The rules for WP:CSD#F7 are likewise clear. Only files which have been blatantly improperly tagged (as a mascot tagged as a logo) may be immediately deleted. In all other cases, there is a grace period of two days. Immediate deletion is out of process. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Then change the policy. As it is written, I understand that the template step is optional. Rama (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe the policy is clear. The word "only" is definitive. I'm afraid that the problem is in your understanding of it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

PS: And yes, I have just restored another deletion note, again, on File:Chicago_Spire.jpg, not because I do not like the outcome, but because it is not proper to invoke year-old discussion amongst three people, and ignore the fact that a Free replacement exists, to close a deletion request. Rama (talk) 13:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I was just going to point that out, but thank you for self-reporting your wheel warring.[108] Would that everyone could simply ignore administrative decisions when they know they're just "wrong". </sarcasm> Just to clarify, I was not referring to a "year old discussion", rather the discussions of December 9 and 10, 2009 which are hardly old. Shell ^babelfish 13:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)ARGH. No one is argueing the deletion of bogus-fair-use images in general. What the problem is is that your behavior shows that you have little regard or understanding for the application of Wikipedia policy in a manner which is consistant with either community consensus, or at this point, reality. There is not a problem with the concept of deleting images which do not belong at Wikipedia, and yet you seem to have a particular singular opinion on the meaning of the words "replacable" and "same encyclopedic purpose" mean, or even apparently, that you are willing to ignore the fact that this image was uploaded and used with the permission of the copyright holder. I can't see where anything near a consensus for your actions. The issue is not that you work in this field, its that you seem to be doing so without the support of others, even highly experienced Wikipedians who also work in it. Acting boldly is good. It is bordering on the edit war phase, by now... --Jayron32 13:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Wheel warring: "a struggle between two or more of the website's administrators in which they undo one another's administrative actions—specifically, unblocking and reblocking a user, undeleting and redeleting, or unprotecting and reprotecting a page.".

The term does not apply to the situation where a discussion is re-opened because it was closed without addressing the actual question because the people who felt authorised to do so did not inform themselves. Rama (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I don't think restoring a tag counts as wheel-warring, since it's a simple editorial action. That said, I too agree with the fair-use rationale in this case. The argument that there is no replacement because every conceivable replacement would by necessity itself be a non-free derivative is pretty strong in a case like this. (And, mind you, I think I qualify as something of an NFCC hardliner admin.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring/wheel warring - whatever you want to name it, continuing to undo the actions of other admins because you don't agree with the outcome of a deletion discussion is seriously problematic. We're now on the fifth sixth iteration in the last week. (Sorry, forgot about Rama's initial deletion out of process) Shell ^babelfish 13:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but File:Chicago spire shape.svg looks like a 5-year-old's magic marker drawing that one would put on the fridge next to the soccer schedules and school lunch menu. This is not in any way quality or encyclopedia material, and File:Chicago Spire.jpg is a far better representation of the subject matter. Do we want our articles to be low-quality and free, or high quality with fair use? Tarc (talk) 13:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It take no offence, but how is that relevant? It is an image of the Chicago spire, is it not? Our policy is to use Fair Use when an image is not replaceable, not when we happen to prefer the nice copyrighted pictures made by the grown-ups. Rama (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It must be replaceable with an image that "would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". Your outline falls far short of that mark. –xeno^talk 14:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That is not a licence to snatch anything we happen to like. And in any case, there is a discussion process for that, you do not remove deletion tags. Rama (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

"a Free replacement does exist" is not a valid claim though, since this SVG image is for all intents and purposed unusable. Tarc (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Rama is still warring at Chicago Spire.jpg [109]. The "shape" does not even come close to serving the same encyclopedic purpose. I think an RFC is necessary on their approach and whether someone who was made an admin in the laissez-faire days of 2005 can retain their status with such an apparent deficiency in their ability to appropriately interpret guidelines and policy. –xeno^talk 14:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You attempted to revert my tag on the grounds that the replacement image was deleted, which it is not. Inform yourself first. And you are free to disagree that the silouhette image is not an adequate replacement for this image, but then you do that in the discussion, per policy; you do not remove deletion tags. Am I asking how you became an admin? Rama (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted your disruptive edits because you are repeatedly asking the same question to try and get the result you want. The fair use of Chicago spire.jpg is permitted both by policy and explicit permission from the copyright holder and pretty much everyone other than you agrees on this. Please move on, take a breath, and modify your approach to the review of fair use images. –xeno^talk 14:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

To Rama: the argument about the unsuitability of the silhouette replacement has already garnered so much support that we can safely take for granted deletion of the original can no longer pass for a simple speedy-deletion matter. This makes removal of the tag legitimate. If you want to further pursue the replaceability case, the proper place for that would be a new WP:FFD. To Xeno: I think the point about the explicit permission is a red herring here - such a permission essentially makes only one of the NFCCs moot, namely that about economic opportunities and damage, but replaceability is quite orthogonal to it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right that we should still replace this image when a suitable free alternative becomes available, my point was that the furor over this particular image is particularly misplaced given the additional permission to support our fair use. –xeno^talk 14:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Rama's actions with several other images

• File:Syd_Barrett_Abbey_Road_1975.jpg
• File:Pink_Floyd_68.jpg

I must ask, is it proper for the admin who tags fair use images as replaceable to try to be the one who then makes the decision when that is disputed? I would hope that it is someone else to make the final determination in these sorts of cases, as this would be like a someone closing his own XfD. Tarc (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No, in principle the same admin can do both. The tagging is really just meant to ensure the waiting period; other than that it's still a speedy deletion - which, by definition, is a process that can be performed by a single admin on their own. It's not like an XFD that requires an independent judgment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I would say that if no one response to the tag, then the admin can carry out the deletion, but if someone counter-argues their rationale then it should be left to an uninvolved party. Else they would be taking the role of judge,jury,executioner. –xeno^talk 15:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If there were no objections I'd agree that the opener can close, sure. To me though it seems analogous to a WP:PROD, where if someone reasonably objects then the next step usually is to take it to an XfD. Tarc (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's actually more closely analogous to a "hangon" tag on a normal tagged speedy. Reacting to the hangon argument or overriding it is a matter of admin judgment. If the argument is self-evidently invalid (like, somebody arguing that an image is "not replaceable" merely because no free replacement has been created yet, or somebody arguing that NFCC X is fulfilled when the problem cited as grounds for deletion was that a different NFCC Y is violated), then the original tagging admin can override the di-disputed argument, just as they would ignore a "hangon" on an A7 speedy that just says "but I know them, they're cool". Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not comfortable with Rama making the final call on an image they tagged, they has already shown themselves to have several peculiar and novel interpretations of policy and practice. –xeno^talk 18:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Can someone also take a look at File:Freedom_Tower_New.jpg and its replacement by File:Freedom Tower shape.svg in the 1 World Trade Center article ? Abecedare (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have added a counter-argument to the tag [110]. Further to the above another admin should be the one to make the final call. –xeno^talk 15:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Line drawings in BLP infoboxes

And see this thread at MCQ: Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#A question about new drawing downloads. – ukexpat (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Rama deleted this fair use image (admins only) out of process and replaced it with his own line drawing, which to me at least is unrecognizable. At this point, I think we need to impose a temporary topic ban on Rama barring him from deleting or replacing fair-use images, till an RFC/U can be instituted to come up with a more finely tuned and permanent solution. Is anyone interested in starting such an RFC ? Abecedare (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have restored that image. Its a poor FU image but was deleted out of process. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I would certify it as Rama's comments today show no indication s/he intends to modify their approach, but don't have the time to draft it. –xeno^talk 15:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Can an admin at least go through all of Rama's deletions to check if there are any further examples? Quantpole (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

They appear to have been summarily deleting files out-of-process like this going back to 2007 (see deletion log entries for "irrelevant fair use" or similar), and maybe even here-and-there before that. –xeno^talk 16:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Though, this does show some promise that they will start using the procedures set out for appropriately disputing fair-use of images. –xeno^talk 16:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) A quick check shows that Rama has made dozens of out-of-process WP:F7 deletions in the past few weeks itself (many of these images have already been procedurally restored by User:Xeno). I am not claiming that none of these images should have been deleted after proper tagging or discussion; only that Rama substituted his personal opinion for wikipedia policy and process. Note also that his deletion caused bot removal of the images from articles they were used in, so the images are now liable to be deleted under WP:F5 - quite a mess! Abecedare (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• I've initiated an RFC on the matter here: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 44#Does a drawing of a person, or the fact that one might be drawn, mean all non-free photos of people are thus replaceable?. –xeno^talk 00:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it time to Block Rama?

Strikes me we have a classic case of a editor disrupting wikipedia by refusing to listen to community comment about their conduct. Am I the only admin considering a block if he doesn't mend his ways. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[111] <-- This may indicate they've been pulled back from the brink, so I would say wait to see how it plays out. –xeno^talk 16:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not an admin, but I hope you don't mind if I chime in. Regular editors and admins have been wasting an ENORMOUS amount of their valuable time undoing, checking, and reverting changes Rama has made that have no to minimal, at best, community consensus. His actions over the past several weeks are consistent in that he will continue to do everything and anything he can to ignore consensus and continue to waste everyone's time. I would like to say he is doing this out of some misplaced but desperate attempt to keep Wikipedia free (a nobel motivation), however his double standard shows that this is not the case. DR04 (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that much editor time has been consumed trying to convey to Rama why his interpretation of the CSD and fair use policy is wrongheaded, however, iff he is going to use the proper procedures from here on out, blocking would be unnecessarily punitive. –xeno^talk 16:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No, because he holds a minority opinion and blocking him would be censorship. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Pay attention. Nobody is suggesting blocking him for holding a minority opinion. Block is proposed for acting on a minority opinion, against consensus and creating disruption. So put your dick away and give it a rest. 208.97.245.233 (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, IMO Sceptre was being sarcastic. Whoever you are, logging out to come make this sort of remark is not helping matters any. Tarc (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I didn't log out to make this sort of remark. I've been IP editing for almost a year. Not that it's relevant, but I don't care for the accusation. That goes for you, too, Chillum. 208.97.245.233 (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I too think a block at this point would be premature and punitive. Lets wait to see if Rama follows the process from hereon and react accordingly. Abecedare (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No need to block, but removing the bit would stop the out of process deletion. If Rama disagrees with the presence of these images, let him do it as any other editor has to. If he wants to retain his adminship, then he should go through and restore every file that he has deleted improperly. If he wants them deleted he can request it, but he should not be doing so himself. Quantpole (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to clarify my above comments - my point was that he is wasting a lot of valuable time of several editors and admins - therefore there he needs to change his behavior (which I'm skeptical of) or these types of edits need to be blocked or watched (I don't think it would be fair to just block his entire account) - as Quantpole stated "If Rama disagrees with the presence of these images, let him do it as any other editor has to". It is a big liability if other editors and admins have to babysit his every administrative action and request reviews. DR04 (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not time to block him (or, and it irks me to say this) remove the bit, as yet. There is process here for a reason. I am currently drafting a user conduct RFC, so we can have clear evidence that we have tried every avenue to get Rama to align his behavior with community standards. Should this not produce desired results, we can move forward with sanctions. --Jayron32 18:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC on this issue has been started here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rama —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayron32 (talk • contribs)

• Why block? He's doing what he's doing with the best of intentions. The fact that most people believe his actions aren't warranted, and are against consensus, suggests to me that his ability to delete images should simply be removed. That lets him continue editing articles, which is the important thing here. Parrot of Doom 12:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Works for me; if this is an example of how he does image patrol, that portion of his administrational duty might better be served by a wind-up toy... HalfShadow 22:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC not going to work?

Going on this comment [112], I don't know if the RFC is going to help very much... Exxolon (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think it does. The community spells out its concerns, and suggests methods by which the concerns may be alleviated. The subject ignores the communities attempt to resolve the issue. The community comes to a consensus on how to minimise disruption, which an admin enacts (if those buttons are required). LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

An RFC can be helpful later on if this goes to the Arbitration Committee, even if Rama chooses to ignore the results of the RFC. -- Atama頭 23:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

As I noted at the RFC this comment indicates Rama plans to withdraw from image deletion, so I think at this point the RFC is for the most-part moot. He does continue to argue his interpretation, but he has stopped deleting files per it. I think this ANI thread may be marked tentatively "resolved". –xeno^talk 23:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

That's the Wrong Thing. There is no end of un-controversial image admincrap, starting with the linked stuff. And Rama is a Commons admin, so all the "this bot move has been checked" clicking and fixing of broken uploads, and template-fixing and -adding is really something he could do better too. He's a volunteer so he doesn't need to do this, but it would be good for us and for Commons if he did. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:55, 19 December 2009

Deletion request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Diff oversighted Deleted, see WP:REVDEL

Not sure where to post this but i'll put it here. This edit should be deleted because it gives instructions on how to hack paypal. The user is already blocked but it should be removed from public view. Thanks. Momo san ^Gespräch 20:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not delete yet, I'm reporting this to Paypal, who will need to be able to see the diff. Mjroots (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, they should be aware of this. Also when a DIFF is removed from the public view, only administrators can still see it and no one else. But yeah I would wait to delete it since Paypal needs to see it. Momo san ^Gespräch 21:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I've sent Paypal a full copy of the text, and have it saved in a Word document too in case there is any problem with the e-mail I sent them. It can be oversighted now. Mjroots (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Bah. It's a scam. Stop worrying. The described method will not work. It will, though, compromise your PayPal and email password. Aditya Ex Machina 21:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I can explain why it won't work if required. There's nothing PayPal can do about this. Aditya Ex Machina 21:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realise it was a scam, but either way it should be removed to prevent people from being a victim of the scam. Momo san ^Gespräch 21:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was probably a scam, which is why I've informed Paypal. If they are not aware of the scam they can't act on it, can they? Mjroots (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

PayPal can't act on it. Gmail can, however. Though if the diff get's oversighted then we have no proof. Either way, it's not a big issue. Aditya Ex Machina 21:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Gmail will be able to get details through Wikipedia if necessary if the diff gets oversighted. Mjroots (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Aditya has this right. Basically the instructions tell you to send your PayPal login and password to a gmail account. Google could disable that account if they find it's being used for fraud. ReverendWayne (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The diff has now been oversighted. Mjroots (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it's a caching issue or what, but when I go to the link [113] while logged out I can still see the diff. -- 128.205.47.7 (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It is your cache, go into your browser options and clear your cache out, then the problem will go away. Momo san ^Gespräch 22:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AfD circus

Resolved

 – I closed it early, this has been deleted twice before and the new sources were thoroughly examined so I felt we were done Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I've been out of touch with software AfDs for too long, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QutIM (3rd nomination) is exceeding my memories of ridiculous WP:SPA activity. Pcap ping 03:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I may be also out of touch with gross disruption/clear off-wiki canvassing on AFDs, I don't think semi-protecting the AFD for its duration would be unreasonable. (I haven't seen that happen in a while; I won't do it if it will being a lot of heat within the community.) Thoughts? MuZemike 03:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I've only seen that done a very small number of times. After all, AFD is NOTVOTE and the SPAs can be discounted. So if you protect it, move the SPAs together, mark them all SPAs, or sign up to figure out WTH the actual consensus is. tedder (talk) 03:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

One of the IPs has basically admitted there is meatpuppetry going on. I think a semi-protect would be useful, as it seems obvious they are just going to keep at it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Semi'd, 5 days. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 06:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Personal Info Disclosed

Resolved

 – Edits rapidly oversighted and article deleted. Hastily resolved! Newt ^(winkle) 08:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I ran across an article in recent changes, which led me to this, which discloses personal information. The edits and the user need to be dealt with. If this isn't the right place, please point in the correct direction. Newt ^(winkle) 08:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Those diffs appear to have been oversighted already. Protonk (talk) 08:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Also, since the edits of Sarah Murphy have also been oversighted, I don't have any way to tell what they were or whether or not the user should be blocked for making them. Protonk (talk) 08:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Indeed. Without being too terribly specific, the user appears to have been making use of Wikipedia as an extension of Facebook. Both the userpage and the article contained serious BLP violations concerning a minor, and both were unsalvageable; the article was a speedy delete, and the userpage revealed personal details of minors in all of its iterations. At minimum, I would appreciate it if another admin gave a severe warning to the user. I try to separate user-specific actions from the oversight end of things where possible. Thanks. Risker (talk) 08:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• The very diligent User:PMDrive1061 quickly blocked the user in question. I would put one of those "resolved" thingies on here if I knew how. Newt ^(winkle) 08:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

BjörnBergman

(moved from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism)

• BjörnBergman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is the same as 213.65.211.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), says (here on wikipedia in english) that he will start vandalizing other users discussionpages if he isn't unblocked from wikipedia in swedish. His account and his IP have both been blocked on wikipedia in swedish. The warnings and threats are in Swedish, and thus might be harder for you to follow. He has also attacked several admins on Swedish wikipedia on the discussion pages here. GameOn (talk) 12:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

BjörnBergman

The user user:BjörnBergman have been blocked on swedish wikipedia, for using a really bad language in discussions and some other things. After he were blocked his language got even worse, and he swore at us. After removing his ability to edit his own discussionpage he tried to contact us using english wikipedia. Please, block him until 22/12. (Thats when he can edit swedish wikipedia again) Contributions on Swe wikipedia. Evalowyn (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: Didnt notice the request above, merging them.. Evalowyn (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

If he's going cross-wiki threatening vandalism, then I see an indef in his future. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 21:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I love it when they make it easy. Will actively monitor user. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I ran his talk page through Google translate [114] and I don't see the threat to vandalize here, just a lot of conversation that belongs at the Swedish Wikipedia and has nothing at all to do with the English wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The threats are on other (svwp) admins talk pages here on enwp. I suggest that you do nothing for the time being, in a few days his block on svwp will be either lifted or changed to a permanent one. Someone, perhaps not me or Evalowyn (who's an admin at svwp) will get back to you if we need assistance here. Merry Christmas to you! GameOn (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by AJS2050 at Talk:List of best-selling music artists

The user inflates the estimated sales figure for Eminem [115]ignoring both the provided source as well as my explanation on the sales figures that I have provided for Eminem's albums respectively at Talk:List of best-selling music artists. In addition, AJS2050 has been removing the part of my explanation (1st removal, 2nd removal) from the discussion where I provided my explanation based on reliable sources as to why Eminem's worldwide sales cannot be 112 million as it is believed by AJS2050. I have asked AJS2050 on two different occasions both at Talk:List of best-selling music artists and his talk page not to remove other editors' comments whereas his response at his talk was this. And today, the user removed the entire discussion [116] immediately after which he went ahead and inflated the estimated sales figure [117] from 80 million to 84 million. It seems to me, unless this user is blocked for a period of some time, he/she will not stop vandalizing regardless of how many times editors warn him.--Harout72 (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I should address this myself, but I want to note that I've encountered this user at List of best-selling music artists in the United States, which I monitor for disruption following a letter to OTRS (Ticket:2009052110008347) that brought home to me what a POV magnet it is. I have also warned him about refactoring talk pages, on December 2, which he obviously read, because he removed it. He knows better. Combined with his changing sourced material inconsistent with that source, it seems to me that we do have some disruption going on. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Signature policy

Resolved

User:Mrschimpf signs as "Nate" which is (a) horribly confusing, because page histories do not appear to match the contributions (and confusing signatures are recommended against in WP:CUSTOMSIG), and (b) is the name of another user (which is explicitly prohibited by WP:SIGEDITORIMPERSONATE, although that editor appears to be inactive). My request to change it was declined. Could an admin advise? Thx. I42 (talk) 13:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

As long as the link in the sig resolves to the account it doesn't matter what alternate they use as long as it isn't an attempt to be considered as being another account belonging to someone else. Quite a few peoples "common" name is not the registered one. This isn't an area where people are required to conform to a specific standard providing their contributions are well intentioned. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I42 (talk) 13:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I refused to change my signature based on the simple principle that it is my legal first name. As LessHeard said, many others like me choose to register under a surname or alternate name but then edit under their first name to provide that personal touch that they can't get because they weren't lucky enough to get a first name username way back in '04 or '03 (I got on in May '05). I have used this signature in the form it is right now for two years with only minor changes in coloring to support causes (breast cancer, Iran, Packers), and never has an objection been raised to it at all; the sig goes to my user and talk pages, like it's supposed to, and a link hover clearly tells you there is no impersonation of said user. There is no confusion with a dormant editor in my opinion, and my signature is so different using the customizing options as to not be confused for any other here who might use "Nate" for their conversational name on this site.

To ask change my signing identity after 18,000 edits here in response would be an inconvenience when it has not been brought up to this point in my long time here as a contributor. Thank you for understanding. Nate • (chatter) 13:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I am ok with the sig, but I am biased :)..anways, --Tom (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a clear case of following the spirit if not the letter of SIG law. We allow a large amount of latitude in signature formatting, provided it still resolves to the right name (and is not a blatant and deliberate attempt to impersonate someone.) Otherwise, there's be a lot of people in trouble (me included :D) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The existence of {{user12}} acknowledges differences between signame and ID, e.g. {{User12|Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|Nearly Headless Nick}} → — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 18:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hans Adler's lack of humour and related matters

Resolved

Joopercooper has copied a comment by Rlevse from its original context to a user page of Giano's, complete with the original signature and timestamp, but without Joopercooper's own signature or a correct timestamp. The user (seconded by Ottava Rima) insists that this was perfectly acceptable behaviour and is accusing Franamax and me of pomposity and lack of humour. Could a neutral party please evaluate the situation and, if necessary, advise me how to improve my sense of humour.

• [118] – Rlevse's original comment at WT:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee
• [119] – Joopercooper copying Rlevse's comment to User:Giano/Complaints
• User talk:Joopercoopers#Faking Rlevse's signature on a page that Rlevse never edited

Thanks. Hans Adler 14:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Marking this as resolved. [120] Any feedback about my sense of humour can go to my talk page. Hans Adler 14:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This is normal, because Hans is a logician and German. Suggest glass of glühwein and two pfefferkuchen. Mathsci (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• FYI, {{quotedfrom}} would have been useful, e.g. {{quotedfrom||Rlevse|11:05, 18 December 2009|332472943}} → "— Preceding text originally posted here by Rlevse (talk⋅contribs) 11:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)" instead of copying the signature. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 17:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

history merge

Resolved

 – Done. NW (Talk) 15:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I know GFDL compliance isn't required anymore with cc-by-3.0, but history merges are still nice for continuity. In this case, Copyright in architecture in the United States which appears to spring forth fully grown like Athena from the forehead of Zeus, but which was actually incubated at User:Architecturecopyright/Copyrightinarchitecture. Thanks :) -Nard 15:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that CC-By-SA compliance also requires attribution. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

And all submissions also need to be compliant with the GFDL and that requires attribution as well. Regards SoWhy 18:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Yzak Jule repeat personal attacks on homepage

I appreciate this is incredibly petty, but....a number of anon and account users have been attacking Tryptofish to the extent that his userpage has been semi-protected for several weeks. This follows extremely acrimonious arguments at Talk:Crucifixion and Talk:Crucifixion in art. At some point in that melee, someone made a truly out of order statement that included Tryptofish, Aspies and people with mental health disorders, and someone else put up a banner advising against that comment.

Yzak Jule, who had been blocked for his comments in the dispute, copied the banner and posted it on his user page. He then piped the Asperger's link to point to Tryptofish instead [121]. I took this down as a personal attack. Later, he replaced it with [122] which pipes "someone" to Tryptofish and is, in my opinion, still a personal attack, so I took it down again. Today, he has put it back up again [123]. Is the consensus that it is a personal attack, and if so, could something be done about it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to thank Elen for starting this thread, and I appreciate the concern on my behalf. I think it is worth providing additional information about this user's recent activities. Yzak Jule was recently blocked, and has resumed editing after the block only over the last two days. It is illuminating to observe how he has been focusing his edits in this short time.(1) He has gone to User talk:TJRC, an experienced and valued user who has recently become unhappy about editing, and expressed pleasure at the user's unhappiness [124]. (2) He has made transparent attempts to get back at the administrator who blocked him [125], [126]. (3) He has frivolously placed a 3RR template on Elen's talkpage for edits that were simply reverting vandalism by an IP [127]. (4) He has repeatedly blanked legitimate comments I have made at Talk:Crucifixion in art [128], and then frivolously placed a template about creating attack pages on my talk [129]. (5) And he has configured his user page [130] to be a parody of mine (for example: this user opposes the Society for Neuroscience Wikipedia Initiative, etc.). One might hope that an editor coming back after a block would attempt to contribute to content improvement, but this has manifestly not been the case. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Note, I've edited Tryptofish's comment to number his arguments for ease of response. (1)My comment that his and your actions in the Crucifixion argument has provoked similar feelings on the other side was an attempt to give you two some perspective so a consensus on the issue could finally be found. (2)As noted below, his actions in the two arguments were similar, and I felt it might be noteworthy that it seems to be a pattern on tedder's part and not an isolated incident. Cool Civil/AGF violation, by the way. (3)The IP was removing the material you added that a significant number of editors on the talk page have voiced as a poor source. Elen's actions were edit warring. (4)Per my arguments below, your comments were incivil. (5)Although I did first notice the Initiative on your user page, my concern is that it violates WP:COI and WP:Canvassing. There'd be no point in parodying your handful of userboxes, it's not constructive to the construction of an encyclopedia at all, just like this argument.Yzak Jule (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

To admins: for each of those responses, please look at them alongside the actual diffs. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

To admins: This is the third time Tryptofish and co. have brought this petty argument to ANI without ever attempting to discuss it via user talk pages (and ignoring any of my own attempts to do so), and I'd like to get back to working on the encyclopedia and quit wasting your time with this. Yzak Jule (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not start this report, Elen did. There is a difference between trying to discuss on talk pages, and what this user continues to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Yzak has a habit of considering anything to be a personal attack, removing comments from talk pages as well as their own userpage. Here are some examples: [131], [132], [133], [134], as well as aggressively going after anyone who has slighted themselves (including myself and Tryptofish, likely Elen too).tedder (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Those first three clearly violate WP:AGF and WP:Civil, specifically sections 1C, 1D, and 2A. The last one you're correct in that I shouldn't have reverted it, although I feel Tryptofish is using Elen as a meat puppet for reverts in the Crucifixion in art edit war precisely to be able to make such arguments. I don't understand what you mean by "going after" you, since all I did was note that your behaviour in the edit war I'm involved in at Crucifixion was similar to the behaviour the above ANI thread is looking into. As for Tryptofish, he has clear issues with the WP:Own policy, in my opinion, and I'm still involved in trying to reach consensus on the page both of us are involved in, so it's unsuprising we're in the same places.Yzak Jule (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that Yzak has again restored the link to Tryptofish's page. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Because I don't see anything in WP:NPA it's violating and no one here sees fit to discuss that, instead unilaterally making decisions without consensus. However, in the spirit of cooperation I've removed it for now.Yzak Jule (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think one can determine from the user's replies here the likelihood that the user will or will not improve his editing behavior in the future as a result of this report. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to improve my editing if someone would like to tell me what it is I'm doing wrong. The level of condescension in your comments as well as those of most others involved in this edit war (with the exceptions of Elen and Gary) is staggering and extremely unhelpful, and is why this is a continuing issue.Yzak Jule (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

After this AN/I thread started, I note that Yzak Jule has made what appear to be a large number of in-policy vandalism reverts. Given his stated desire to improve his editing behavior, as well as his stated lack of understanding of why the complaints were started, perhaps a better alternative to a block would be some sort of mentorship? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"SA"

Note something non-Yzak related(?) is happening with those crucifixion pages from an off-wiki website- I don't know what, I've just seen it mentioned as "SA". tedder (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Off the cuff, I'd guess Something Awful. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what SA is. Just before Thanksgiving, they started a section called something about how Wikipedia is falling apart (within a section called "general bullshit") showing a screenshot of what was then at Crucifixion, and egging one another to meatpuppet here, amid a lot of hate-speech about persons with Asperger's syndrome. It has been morphing into egging people to come here and harass me and other editors who disagree with them. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Diffs about SA: [135] and [136]. Not pretty. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, you seem to think this is some official "section" of SA. It is a forum post. Nothing more. And yes, they don't like the article. I've contributed to that thread, shared my feelings, and acted on some things they've said. --Golbez (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I understand that it's a forum. But that's really beside the point. The issue is what Elen, Tedder, and I have raised above. I already pointed out the SA thing in an earlier AN/I section, now archived, and it simply is what it is. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Their points are valid; their methods, less so. --Golbez (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. If you think it's worth defending, that's your right. But that isn't the issue before AN/I, in any case. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• One point to Sarek for figuring that out. I was thinking it was Christian-based, so that didn't even cross my mind. TLDR: [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154]. Obviously it's a big meme involving Tryptofish and Anime, especially this Anime/Crucifixion article. What should be done about it? I'm involved, otherwise I'd probably block Yzak for disruption. tedder (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Much as I said above to Golbez, I think the SA thing just is what it is, and Wikipedia can't regulate what happens at other websites. The solution to meatpuppetry is to give meat-comments less weight. The user issue above is a separate issue, one that is not resolving itself (just got a whole lot more incivility at my talk), and I hope that is where uninvolved administrators are looking, not this side-issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Please explain, exactly, how offering an olive branch, per the civility policy, is incivility.Yzak Jule (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't an olive branch. [155], [156] --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, see also: 4chan. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

While I commend your effort to explain these things to those of us not "in the know", I believe that, ultimately and unfortunately, your knowledge of the rather complex dynamics involved is slightly superficial, and this situation would benefit greatly from a more nuanced approach. Being a web forum, as opposed to a Wiki, SA has "topics", not "sections". Moreover, SA and 4chan are two separate sites, sort of like Wikipedia and Citizendium, and though the latter was created by a member of the former, the two groups are hardly a single entity. Oftentimes, they find themselves at cross-purposes, both philosophically and practically. Think the ASPCA and PETA, Plato and Aristotle, or Goku and Vegeta. Badger Drink (talk) 05:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining that. In the end, though, meatpuppeting is meatpuppeting, whether the people are officially representing an organization (not the case here), or are acting unofficially as individuals. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

But what if they're not meatpuppets? The definition on Wikipedia is people recruited to back up someone else's position, and I'd say that this isn't the case; you've legitimately got individuals who honestly believe what they're saying, they're not swarming over to Wikipedia as some sort of "hive mind" or at the rallying call of a SA "leader" or something. As such, I'd say it's unfair to disregard their opinions out-of-hand just because some of them are coming from the same place. As with any online forum, like-minded people are going to congregate in the same place. That doesn't make their opinions less valid. Xenomrph (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

There's been a pretty enthusiastic outpouring of (SPA) accounts and IPs bombing away at Tryptofish and involved articles, especially the two crucifixion articles. It is/was the textbook definition of meatpuppetry, combined with the sort of trolling that can only happen with a large group of followers interested in disrupting, trolling, and griefing, which is backed up pretty well in the ~1600 posts on this thread. Wikipedia's policies and investigation of sockpuppetry is fairly well defined, but taking this group at face value has shown some serious weaknesses of the processes. tedder (talk) 05:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

But there's a pretty big (and important) distinction between "griefing" and "criticizing". The thread you linked to is not about griefing at all, as anyone who reads it will see. Just because a number of people, be them from the same website or otherwise, are saying things you don't agree with or don't like doesn't automatically mean they're "griefing". Xenomrph (talk) 12:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The number of SPAs who have bombed away at Tryptofish and involved articles (especially Crucifixion in art) says otherwise. tedder (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the threads at the SA forum show Xenomrph discussing with other persons his/her plans to come to Wikipedia to dispute at Talk:Something Awful, and others egging him/her on to do so. That doesn't mean that the points made by any of these editors are necessarily wrong. Indeed, just as someone can be a meatpuppet without being an official spokesperson for an outside site, one can also be a meatpuppet while being thoughtful and having a valid criticism to make (although a good many of the editors in this case do not fit that description), and there does not have to be a leader. The point is that the foundational principles of how editing is done at Wikipedia break down if editors do not simply come to a particular page as part of the normal "wiki" process, but rather come as part of something organized, and organized in a way that is not transparent here on-wiki. A vivid example: we have a system of RfC for resolving content disagreements, and it usually works pretty well. But if an RfC gets flooded with griefing entries (as happened recently at Talk:Crucifixion), then the RfC process breaks down, to the detriment of the project. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

No one was egging me on, nor did I say it was my plan to dispute over there. I posted there saying I'd already done it after I'd already done it, and that was that. In a thread with over 1100 posts, I've made exactly 7. But like you said, people coming from a particular site doesn't necessarily make their criticisms less valid, so I'd think that just crying out "Meatpuppet!" as some sort of judgment of what people are saying is disingenuous at best. Xenomrph (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is really about much more than just you. But I think I recollect you saying there that you were going to make comments and see what would happen; my apologies if I remember wrong. In any case, that's a small point, as no one is singling you out for scrutiny here in a thread about another user. But it's not "just crying" anything, and it's not "disingenuous". People can make (arguably) valid points, but do so in the course of disruptive editing, and that does not make it any less disruptive. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I call foul! Tryptofish, you have absolutely no problem going back and pulling up links that support your statements and posting them all over every talk page you come across, why can't you do that in this case? Because you're creating a straw-man or a red herring argument? Because you don't want to admit that you were wrong? The forum post still exists. Go find it, it's free!

Although I just started an actual account -I didn't want to be a part of the wiki-community and understood that anybody could edit with or without an account, so there was no point until now- I've been reading and occasionally editing wikipedia for the last five or six years on different IPs (I have changed ISPs six times since 2004, not to mention using my home network vs my School network between 2004 and 2006 and my home network vs my work network since 07. Prior to about the middle of this year, I edited from an ISP in Korea). I am not an SPA, I simply have no desire for notoriety on this site. Suggesting that I am a Single Purpose Account is a violation of WP:NPA and WP:Uncivil.

Personally, I look at people's talk pages and cringe at the flags and baubles that they can collect. If you want to know what's really wrong with Wikipedia and why new user numbers are falling off while old users slowly bleed away, it's garbage like this. You're anonymous, but you have a flag that says you have a PhD and you've been published in Peer Reviewed Academic Journals. Aside from the fact that every professor I've ever had has said unequivocally that Wikipedia is a waste of time and an invalid resource, I find it incredibly difficult to believe that somebody with a PhD in Neuroscience (!?) has the time and energy to dedicate to so vociferously defending non-science articles. I demand a source, or you (and every other "Anonymous PhD") need to delete that flag on your user page. Having that there to prove your worth or your status as a respected veteran is wrong. It's a blatant fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

Frankly, judging by the 'His Noodly Appendage' and other super-atheist flags of your defenders, as well as comments like the one by Tedder (above) that he thought SA was a religious group, and that new 'Anti-flame' flag you have on your talk page congratulating you on defending against Morality and Religion flames in these crucifixion pages (hint: this wasn't about religious concern or morality issues), if anybody has engaged in canvasing here, it's been you. Additionally, you've violated WP:Civil by waving your hand and dismissing anybody who posts from SA as a meatpuppet, ignoring their points even when they are civil about it. You haven't treated them with due respect because you thought it was a personal attack on your atheism or your anime fandom, I don't know which. Yes, there were SPAs who came in from SA, but they usually came in and said one thing before moving on. There's a pretty clear rule in WP:NPA that says you cannot engage in ad hominem attacks based on affiliation with a group ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F ), yet that's exactly what you've done. And on top of that, based on your behavior over the last week, you're actively trying to stir up support against SA among other disinterested members of the board by posting about it anywhere you can, then casting aspersions on the group by pointing out that the general discussion forum is called "General Bull Shit" (with quotes. As opposed to General BS or GBS, as reference to people who just sit around and BS about anything), making a reference to the name Something Awful while providing a link to the wiki page about SA ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=332379959 ) instead of the forum itself, and then editing the SA wiki page yourself to include certain negative 'facts' sourced by forum posts outside of SA and articles that you yourself have misquoted to prove a point, all in a campaign to drum up more support against us. That's the very definition of Canvasing and Engaging in Personal Attacks. - Diesel Phantom (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Misquoted sources? No. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

If you feel that way, then why not rise above their disruption and actually respond to their (admittedly) valid points, instead of disregarding it out-of-hand just because you see it as disruptive? Sure they're still not following protocol and being disruptive, but people can be educated on that. They'd also likely be more receptive (and thus be less disruptive) if people showed an inclination to look at *what* they're arguing, instead of fixating on *how* it was argued. I've worked with plenty of disruptive people in "real life" and you can't just ignore problems and hope they'll go away. Xenomrph (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh please, I and other editors have been responding to their points, and we've hardly been ignoring anything. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

That's debatable. Xenomrph (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll settle for three instances where you have directly answered a criticism, without citing WP anything, and not been cutely dismissive. Good work reverting my meager edits, by the way. I guess Pulse 2 & 3 are high water marks in the surrealist genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.165.188 (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You haven't been ignoring, you've been dismissing. You haven't been giving viewpoints that disagree with you due respect in violation of WP:Civil. This isn't a case of the supreme minority of flat earthers demanding inclusion, it has been the majority of people with common sense objecting to the inclusion of a very extreme minority view in otherwise unrelated articles. - Diesel Phantom (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above users. Certainly, there has been incivil conduct against you, but you're using their policy violations as a way to avoid the underlying statements and the problems many users have with your own conduct, Tryptofish. Have you stopped to consider the reasons why so many editors seem to have a problem with your editing?Yzak Jule (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

(moving left, ugh) It's amusing to see Yzak implying an editor has odd behavior. In any case, what's this about me thinking "SA was a religious group"? The issue was not knowing that "SA" referred to some random trollforum, not that I thought somethingawful was religious. tedder (talk) 02:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact, at least one commenter above seems to be making a big deal out of the fact that an uninvolved editor who gave me a barnstar has a Flying Spaghetti Monster-related userbox, and appears to extrapolate from that that I'm part of some sort of anti-religious systemic bias at Wikipedia. Also, despite the framing, I have consistently responded very thoroughly and specifically whenever an editor has raised civil complaints about content. If the complaint here is that I'm dismissive of trolls, then guilty as charged. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Amazingly, on this very page, the second thread/topic under SA you said "One point to Sarek for figuring that out. I was thinking it was Christian-based, so that didn't even cross my mind. tedder (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)" Not knowing what Something Awful was, I can forgive, Trypto's posts elsewhere consistantly claimed "Christian/Western Bias in the Crucifixion Article", and that's what I have the problem with. - Diesel Phantom (talk) 07:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

What's not amusing, Tedder, is your continued uncivil behavior towards me. Adminship is not a pass to not follow policy.Yzak Jule (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing you are also implying the following users are uncivil: Elaragirl, SlimVirgin, Fish and karate, Elaragirl (2), Oxymoron83, David Fuchs, Cirt, Edgarde, Slakr, Commander Shepard, L0b0t, Evil saltine, NuclearWarfare, Elen of the Roads. tedder (talk) 04:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on being able to read my talk page history, but no, I'm talking about your consistent snide remarks towards me, both here and on your talk page[157][158].Yzak Jule (talk) 04:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's rather telling of tedder's attitude and behavior that whenever I bring up concerns with diffs like this he starts ignoring conversations he has previously been active in.Yzak Jule (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Not that you asked me, but my advice is to drop the stick. Really. You've just done some very helpful editing at Crucifixion, and that's the way to go. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a Something Awful account and I have read that thread. I agree wholeheartedly, from reading this conversation, that I have an 'SPA'. My account has one purpose and one purpose alone: to express my views whenever I feel I want to give them. If that only happens when something is drawn to my attention, that is not my problem. Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia and there is no rule which says I need to have a continued presence here in order for my opinion to count, despite the ridiculous sense of entitlement some users appear to have against anyone with the gall to express support for a point of view with origins outside the wikipedia ecosystem. I find the repeated use of the terms 'meatpuppet' and 'meatpuppetry' offensive, if not a blatant attempt to handwave away the views of anyone who disagrees with an editor's strongly held controversial views. Josh04 (talk) 04:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Show over?

Yzak Jule has taken down the offending notice and done some productive editing. He's asked what he was doing wrong, and I've suggested on his talkpage that he needs to drop the stick. Suggest we can now consider this closed.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

As I said yesterday, I am satisfied that there is no need for a block at this time, while I also think that, based on what Yzak Jule said himself, some sort of mentoring may be more useful. If the drama stops, the AN/I matters can, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Noting that the stick was picked up, again, briefly, today. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Before this section gets archived, I want to note for future reference that, as of this time, the user resumed some of the kind of editing that started this section (user's edits of December 16), and has not resumed the constructive edits that were noted during this AN/I discussion. (And editors can assess for themselves the thread about "SA" above.) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Noting, with appreciation: [159]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Founder notice

There seems to be some edit warring over whether it's appropriate for users to put Template:Founder on their page. I don't care since it's on another user's page (beyond Jimbo's) but I would like to see community input. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not the userbox - which is frequently used as what I can only supposed is a piss-take. It's the way Yzak Jule reverts all comments to his talk page with a vandalism tag that bothers me. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Modifying another user's user page content without reason is a textbook case of vandalism. Also, the use of this userbox on my page has already been brought up here on ANI before and the decision was made that it's ok. Yzak Jule (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Yzak with respect to the user page (but with the caveat that the choice of material will tend to attract unwelcome attention), but I agree with Elen about user talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't cite vandalism, I cite harassment, which I think is fair when it's you, Elen, or tedder.Yzak Jule (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Noticed creation of many advertising pages by a specific group of users

I noticed that all the following sites which are cross linked with each other are basically advertising spam which seem to have been created by (apparently) a common group of editors:

• Liberty Global, Extreme_Sports_Channel, JimJam, Romantica_(Romanian_TV_Channel), Zone_Club, Zone_Europa, Zone_Fantasy and many others which you'll find cross linked in the Liberty Global site.
• All the sites have randomly common creators/authors like Liberty_global (talk · contribs), User:Juro, User:Dan69en, User:Cyzor, User:Dell9300, User:C.byron, User:Cyzor, and many others.

I have marked a few of the sites for speedy deletion. However, I wanted you to kindly look at all these sites (and many others which I haven't been able to mark for speedy deletion) for any further action on (perhaps) persistent spamming. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 17:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I really don't see those as blatant advertising. As such, I've declined speedy deletion on all of them. Feel free to take to AFD if you care to appeal. However, I have gone in and removed lists of shows broadcast on these channels in the articles per WP:NOT. Toddst1 (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Perfectl alright. thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 18:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

However, there is a bunch of COI, promotional editing and autobiographies being created by users like:

• Alistair Gosling (talk · contribs)
• Extreme245 (talk · contribs)
• Extremeinternational (talk · contribs)
• Lloydbadams (talk · contribs)

Likely others. Toddst1 (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Security Problem?

Resolved

 – template misplacement. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Something strange seems to have happened in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nigeria#Update needed. Check the change log since this section was started by User:Ohms law. It shows the discussion, with contributions by me and User:DGG and me again - looks right. But check the current version - someone has inserted a long story about Alhaji Halliru Abdullahi Kafur - A Biography, with no trace in the change log. It appeared after I made my last contribution, but shows up in earlier versions. A bug? Aymatth2 (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Possibly! I think the folks at village pump tech would have more insight. Basket of Puppies 18:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

[160] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That explains it - had me really puzzled. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Generally if you're flummoxed by unexplained changes to page text, search Related changes and you'll find it. This won't work for templates which are a few transclusions up the chain, but those are normally protected anyway. Protonk (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Potential unapproved and malfunctioning bot

75.190.239.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) During some antivandalism efforts I came across a curious diff that looked like headers from an HTTP request. This might be indicative of an unapproved and malfunctioning bot that I figured I would bring to administrators' attention. This might be a bit early to report it, but I figured I would put out the heads' up anyway. --Shirik (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: Some discussion has lead to the conclusion that this may not be a bot but rather something else acting strange; perhaps a script. I'll leave a warning on the user's talk page. --Shirik (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Could just be an editor. Look at the most recent diff (specifically the edit summary). There is a bug that periodically inserts that stuff into edited text (I've only seen it on talk pages). Protonk (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  I agree; I didn't notice the edit summary. I've left a notice on the user's talk page suggesting the sandbox and user space for further edits if it's a script, and I'll keep an eye on the contributions. Thanks! --Shirik (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like headers are being submitted after the \r\n\r\n in the form submission. It is a problem with the IP's useragent, be it a bot or browser. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Brittany Murphy

The Brittany Murphy article might need a couple eyes just until there is better confirmation than TMZ on the reporting of her death at 32 today. I would keep an eye on the page just to make sure no edit wars break out. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Right now, it's full-protected until there is confirmation via a very reliable source that she's dead. –MuZemike 20:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Same problem is occurring at Deaths in 2009. Rodhullandemu 20:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The Chicago Tribune has the coroner confirming, is that reliable enough [161]?Yzak Jule (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but they are just reporting what TMZ is reporting. There needs to be some independent confirmation, like The Chicago Tribune doing the work themselves to confirm it, instead of just going with what TMZ is saying. This does lead to another question. When does TMZ get to a point where they are a reliable source? They were first with the Michael Jackson story, now it appears first with this. When do they (TMZ) get so many reliable first reports to become a reliable source. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not so much the number of scoops they've managed to get; it's the amount of other unreliable gossipy stuff that they also report. TMZ is never going to be a reliable source on its own, even if they're right about some things. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• OK, it can be added, CNN is now reporting it with their own reporting and confirmation. TMZ breaks another one. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• A bit of a side question: is there any way to implement an editnotice for BLP articles like this where we know someone has been reported dead but we've deliberately held back from reporting it? {{recent death}} has been changed recently to include the possibility that someone was only reported dead, but it's still not appropriate for cases where we aren't confident in the source, because tagging the article to say that someone might be dead is tantamount to saying they are in the article prose. I don't know enough about the technical implementation of editnotices, but it would be nice to have one that said "We know this person has been widely reported dead; please read the talk page to see why this article doesn't reflect that". — Gavia immer (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Why not a hidden comment? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the time, the people rushing to add death news are new or unregistered users who probably wouldn't even notice a hidden comment.Yzak Jule (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

They probably wouldn't notice edit notices or other things we do. Heck, a lot of people don't pay any attention to the BLP rules, but something that says "do NOT add anything about death without a reliable source or you WILL be blocked" may at least make them think twice. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• I have received "Breaking News" emails from both CNN and Fox News concerning this tragedy and so also encourage additional admin eyes on the page to protect her dignity for the sake of her family. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Sadly, over 2000 stories about it on Google News. Durova³⁸⁶ 02:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Banned user made a AfD discussion.

Resolved

 – No further action is required. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Close it before he wins because of the delete votes!!!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mysto_%26_Pizzi_(2nd_nomination) AfroUnderscoreStud (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

No. Tan | 39 01:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It's so easy to find sockpuppets when they yell at us.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Cue The Price is Right failhorn. –MuZemike 01:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Radical-Dreamer

This came to my attention through vaguely unnacceptable edits at Siemens - [162] Note the title "Support of Iran's Nuke program" - suitable for a newspaper perhaps, not justified in this article at all.

Looking through the users edits I see numerous potential POV issues eg [163] (I don't know the subject but I suspect a 17th century Islamic scholar is a notable resident).

Similar edit [164]

Edit summary : [165]

Shortfatlad (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• He's obviously lunching a personal attack against me. He kept deleting my addition to the Siemens article. When I told him I'm going to report him for vandalism of the article, he blames me instead ! This guy is a joke. No wonder he got banned 3 times already. Admins - please check the history of the article and see for yourselves. I offered him to change the article but instead he deleted the whole paragraph !!!!! He's doing great by DELETING other people's work.Radical-Dreamer (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

'Lunching'. BEST. TYPO. EVER. HalfShadow 21:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Moreover, he was already warned in the past by User:Geschichte against personal attacks on Wikipedia (see user's talk page). Radical-Dreamer (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Radical-Dreamer you're not supposed to change the title of the section as you did here [166], and you are definately not supposed to delete my post to this page as you did here. [167]. You've already had two editors question your edits [168] Don't you think you might be going in the wrong direction on this.Shortfatlad (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The edit to Siemens is inappropriate, plain and simple. Radical-Dreamer's behavior here on ANI is even more so. I have now twice reverted attempts to change this report so it's about Shortfatlad instead of Radical-Dreamer. The last attempt also deleted every participation from Shortfatlad.--Atlan (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Instead of deleting my edit completely, either of you could make the paragraph more neutral (IMO, it was neutral already). Right now, both of you are trying to cover this up and completely remove it from Wikipedia unjustly. Radical-Dreamer (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm currently awaiting further input (from third parties) at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Siemens_news and am willing to add it in a non-biased way.

You have been removing links to the arabic wikipedia on some articles - which doesn't look good - can you say if there is a reason for this (please note I cannot read arabic)Shortfatlad (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Also your recent edit to Siemens history [169] breaks the "three revert rule" see Wikipedia:3rr#The_three-revert_rule - again this is something you shouldn't be doing. Please read Wikipedia:Edit warring as you should be aware of this.Shortfatlad (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I've reported the 3RR violation, as it doesn't appear talk page discussion is quite enough incentive not to edit war over this.--Atlan (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Shortfatlad - Now you're stalking me??! I'm pretty sure this is a personal attack. Radical-Dreamer (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look like anything close to a personal attack, to me. Shortfatlad is reporting on your behavior in a neutral fashion. Woogee (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

RD: You might want to take a gander at this and see what is considered to be a personal attack, and what is not. Nothing in this thread even comes close. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Restate problem

User:Radical-Dreamer (edit | [[Talk:User:Radical-Dreamer|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is currently under a 24hr block for 3RR, but that was not the original problem. Uncharitably, I see an account used predominately for adding and removing material in a completely non-neutral way - as well as that mentioned above, there is also creaton of articles to make a point [170] [171] (relates to their objection to Israeli Occupation Forces being a redirect I think), as well as already being warned about the problem [172]

Can an admin at least explain to them what the issue is - I would think a final warning would be in order at the minimum, or maybe some sort of pre-emptive Wikipedia:Standard offer? Thanks.Shortfatlad (talk) 13:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Failure to explain rationale for declining unprotection

Resolved

 – Article unprotected. (X! · talk)  · @288  ·  05:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see this section. Thanks. 87.23.5.174 (talk) 01:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You indicate that you are a registered user, and that your problem is not with this specific article, but with semiprotection in general. It seems like it would be more effective to log in and discuss your concerns at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy, wouldn't it? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have already done that, to no avail. Besides, I have no problem with the current policy. My problem is with the randomness and confusion surrounding its application. Please help with this specific case. Thank you. 87.23.5.174 (talk) 02:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to edit semiprotected articles, just register an account. I don't see why that is so hard... --Jayron32 02:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, but I think you are missing the point of my request. 87.23.5.174 (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. I just don't think your concerns are all that merited. There are avenues for editing semiprotected articles. Either you wish to edit them, or you don't. If you just want to debate the semiprotection policy or its application, you can do that at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy. If you want to edit semiprotected articles, then register an account. I don't see why this thread is here otherwise. --Jayron32 02:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

In that case, please explain the reason why this section exists. I cannot see any pre-requisites for filing a request for unprotection, specifically having an account or wanting to contribute to the article. As I see it, the article has been unprotected indefinitely (and has been refused unprotection) in disregard of current policy. This is the issue. Thanks. 87.23.5.174 (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, after reviewing the Beryllium article, I think that indefinite semiprotection may have been hasty. I think unprotecting may be OK, but I would not be willing to do so over the objection of two admins who have already declined it. I think the greater problem was your approach. walls of text which quote copious policy obfuscate your point here. Had you made a simple, short request explaining that it had been long enough, you may have had better results. I will invite the two admins who declined your request to comment on this ANI thread. If they acede, I will unprotect and monitor the article myself for potential problems. --Jayron32 02:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have contacted the two admins in question. We now await their response here before proceeding. --Jayron32 02:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense, thank you. I will heed your advice in any future requests. 87.23.5.174 (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Indef semi-protection for a chemical seems a bit steep to me. We don't give William Golding or Walter Ralegh indef, jsut lots of short bouts of it. DuncanHill (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like there was some nettlesome, bored schoolkid vandalism many months back, which more often than not comes in waves, rather than steadily throughout the year. Since IPs do make helpful edits to articles like this, I'd think indef s-protection would never be called for here. S-protect for a few months, maybe, then let it lapse and see what happens. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I would also endorse unprotection. Whatever seems to have happened way back probably will not occur again in the near future. Any cases that do pop up should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. (X! · talk)  · @253  ·  05:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

As the original semi-protecting admin, I have unprotected the article. I don't understand the rationale for a registered user to log out and complain about the inability to edit the article. Nor do I know why a second registered account, named Soque1, was created. But I have no stake in the article; it was semi-protected by user request, and can be unprotected at same. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Firsfron, thanks for unprotecting. I've unprotected many articles through RFPP, but generally only with some sort of rationale for unprotection, such as "it's time to try unprotection", "I want to add information on A and B". tedder (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

My main rationale for declining unprotection was that before the protection their was vandalism daily that was disrupting the building of the article as well as Firsfron's decision less than a month ago to keep the article protected. Now that Firsfron has unprotected I'm fine with the unprotection. Malinaccier (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Troublemaking Account At Last Exposed

Is there any way that this account can be deleted? Over two years ago this account was part of a very nasty dispute in which I was involved and, after some time, I finally got confirmation of who exactly this was. The answer was an IT specialist at the United States Embassy in Dubai, connected in some way through the Naval Attaché office, From what I have gathered, one of the original disputes between either Durin or Morwen and myself was bookmarked on some public computer in Dubai, and this individual created an account to “aide me in my defense” but in fact had the intention of flaring up the conflict even further. Why I am telling the community this now is that a) you all deserve an explanation and b) This account is still linked to my name in some ways and creates a very bad image even nearly three years later. I think Wikipedia admins should delete that account since it was created for no other reason than to deceive people.

I should also add that no doubt many people will always believe that I was behind that account but it just isn’t so. The ip traces of that original account – from Dubai – are a dead giveaway since my time in the Middle East was several hundred miles away in a different part of the region. That account was also making edits from the Middle East after I departed – all of this is provable by official records which I can share via private e-mail.

So, I ask that this account be deleted since it connects to a dead dispute, was created to fool people, and still serves to discredit me should anyone dig into the links to that page. -OberRanks (talk) 07:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Accounts cannot be deleted. Sorry. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 08:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You could ask for the user page to be deleted or blanked, so it doesn't show up in search engine results. Aiken ♫ 18:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the good tips here. I recall now I was told before the account cant be deleted. Can I simply blank the page myself? Or is there a tag we can place that the account was created to impersonate another user? I also wasn't "blameless and pure" back in those days and the original dispute that drew this other user was 90% my fault. I apologize to the community for that and thanke veryone for their help now. -OberRanks (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I notice that, even though the account has not edited in more than two years, it's still required that somebody report to the User involved that they're being discussed here. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedldia!

Resolved

 – All of the IPs have been blocked, for 1 year. -Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 09:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone here remember the "Welcome to Wikipedldia! Dont hesitate to ask for helP!!!!" messages from a week or two ago? He's ba-aack... See [173]. There may be more...look for a gibberishish edit summary, in this case "dfgdfgdgdfgggfdgdgfgddggdf" Drmies (talk) 07:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Now it's in mainspace: seethis edit. I hope a bunch of Wikipedia's hottest geeks are on it! Drmies (talk) 07:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The vandalizer left me a message on my talk page: [174]. Drmies (talk) 07:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It's been all over. WTF is going on? It's coming from all sorts of IPs. tedder (talk) 07:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been instablocking as vandalbots. Haven't yet seen a pattern that a rangeblock would do any good for. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the same thing that happened a while ago--someone here had a very smart, very technical explanation, but it didn't end with someone getting the shit kicked out of them, unfortunately. For laughs, look through my recent contributions. Drmies (talk) 07:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't currently have abuse filter privileges set up, would anyone like to add the edit summaries "bv3dsxcssdq" and "dfgdfgdgdfgggfdgdgfgddggdf" to it? That seems to be a recurring motif, probably stop a good lot of it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have AF turned on, but no experience, so I'm not going to do it. There is some text in the message that could be checked against too. ("anomtalk", for instance) tedder (talk) 07:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be the anontalk spammer: see the contribs of User:69.138.40.159 -- The Anome (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm blocking individual IPs as I see them, haven't identified ranges yet. IPs appear to be dynamic mostly, so long blocks won't be helpful. -SpacemanSpiff 07:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I'm just anonblocking for a week, because it's an easy setting to use. tedder (talk) 07:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Currently playing with a filter, number 276. It is a log-only filter. tedder (talk) 08:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

A search for "Wikipedldia" finds lots of earlier vandalism from the same source: as well as being a way to find edits to undo, this may also be a useful way of finding other IPs to block. -- The Anome (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Go through the ANI archives--this happened before while I was watching (same message, different edit summaries, I think), and I'm sure it's happened lots of times before. Drmies (talk) 08:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if this is a related case, but registered user Sky hook hanger (talk · contribs) recently exhibited similar repetitive behavior. (On further reflection, this is a different MO, so probably not.) -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 08:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Based on a scan of recent changes, I've identified 80 distict IP's. Would anybody like that list? -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 08:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI - From a scan of recent anon edits to user talk [175] between 07:06 and 07:51, I came up with the following list.

IP user list

• 123.125.156.132 (talk · contribs)
• 123.125.156.135 (talk · contribs)
• 123.125.156.142 (talk · contribs)
• 123.125.156.151 (talk · contribs)
• 123.125.156.194 (talk · contribs) - Added
• 123.125.156.195 (talk · contribs)
• 123.125.156.196 (talk · contribs)
• 123.125.156.197 (talk · contribs)
• 202.108.50.69 (talk · contribs)
• 202.108.50.70 (talk · contribs)
• 202.108.50.72 (talk · contribs)
• 202.108.50.73 (talk · contribs) - Added
• 202.108.50.74 (talk · contribs)
• 202.108.50.75 (talk · contribs)
• 202.108.50.76 (talk · contribs)
• 202.108.50.77 (talk · contribs)
• 202.108.50.77 (talk · contribs) - Added
• 206.255.77.163 (talk · contribs)
• 207.181.235.231 (talk · contribs)
• 207.228.61.168 (talk · contribs)
• 216.82.160.142 (talk · contribs)
• 221.130.13.89 (talk · contribs)
• 60.217.248.130 (talk · contribs)
• 60.217.248.131 (talk · contribs)
• 60.217.248.132 (talk · contribs)
• 60.217.248.133 (talk · contribs)
• 60.217.248.134 (talk · contribs)
• 60.217.248.135 (talk · contribs)
• 60.217.248.137 (talk · contribs)
• 60.217.248.138 (talk · contribs)
• 60.217.248.139 (talk · contribs)
• 60.217.248.140 (talk · contribs)
• 60.217.248.141 (talk · contribs)
• 60.217.248.142 (talk · contribs)
• 60.217.248.142 (talk · contribs) - Added
• 60.217.248.143 (talk · contribs)
• 60.217.248.144 (talk · contribs)
• 60.217.248.145 (talk · contribs)
• 60.217.248.146 (talk · contribs)
• 67.213.199.145 (talk · contribs)
• 67.243.149.178 (talk · contribs)
• 67.49.21.231 (talk · contribs)
• 67.82.88.83 (talk · contribs)
• 67.83.121.121 (talk · contribs)
• 67.86.179.189 (talk · contribs)
• 68.111.101.75 (talk · contribs)
• 68.13.94.110 (talk · contribs)
• 68.191.141.11 (talk · contribs)
• 68.191.141.11 (talk · contribs) - Added
• 68.192.47.198 (talk · contribs)
• 68.38.220.104 (talk · contribs)
• 68.41.212.69 (talk · contribs)
• 68.47.99.249 (talk · contribs)
• 68.48.133.254 (talk · contribs)
• 68.49.173.147 (talk · contribs)
• 68.49.173.147 (talk · contribs) - Added
• 68.55.245.72 (talk · contribs)
• 68.58.137.224 (talk · contribs)
• 68.58.17.50 (talk · contribs)
• 68.58.17.50 (talk · contribs) - Added
• 68.60.22.128 (talk · contribs)
• 68.80.96.238 (talk · contribs)
• 68.81.101.87 (talk · contribs)
• 68.81.86.207 (talk · contribs)
• 69.114.238.174 (talk · contribs)
• 69.114.246.213 (talk · contribs)
• 69.117.157.4 (talk · contribs)
• 69.122.111.146 (talk · contribs)
• 69.126.223.20 (talk · contribs)
• 69.127.133.234 (talk · contribs)
• 69.138.40.159 (talk · contribs)
• 69.140.75.15 (talk · contribs)
• 69.24.162.214 (talk · contribs)
• 69.24.162.214 (talk · contribs) - Added
• 69.244.81.7 (talk · contribs)
• 69.246.108.62 (talk · contribs)
• 69.247.78.107 (talk · contribs)
• 69.255.220.42 (talk · contribs)
• 72.51.213.1 (talk · contribs)
• 74.193.134.220 (talk · contribs)
• 74.196.187.36 (talk · contribs)
• 92.32.116.150 (talk · contribs)
• 92.32.116.157 (talk · contribs)
• 96.19.211.242 (talk · contribs)
• 96.35.242.104 (talk · contribs)
• 98.145.232.24 (talk · contribs)
• 98.145.232.24 (talk · contribs) - Added
• 98.245.81.132 (talk · contribs)
• 99.190.38.47 (talk · contribs)

Not sure if this is all of them, but I thought I'd pass it along. (Need sleep now.) -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 08:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I added a few more IPs in the list above that targeted article talk rather than user talk. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 09:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice work to all involved in dealing with this! Good job with all hands on deck! Just for my own information for next time... he normally uses proxies for all of his spam, correct? And the normal blocking length for blocking his proxies is a year, two months, a month, a day? I notice admins are blocking for differing lengths of time. Just like to get a little clarification. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked at recent changes, filtered to show the last 5000 edits made by IPs, (which covers the entire raid) and can confirm that all of the actual vandalism this raid is accounted for, and all the IPs are blocked. I don't know what to do about all the page creations, as they are not obviously vandalism. In any case, based on past experience, it is virtually certain that all IPs in this raid are open proxies, so anyone who participated in blocking these should go through and hardblock the IPs you took care of for at least several months to a year. I will take care of the ones I did later, as it is 20 minutes till 04:00 a.m. where I live. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 08:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm on it. Blocking the IPs for 1 year. --Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 09:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Changed my blocks; for the next time, when there are anomalies, would ProcseeBot be able to handle it? -SpacemanSpiff 09:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed a problem when reverting edits last night... This person doesn't sign the garbage. So, the sinebot quickly signs them. Then, it isn't possible to go to the IPs contribs and click revert on each one. Is there some other easy way to revert or is it possible to tell sinebot not to sign junk with that bgbf... edit summary? -- kainaw™ 14:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Kainaw, I meant to add that same note last night. As soon as I noticed it I went through (via Recent Changes) and manually replaced all the "welcomes" with the standard welcome template; I did this by hand since I don't know of any other way. The problem is that I often got into edit conflicts with Sinebot if I was a few seconds too slow; if Sinebot beat me to it I obviously couldn't use rollback, which made it even more tedious. After I turned in it occurred to me that I should check if Sinebot has an "off button" (my kids don't have one...) that I could push. If not, it should be our standard procedure to turn it off one way or another while the attack is taking place; that will make dealing with it a lot easier, at least my non-automated way of dealing with it. Later all, Drmies (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I've now removed all the instances of "Welcome to Wikipedldia!" vandalism that I could find using the in-wiki search tool. -- The Anome (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Gandev88

Resolved

 – Solved - user adding ref's from here on out. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 22:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I hope this is the appropriate place to raise a concern about an editor who has repeatedly ignored warnings to stop violating WP:BLP by creating new articles about Bulgarian football players that are completely unsourced. I have personally advised he or she three times on his talk page to add references to these new articles, and several other editors and bots have left him dozens of similar messages. It's quite possible that the editor doesn't check his talk page, so I'm at a complete loss on how to get him or her to stop. By my count, this editor has created at least 200 unreferenced BLPs in his or her time on Wikipedia (almost all of them after receiving many warnings not to do so). Please let me know what if anything can be done to either get this editor to follow the rules or to give him or her some kind of block to get the point across. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something, but WP:V only requires that "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations" be sourced. Obviously, we'd like everything to be referenced, but I'm not sure how creating un-controversial articles on professional football players is problematic. I can't read Bulgarian, so I can't speak to whether sources are likely to exist (and WP:GNG would be met), but nothing I've seen comes across as a violation of WP:BLP. Stating that someone is a football player doesn't seem to be a contentious fact. (Or is the concern that the articles aren't about professional footballers, and are hence unlikely to be notable?) -- Bfigura ^(talk) 17:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Some of the articles are getting sourced [176] [177] [178], at least to some degree. (Again, not familiar enough to know if the links cited would be reliable, but on first glance they seem reasonable). I'll leave the editor a note asking him/her to make sure to continue to include refs. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

BLPs without a single reference are certainly unhealthy for Wikipedia. I think the articles should be brought to AFD, or perhaps PRODded, to see if they are really notable. If people find they are, they may come up with suitable sources. At the moment though, the articles don't appear to be written negatively, nor are they obviously not notable, so they don't really appear to violate BLP. So I don't think a block is appropriate yet, but as they seem to have never edited a talk page, they may have A communication problem. If they continue to create unreferenced BLPs, you could come back here. Regards, Aiken ♫ 18:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for the input. I can certainly reference many of the articles for this editor, but it is unfortunate that he or she continues to add to the amount of unreferenced BLPs (I realize these are harmless articles, but they detract from Wikipedia as the information is potentially inaccurate and notability is unclear) and ignores the many warnings he or she has received. I'll try to source as many as I can and leave another message with the editor to see if he or she can help improve some of them. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I;m the one writing articles on bulgarian footballers and I'm terribly sorry if I have caused any trouble.I would like to make everything clear, so in responce to the first post - I have tried to respond to you, but I coulnd't because wikipedia is not that easy to work with.However after I received the second message from you I started to put external links field in all my articles and I'm puttling links in there.And something I'd like to ask is if there is a difference between External links and references, because there is a external links page in almost all mu postings.Once again sorry for the trouble and I want to assure you that all the articles are based on real people and as a football fan I'm glad to add them to wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandev88 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind message Gandev88. I appreciate your help, and wanted to point you to the Wikipedia Football Project page where there are other editors interested in football that would gladly help you with questions about editing footballer articles and other topics. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Hibe3000

Resolved

 – Page move vandal blocked. TNXMan 19:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Series of vandalisms this morning from Hibe3000, such as changing Toosey First Nation to Roland First Nation and doing similar "Roland" name changes to other articles, and who knows what else is to be found in their user contributions (I note a bunch marked "minor" which are probably anything but). In response to a warning from User:Strafpeloton2 I made a post at User:STrafpeloton's page, to which this user protested that I used quote-marks "his" to refer to him; his response of my talkpage and ensuing comments make it clear that this person is not interested in being a wikipedian, but only with being a nuisance. IMO should be immediately blocked, probably permanently, and all his/her page-moves and edits reversed forthwith.Skookum1 (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism can be reported to WP:AIV. Regards, Aiken ♫ 18:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

User admits sockpuppetry

I'm still fairly new to Wiki, so I don't even know if this is the right place to post this, but this edit appears to be an open admittance of WP:SOCK. WossOccurring (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Open admittance kinda runs counter to WP:SOCK violations. Publicly acknowledging multiple accounts is what we want people to do. Maybe him and a friend were sharing an account (which is a violation) but he's realized that's not supposed to happen, and is now doing it right. We don't really punish people for correcting their own inadvertant rules violations. Unless, of course, one of the accounts is actually blocked, there's not much to do here. --Jayron32 21:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request (The Pimp Hand)

• The Pimp Hand (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Drolz09

Just wondering if somebody could take a look at The Pimp Hand's indefinite block.

[179]. By all indicators this editor was blocked for nothing but suspicions. He was blocked for "abuse of editing privileges" and for being an "apparent sock puppet". I can find nothing inappropriate from this user not even one 3RR. He even used the talk page on WP:LOC, that shows some good faith. Perhaps mentorship from an experienced user could help. but I think this user may have been judged to harshly given he was listed as a possible sock of userDrolz09. --172.163.33.223 (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The user, and that user only must email arbcom: arbcom-l-at-lists.wikimedia.org to appeal his indefinite block, it was indicated on his talk page. Please read WP:BSAC. Momo san ^Gespräch 01:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry was confirmed by a checkuser jpgordon. It would be hard to argue against that. Everyone on BASC is a checkuser, so they would be in a position to confirm or refute jpgordon's conclusions. However, I've never heard of his conclusions being questioned in matters like this. --Jayron32 01:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: I didn't confirm sockpuppetry; I said, "Checkuser evidence shows you are employing methods to evade scrutiny; this in itself is sufficient to sustain the block, as there are no reasons to use such methods that are to the benefit of Wikipedia." I'd consider all the evidence, including mine, behavioral. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

as an aside, I may need to invoke WP:PLAXICO on the OP. How does a new IP user suddenly find a blocked user's talk page with no prior evidence of contact?--Jayron32 01:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh please.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Should this user ever be unblocked, the question of the inappropriate username should be addressed prior to unblocking. Names like "rapist", "pimp", "thug", and whatnot really aren't in keeping with our mission. --TS 02:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"Pimp" hardly has the same meaning these days as it did a couple of decades ago. I don't find the username inappropriate. Throwaway85 (talk)

You might want to check out pimp and wikt:pimp. It might have a tangential meaning in popular culture derived from the usual meaning, but it very definitely does still have the original primary meaning as well. Guy (Help!) 10:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, but calling yourself "gangster" or "thief" or "criminal" or what have you isn't outlawed. It's not blatantly offensive, and I can see a lot more innocent interpretations than sinister or offensive ones. The editor in question has plenty of problems at the moment, and their name is the least of them. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The original comment regarding the necessity of enforcing ethical naming conventions was spot on. We agree that it is not a matter deserving of great concern in regard to a blocked editor. However, the blocked editor should be aware of this potential objection. —Amelioration 01:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Aware of the potential objection, yes, but I don't think having a username that is at worst questionable should pose any undue impediment to the editor's return, should such a return be offered and the editor declines the invitation to change their name. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

User:The Pimp Hand is an attack account who made his first edits in project space, not to build the encyclopedia, but to attack editors like User:William_M._Connolley[180] New users don't go straight to project space and attack long-term editors. The user did the same thing in his first edit to Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident posting an off-topic link to the infamous attack piece "Wikipropaganda On Global Warming" (See also: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikiproganda_on_Global_Warming). I suggest that there is no reason to unblock this account. Viriditas (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)