Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive679

Vito Roberto Palazzolo et al

We had an interesting arbitration request come in this morning, here. The case is not in the proper format, and doesn't appear to be a case at all, so I imagine one of our arbcom clerks will be mopping it up presently. But I went to check on the article anyway, and found much the same complaint on the article's talk page. See Talk:Vito_Roberto_Palazzolo#Continued_slander_of_Palazzolo_by_Don_Calo_et_al in particular, where Fircks (talk · contribs) accuses other editors of slander, and indicates that lawyers have gotten involved. It's not a clear legal threat, but does it still trigger NLT? There is an RFC open on the article's talk page, and perhaps some longer-term issues in play on this very problematic BLP. Normally I wouldn't bother to mention a content dispute, but the arbcom request (such as it was) coupled with the potential legal threat (from 19 Feb, granted) highlighted the fact that there may be some behavioral issues that require administrator scrutiny. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like this user has been trying for several years to add disclaimers or intersperse a point-by-point rebuttal into the article. Tarc (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we can't have point-for-point rebuttals. Some googling also indicates there's a bit of an online campaign going on to improve Mr Palazzolo's public image, so we may be getting some residue astroturfing. We probably can't have too many threats of legal action floating around either. The article as of now doesn't look in terrible shape, but it definitely seems worth keeping an eye on. Moreschi (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Outing comment

RFC: Does it qualify as WP:OUTING to repeat personal information (specifically, a name) provided by an anonymous user that has not been redacted? If so, I would appreciate a clearer explanation of why this is the case. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 00:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I came across this“outing” comment made by User:IntrigueBlue. IntrugueBlue claims he based his outing comment on this post purported to be placed by the person who has been outed. Given the extensive vandalism that has been going on at the Sunshine Village article (much of it directed at the person who is the subject of this outing), I think it would be wise to follow the procedure explained at WP:OUTING, to make a request for Oversight to delete both of these edits from Wikipedia permanently – but I do not know how to do that. Fages (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I have RevDeleted the supposed "self incrimination" and WP:Outing issue. I shall leave IntrigueBlue a gentle reminder not to believe unreferenced content on WP and a strong hint not to repeat it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The following edits concerning the WP:Outing issue may have been missed for the RevDeleted process:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6] (good faith removal which actually serves to archive the outing)

Fages (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed :) --Errant ^(chat!) 16:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Was it necessary to RevDel my edit, which redacted the discussion? I thought that deleting the edit immediately before mine would prevent the material I removed from being visible in the diff. January (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'm not sure I understand how this was a contravention of WP:OUTING. From the linked description (emphasis mine):

Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors. It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found. Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for Oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently. If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, their wishes should be respected, though reference to self-disclosed information is not outing.

The IP user in question posted their own name in relation to an edit, which I then repeated elsewhere. Unless I am mistaken, the individual did not redact this self-disclosed information, so the last sentence in the quote above does not apply. It wasn't my intention to incite harassment, merely to make other editors aware that someone with a strong WP:COI was repeatedly editing the article. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 16:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

No, an ip posted under a name which they said was theirs - we have no evidence that it was; it may have been a Joe job. As such, saying an ip is who they claim they are can be considered trying to disclose an identity without knowing that the individual has released that information. I know that it is a tricky concept, so that is why I only advised you and strongly urged you to be more careful - privacy expectations is such that the usual response to a disclosure attempt is an official warning or even sanction. To sum up, we do not know for sure that the subject has edited Wikipedia and that noting they have by referring to an ip comment claiming to be that person is considered WP:Outing - and it should not happen again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

What? The IP claimed to be the person. While that may be a lie, it is absolutely not [[WP:OUTING]|outing]] to repeat that claim. It may be wrong, but it has repeatedly been held that as soon as a person outs xyrself, it's no longer outing to repeat that claim. If I state here that I am John Travolta Madonna Joe McJoeyson , it doesn't matter whether or not that's true--any other editor is safely able to repeat that information ps, none of those are true. There is no violation of policy here. Furthermore, that RevDel was not appropriate: editors are allowed to self-identify. Now, if they did so without realizing the consequences, and later asked for the info to be retracted, it could be allowed, but I see people self-identify all the time and I've never once seen that self-identification removed (outside of minors giving too much info, but that's not the case here). I believe both LessHeard vanU and Fages need to explain more clearly why they've contravened policy here. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, and ErrantX, since xe's the one who actually did the revdel. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I simply followed up on action already taken (i.e. one revision was removed and someone added that there was more), you'd have to ask LessHeard vanU. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Here you go, from WP:OUTING;"If you see an editor post personal information about another person, do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information. Doing so would give the person posting the information and anyone else who saw the page feedback on the accuracy of the material. Do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently from correct attempts for the same reason." On the basis that you, nor me, cannot confirm that the ip is the person they say they are (as you note, you can call yourself anyone) it can be taken that they are attempting to connect a real person with an ip address - and by confirming it, without knowing it is true, you are involved in outing that individual. I would really appreciate it if you would AGF that what I am saying, although quite arcane, is correct, and that I have been exampling as much good faith as I would want you to extend that I am explaining and providing a rationale for my comments. You made a mistake; we all do, and it is hoped that we recognise and understand the situation and move on. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I AGF that you think I (well, actually Intrigueblue) made a mistake, but I actually think that you made the mistake. This was an editor posting personal information about himself. It may be a lie, but it was not posting personal information about another person. By your logic, I could never repeat anytime anyone self-identifies. For example, on your user page, you claim to be "Mark James Slater." By your logic, I "cannot confirm that you are the person you say you are" because "you can call yourself anyone." Thus, by repeating what you yourself have written, I am violating WP:OUTING. A lot of IPs sign with a name, because they don't know how or don't care to bother creating a Wikipedia identity. By both the implied logic and the explicit wording of WP:OUTING, I may refer to that person by that name (of course, accounting for the possibility of dynamic IPs). So, if you're confident in your interpretation, I would like to you to clarify under which circumstances referring to a person by a name that they have themselves revealed is acceptable, and when it is not. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

“Confirmation” presupposes additional knowledge. If I had somehow gathered the named individual's IP address from elsewhere and stated that indeed the statement was correct (or that it were incorrect), I would be providing confirmation and giving “feedback on the accuracy of the material”. I never made any such attempt to confirm or deny, only made the good-faith assumption that the anon user's statement was correct and repeated it elsewhere, as explicitly permitted in WP:OUTING (see bold text in blockquote above). As for your comments, AGF does not mean “assume that I am correct”; I don't attribute any malice to your perspective, merely a faulty interpretation of events and/or of policy. I hate to be stubborn, but your subsequent attempts to explain your reasoning seem to require a leap of logic that I'm not following.

Regardless, I would like to hear you justify using RevDel unbidden on a user. Can you redact John Travolta's comments above because you think he made a mistake in posting his “name”? Can you redact this post because I just “confirmed” that Qwyrxian is John Travolta? What if I stated on Talk:John Travolta (which I won't) that Travolta was editing the article under the name Qwryxian? Where does the distinction lie? —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 00:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Just use common sense and reasonable judgment, taking into account the nature of the claims, and the type of person named (in terms of their likelihood to inspire imposters). It's not helpful to concoct weird edge cases and wikilawyer over them. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If that's the standard, then in this case the RevDel was even more inappropriate, because, due to the edits the IP made and the deleted statements made on the talk page, it seems highly likely (i.e., common sense) that the person is who they claimed to be. Again, this is common practice for IPs, to "sign" in plain text. Again, by LessHeard's logic, if an IP writes something on a talk page, and signs it "Bob Bobber," and then in the reply I write, "Bob Bobber, I think you're wrong," then I am guilty of outing. If an IP or user self-identifies, then that automatically means WP:OUTING no longer applies, and the policy makes this explicitly clear. If a second party says "That IP is actually Bob Bobber," then that second party is outing, and if I repeat the second party, then I am also guilty of furthering the outing. It really seems very simple to me. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's worth bearing in mind that unlike an account, an IP's edits cannot all be assumed to have been made by the same person, so if someone editing as an IP self-identifies that should not be taken as an admission that all edits made by that IP were theirs. In this instance, it could be a shared IP address for a company (quite possible considering the variety of edits from this IP). January (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a valid point. It doesn't completely address the underlying issue, but I should perhaps have been clearer about the uncertainty of the matter in my original statement. As far as I can recall (the original has been RevDeleted), I said, “It seems that [name] has been editing Wikipedia using IP [1.2.3.4].” I didn't state categorically that IP = name, though I did neglect to indicate that IPs can of course be shared by multiple people. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 03:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

(←) I think we are analyzing this under the wrong policy. It's not really outing. But it is a violation of WP:BLP since it is making the obviously negative claim that a certain living person has made COI edits, with no support whatsoever in reliable sources. As such, it is properly revdel'd (WP:GRAPEVINE, etc.). T. Canens (talk) 07:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That seems much more applicable. However, the individual in fact made a self-identifying post on their own biography. I did reply to that post, but provided no additional information there. I repeated that information on the article about the company owned by this individual, which to me is a reasonable conclusion of a COI. And indeed, the IP in question had made clearly COI edits to the article, so I think the warning to other editors had merit. Was it jumping to conclusions for me to say that A was editing C because A had IP B and IP B was editing C? Maybe it would have been more appropriate for me to say that IP B was making strongly POV (but not necessarily COI) edits to C and leave it at that.

However, if my actions were inappropriate, how is it different to dedicate an entire section and even an entire article to the same subject? —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 10:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The article has a promotional tone, and at the time was semi-protected because of repeated attempts to remove the material in the diff provided. That makes it obvious that there was COI editing going on, there was no benefit to speculating exactly who was doing it. Re your second point, as T. Canens says it's an unsourced assertion about a specific living person, and is quite possibly incorrect (I'm convinced by the variety of edits that others have edited from that IP). January (talk) 11:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Because those articles are sourced to something much better than an isolated IP comment. T. Canens (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree outing is a poor description of what's going on here. If my user name is David Montoya and I say that's my real name in my user page, it isn't outing if people say I'm David Montoya. However per BLP, we do have to be careful when trying to link either an account or an IP to an identifable person outside of userspace even if that account or IP has made the claim they are that person. As someone has said, we also have to be mindful that not all IP edits may come from the same person. On the other hand the fact that someone claims to be the subject (or someone covered) in an article is often not completely irrelevent as it gives greater urgency to their comments so it's not uncommon in BLP issues that someone will mention something like 'an IP who says they are ...' bringing up the point while making it clear we can't be sure the person is telling the truth of who they are say they are. Nil Einne (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

That being the case, would there be any issue with me repeating the statement that an IP claiming to be the individual in question had been editing the page? That information has been redacted by LessHeard vanU, but on no legitimate grounds that I can see. If the claim is true, he is old enough to decide for himself what information he wants to provide and what he doesn't. Others shouldn't be making that decision for him. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 04:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

There isn't a problem with saying "user claims to be Joe Blow", as long as you remember that he might actually be your Auntie Monica. If a user wants to take some kind of action based on them definitively being Joe Blow, they need to contact WP:OTRS, who can handle evidencing the claim offwiki.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Stupid question Is there a reason this RFC is at ANI instead of the talk page of the policy involved? Seems a waste of ANI space to have policy discussion here. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 01:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This is where the original discussion and “ruling” that I wanted to challenge took place. I've removed the RFC tag, though. This has gone as far as it's likely to. Thanks everyone for your input. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 18:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Formula 1

There is/are IP vandals who are making vandal edits to the race articles - mainly changing the results to older races, then logging off and changing IP. I've examined some of the pages and found at least the following IPs involved...

• User talk:186.108.252.250
• User talk:190.139.54.243
• User talk:190.231.27.192
• User talk:190.231.251.39
• User talk:190.231.25.45
• User talk:190.138.6.211
• User talk:190.139.52.45
• User talk:190.138.0.51
• User talk:190.231.27.192
• User talk:190.231.251.77
• User talk:190.231.20.207
• User talk:190.139.52.70
• User talk:190.138.11.197
• User talk:190.138.6.92
• User talk:190.139.248.159
• User talk:190.139.242.58
  

I think that the spread to too wide for a rangeblock - maybe someone can comment? Can anyone make any other suggestions to help. My feeling is that since these are all old race results then maybe semi protect them? (there are rather a lot of them, quite a few for each year, but I wouldn't mind that) - there really should not be any need for much change to these pages.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You want the attention of a CheckUser, who can check whether there are sufficient good faith editors from that Buenos Aires range to preclude a block. Just because it may be a large range may not mean there is a lot of potential collateral damage to the English language WP. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, we'll see if one will come - {{Checkuser needed}}::  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment Very much appreciate the assistance with this! I'm not sure that pre-emptive semi-protection is the best way ahead, though. An FA race article looks like this, while many of the articles look like this. Personally I see no need for the majority of the race articles to be written up in full detail, but there will always be enough reliable sources to support that treatment if someone wants to do the work, and I don't know that I'd like to try and decide in advance which races were suitable for the more detailed writeup. 4u1e (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I blocked the ranges 190.138.0.0/20, 190.139.52.0/22, 190.139.240.0/20, 190.231.16.0/20 and 190.231.251.0/24 for two weeks (anon. only). Prolog (talk) 04:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Prolog, I've yet to get my head around IP range construction. I've done semis on the pages that were attacked (I haven't finished checking all the pages yet, there were a few that were missed by everyone - this is the real problem, if we are not careful), maybe a combination of that and your rangeblocks will show them that we can act to stop them even with their IP hopping.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Need block for reverting speedy tags

Resolved

User:Aishwarya.lr has reverted speedy deletion tags 7 times (so far) today on an article he/she created, DNA electronics. They've been warned at least half a dozen times on their talk page. Can someone take a look at the article (which is an obvious copyvio), delete it, and block the user? —SW— ^gab 17:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the article as a WP:COPYVIO. I put it on my watchlist, in the event that it's re-created. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. —SW— ^speak 18:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

So, seven reverts in a day is not good for a block? I don't have access to changes to deleted articles, but it looks to me from the talk page as if those reverts continued even after a final warning. Did I get that right? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it be? In my more active days I'd give users removing speedies warnings 1-4 and then put them up to WP:AIV. The users were blocked and the articles often removed very quickly afterwards. uw-speedy does state that removing speedies results in blocks, so I see no reason why the punishment shouldn't be dealt. Zakhalesh (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Meh. Leter of the law, sure he could have been blocked. But what's the possible future. If he restores the copyvio, he gets blocked. If he never comes back, no worries. Or that slim chance that the deletion get him to actually read the messages on his talk page. IMHO not something to lose sleep over.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, what Cube lurker said. The edits were confined to the one article. With the article gone, a block seemed merely punitive, not preventative. But, again, the deleted article's on my watchlist. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Tarc

Could someone possessed of more patience than I can currently muster please impress upon Tarc (talk · contribs) that calling one's fellow Wikipedia editors "undersexed basement-dwellers", and suggesting that they "worship a sexualized image of a prepubescent girl", is less-than-ideal behavior? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

He's not necessarily wrong, but it's unfair for him to generalize that way. It's a cute cartoon character. But apparently some read far more into it than mere cuteness. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment #1 was a bit heavy-handed upon reflection though it is from almost 2 weeks ago, you're a bit late in the game if you're gonna carp on that now. #2 is what it is; many people, mainly from one niche wiki-project, are screaming to the rafters that precious Wikipe-tan is not lolicon, when it, um, kinda is. This stuff is swill, leftover from a bygone era of the Wikipedia, and it should not be given an ounce of room in project-space. As some opined in a recent AfD on a related page (linked below), this is the sort of thing that drives away potential new editors, particularly women, which has been a concern voiced at the highest levels of the WMF of late.

At the very least, this An/I should bring Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan (2nd nomination) to the attention of a wider audience, just as the last one didn't really see a groundswell of opposition til the pro-tan clique tried to railroad the nominator into silence in an earlier AN/I filing. Good job, Kirill. Tarc (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of possibly going over old ground, could you supply a diff or two where women stated they were leaving wikipedia because of this cartoon character? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

What I was referring to was several respected (IMO) editors opining to that effect at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Think of Wikipe-tan!, not a specific person saying "I am leaving because of this". Tarc (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect they're making assumptions. Unless they are also providing diffs? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)There are making what I believe to be reasonable assumptions, yes. I don't mean to be rude, but does this tangent have a point? I never claimed specifically that women are leaving or refusing to join the project because of the presence of this Wikipe-tan project-space page, I only noted that others called for deletion of a related -tan page based on presumption of such. It seems like you're setting me up for a fail because I have no diffs for something I didn't really say in the first place. Tarc (talk) 05:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm just trying to get my head around what the real issue is. Apparently there are variations on this kind of cartoon character which are X-rated. But does that automatically mean that any representation of an anime character is suspect? The key question: Is there reasonable evidence that the continuing presence of this cartoon figure could cause significant damage to wikipedia's reputation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Using images of a 9-10 yr old girl in various poses, sayings, and outfits just creeps me the fuck out, to be honest. And others, apparently, though I certainly don't claim that others share or approve of my colorful commentary above; that's my responsibility and mine alone. Are all the images of this thing overtly sexual? No. But IMO there's enough of a taint with past imagery...whether it was the blackface or the french maid outfits of the "Think of Wikiped-tan" image gallery, or the outright pornography that Jimbo deleted from Commons a ways back...that I think this stuff just needs to be buried in a deep, dark hole. Tarc (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Explict stuff can and should be gone. But the "normal" stuff is something most people either enjoy or couldn't care one way or the other about. Saying that we need to discard all of it because some of it was bad is classic throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and claims that "women might be driven off" sounds like a textbook case of WP:BEANS to me. Contrary to the popular stereotype, there actually are a lot of women who are fans of anime/manga. And we have a lot of more important things to do rather than debate over whether G-rated cartoon personalisations should be trashed because some idjit was stupid with R/X-rated versions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You're seeing stuff in it that I'm not seeing. However, I'm not up on this "lolicon" stuff. Given that Jimbo is the visible face of wikipedia, has anyone asked him about this? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

He's commented about it recently:

I think this article was misleading in saying that I "recognized" Wikipe-tan. My removal of the sexualized version from commons was in no way an endorsement of the standard versions. I don't like Wikipe-tan and never have. I recognize that some people do, and I'm not particularly agitated about it, but my name should not be invoked in a way that might lead some to believe that I approve. Thanks!--Jimbo Wales

As far as I can determine, while he's not a fan, he doesn't view the character as being particularly problematic either. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 05:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It sounds to me like he would be just fine if it went away, but he doesn't feel the need to force the issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen any mentions of specific examples, and I don't expect that anyone else has either. It's certainly possible that something of the sort does indeed take place, and it's a worthwhile topic for discussion; but there doesn't seem to be any concrete evidence either way.

Regardless of that, though, I don't think Tarc's comments about the editors who support the retention of this page are warranted, particularly given the scurrilous nature of the allegations he makes. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 05:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree; indeed, the diffs linked to in the first post are certainly WP:CIVIL infringements, and even seem (to me, anyway) to be violations of WP:NPA; a "people who state X are Y" statement is no different than "you state X and are therefore Y". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• The diffs presented by Kirill appear to show at the very least distasteful comments by Tarc not in keeping with WP:AGF. While one is free to have an opinion on the matter, calling everyone with the opposite opinion what is alluded to above is not in keeping with the consensus-based discussion model. I would suggest Tarc keep his arguments focused on the content, and not other contributors. N419BH 05:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Tarc should be admonished to avoid attacking those who present views different from his in forums such as AFD. There has been a long history of attacking, demeaning, and ridiculing other editors, both in his comments and his edit summaries, rather than simply discussing the issues in a civil manner as required by WP:NPA. Twice in the last couple of months he has characterized "Keep" !votes as "fraudulent" in AFD [7], [8] and has shrugged off requests on his talk page [9], [10] that he strike the incivil postings, just adding accusations of "making up things that don't exist" and then deleting the request (without archiving it). He then characterized a DRV request in an AFD which the closing admin and other characterized as difficult and complex as "To "whine" doesn't accurately reflect what this DRV is; the Brit's notion of a "whinge" just seems to capture the essence far better than us colonials can muster. This is whingeing, the classic case of filing a DRV not over admin wrongdoing or mistakes, but because one disagrees with the result. ". In that DRV, he attacked several opposing editors with comments such as "That is quite a lie there." Tarc, please do not try to win in every dispute by insulting and attacking other good-faith editors. Discuss the issues instead. When people bring a concern to your talk page, do not just disparage and delete. Edison (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This is what we call "piling on". My dear Edison, that has nothing to do with this; if you have a beef with something said at DRV then you should have taken the appropriate steps to lodge a complaint at the time, not hold it in reserve to pounce at a convenient moment. Honestly, that turns your complaint into more of a pointy action rather than a legitimate grievance. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

As long as your pattern of attacking others in AFDs is being discussed at this forum, it is an appropriate and non "pointy" time to bring up the long history of such behavior, which is not limited to the one DRV as you claim, at which others noted your past habits of such behavior. Clearly you want any complaint limited to the one individual abuse without demonstrating a pattern. That way each personal attack, taken by itself, might be insufficient to justify a block or a restriction of some sort, than a larger pattern might require. This thread should not be an AFD or a DRV as such about any one article. Edison (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, just to clear this up; there is no real concern in my mind over Wikipe-tan being a "sexualized image of a prepubescent girl". I'm not really a fan of the image, but the suggestion in that deletion thread seems to be that she verges onto the wrong side of child porn. Or that people who like such an image are in some way disturbed (or worse). My expert opinion on this is that there is no issue; Wikipe-tan is about as far from Child porn as you can get, and the people who enjoy such imagery are, psychologically speaking, nowhere near to pedophiles. If we are to get technical imagery like this is usually intended to evoke the tragic innocence of youth (personified by a girl or effeminate male) - tragic because you quickly lose such innocence. It's supposed to be beautiful rather than creepy, and the image some people obviously have of guys furiously masturbating to pseudo-CP is way off base ;) This is an unfortunate side effect of a society where the social crime of paedophilia is (rightly) treated with extreme disdain. My point being that concerns over sexualisation and "worshipping" of this image are unfortunate, not based in any form of factual reality. :) Although I entirely understand and sympathise with such thinking. Leaving Tarc a note about cooling off. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Some of the images, however, are concerning. I have nommed one for deletion to test the waters over removing the worst offenders. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment if as Tarc says "images of a 9-10 yr old girl in various poses, sayings, and outfits just creeps me the fuck out, to be honest" then I strongly suggest he never looks at a family photo album. Exxolon (talk) 13:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

  This strawman has been attempted in the MfD several times, and easily refuted. I am speaking about THIS image in THIS specific context, not of imagery of children in general. Please don't attack positions that I am not actually taking. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• At the end of this we still have the same issue; a vocal faction decrying attacks on their "unofficial mascot", a mascot that was until quite recently used in some merely suggestive imagery, and some outright pornographic. I'm sorry if said faction feels aggrieved, but understandably there's very little tolerance for what this image has been put to use for. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• At the end of this we still have the same issue: Tarc still dodging acknowledgment that his attacks on others, in multiple AfDs despite his own strawman, are unwarranted and violate the basic principles of Wikipedia.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Copypasta of someone else's words with your own twist at the end really isn't a productive, helpful, or rhetorically imaginative response. Regarding the comments, perhaps in the future I shall think of more creative and less directly caustic ways to express my disdain for those who are in favor of retaining suggestive imagery in project-space. At the end of the day, a WP:SPADE is still just that. Tarc (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Just a comment on the original complaint. Which seems to have been successfully obfuscated in the ensuing conversation. Tarc is experienced enough and literate enough to not engage in personal attacks. Tarc started in the right direction when he called it heavy handed. Though he veered in the wrong direction IMHO when he qualified that admission, and then focused on the fact that it was two weeks old. But for those comments, I would have viewed this as much ado about little. But under the circumstances, I would simply caution him to cut it out. He can make his point while remaining civil, I'm sure, and I expect it would be more readily received were he to do so.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Indeed, I don't ever seem to recall Tarc assuming good faith or being diplomatic about anything. He may indeed do so on occasion, but what sticks in my mind is a series of posts (e.g., at DRV) that demonstrate overtly and overly partisan deletionist behavior. The fact that this is an outgrowth of that does not surprise me at all; the fact that Tarc has not yet been sanctioned for repeated incivility is more of a surprise to me. Jclemens (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The above two comments sound like RfC material rather than points relating to this "incident". The issue at hand is not whether or not the editor has a history of being rude, but if particular comments he made about a particular issue were a policy violation. I believe they were beyond civilized discourse and it would be good if he were admonished, but I doubt there is much else to do about them. Should some of you think this and other issues warrant a RFC/U then I suggest starting one. Piling on here is not right though, IMO. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
    • No, a quick ArbCom "temporary" (=indefinite) desysop will do. 85.204.164.26 (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Anyone familiar with Tarc will know that comments such as those leading off this discussion are not uncommon for him. He knows what's appropriate and what's not. Its been duly noted for anyone keeping track, and the ANI can be closed.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oh my. Well, one "final" final note. People attempting to frame this as being connected to acrimonious past DRVs/AfDs that I may have been involved in are barking up the wrong tree. Being frustrated with cliques who scrabble for flimsy reasons to keep articles on 15mins of fame one-eventers is one thing. Wanting to rid project-space of sexual anime imagery that originates in some long-past "unofficial mascot" era and that a growing number of editors feel is not conducive to retaining female editors in the project, is worlds apart. Honestly, a deletionist-inclusionist squabble is kinda insignificant in comparison to what we're trying to pry out of Wikipedia: space here. Tarc (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Clearly we have different definitions of 'sexual'. The truly bad ones have got to go, agreed, but saying that all of them are "sexual" because some are/were is like saying the 24 Hours of Daytona is the same thing as the Indianapolis 500 since both involve cars going around a racetrack. (And there's also a scent of WP:IDONTLIKEIT here.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The only thing "sexual" about this image, for example, is that the cartoon character is presumed (though not provably) female. Anything beyond that is prejudicial. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, it is a drawing, so whatever characteristics it has are somewhat subjective, but I think it is safe to assume that it is intended to represent a female since I don't detect any hint of a penis in this image and Wikipe-tan appears to have sprouted breasts in this one. Also, the creator of those Wikipe-tan images, User:Kasuga tends to draw pictures of young girls. such as this popular illustration of Lolicon. I'm told Kasuga has created many more like this which are available off-wiki (but not on DeviantArt, who made Kasuga remove some because of "underage nudity"). If you think the sex of Wikipe-tan is ambiguous, you may be thinking of Futanari. User:Niabot is the go-to guy for futanari and hentai pictures here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
      • You never know, where drawings are concerned. It just occurs to me that banning a G-rated drawing because the character has been used in PG-rated, R-rated, or X-rated drawings, makes about as much sense as banning all G-rated illustrations of female humans because some female humans have been depicted as PG_rated, R-rated, or X-rated. Maybe just dress all the females in burqas, and everything will be peachy keen dandy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Your argument is unsurprisingly ridiculous. We aren't talking about banning all cartoon images of young girls everywhere, we are talking about the use of a specific character on this site and why that makes some editors uncomfortable. You have said that there is nothing sexual in the images created by User:Kasuga. Knowing that this same person has had images removed from DeviantArt due to "underage nudity" should make you think about that position again. I'm not suggesting that you see anything sexual in the images, but perhaps you haven't spent a great deal of time wondering why some other editors find there to be sexual overtones in these images. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
          • Removing G-rated images by an artist whose other work is not G-rated on the grounds that his other work, even of the same character, is not G-rated, is equally ridiculous. If editors are made uncomfortable by the images, then it's simple: don't go to WP:Wikipe-tan. As for being unconforortable if she's used elsewhere - Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED; we don't not feature images of spiders on the front page because arachnophobes might see them, for instance. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
            • Perhaps you misunderstood - we aren't talking about images of naked adults or adults in sexual situations, we are talking about images that were removed from another website because of "underage nudity". Since Wikipedia is, as you say, NOTCENSORED, I assume there would no objection if images containing "underage nudity" were posted here? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
              • No, I understand perfectly - and those images, if ever posted here, should be purged with fire and the person who posted them reported to the authorities. However, those images have not been posted here (at least, I hope not!), the "questionable" ones have either been deleted or are on their way out. What's being discussed here - I thought - was whether or not the G-rated images of Wikipe-tan should be removed because there are/were illegal/immoral images of the character that were posted elsewhere, and because editors here might be "uncomfortable" with the character because of that. If I've misunderstood the entire discussion and that isn't being mooted, then I apologise for that, but from my reading of the various debates several people (including Tarc) seem to be arguing for exactly that on exactly that grounds. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
                • There are various reasons given for disliking Wikipe-tan, but I am not sure that most people who find Wikipe-tan "creepy" are even aware of the other images by User:Kasuga or the derivative Wikipe-tan images by others. I believe some people simply find the use of a cartoon female child inappropriate for a project largely maintained by adult males. To dismiss the connection between Kasuga's other works and Wikipe-tan, as you and Baseball Bugs have done, is akin to wondering why Fox News viewers were upset to discover that Matt Sanchez had performed in gay porn movies. While on one level there is no reason for connecting the two, on another level there is a fundamental disconnect with the community's values. I will leave this alone now, but I think it is clear that this issue isn't going to go away without a broader discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
              • Err commons has a wide range of images of various types of people who are not adults naked.©Geni 11:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
                • It sure does!! Lovingly collected, uploaded, and curated by dedicated volunteers. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
          • (Yes, I'm a bit late with this, but hey.) Maybe a more specific analogy would be better. Should the fact that Jenna Jameson has appeared in hardcore pornography mean that we must remove all the G/PG-rated pictures of her from Wikipedia, regardless of their content or appropriateness to the article in which they're used? How about Christina Ricci--should the movie poster image be removed from Addams Family Values because she appears in that image, taken while underaged, and has since appeared in nude scenes in movies? Or Natalie Portman--should her images be removed from her page, because a paparazzi secretly took topless photographs of her that were later published in a magazine, despite her never volunteering to do so? (If I could think of an example of a woman who had nude/sexual photos of her secretly taken in what she believed to be a private place, without her knowledge, where they were later published, but I really can't think of one off the top of my head.) How about Princess Leia--should the images there be removed because people have drawn pornographic pictures of the character? Basically, what you're arguing is that there should be a standard, whereby a fictional character who doesn't exist in any living, breathing form automatically becomes pornography in all images, should a single pornographic--or even suggestive--image of said character exist. If you follow through on that standard, all the examples I've given here would also have to also have their images all become pornographic, because pornographic (or at least explicitly nude) images of them exist. Indeed, the standard would probably mean that it's more important to remove those images, due to WP:BLP concerns regarding Jameson, Ricci, Portman, and Carrie Fisher, than it is to remove the Wikipe-tan images. Or should a double standard be put into place, where real people wouldn't have to have their images removed, but cartoon characters would? And what about, say, Red from Red Hot Riding Hood or Jessica Rabbit, cartoon characters explicitly created to be highly sexualized adults? I've seen pornographic images of both--should Wikipedia be purged of all images of them for that reason?

In short, I say that doing this is not only going against both the spirit of WP:NOTCENSORED and common sense, but opening a huge can of worms that we have no real need to get into. Let it drop. rdfox 76 (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to let it drop, but people keep misconstruing what I have said and coming up with ridiculous analogies. First off, I have not said that I think all Wikipe-tan images should be deleted (on any grounds). My reason for entering this discussion was to try and explain what I felt were some of the reasons that editors might be uncomfortable with the use of Wikipe-tan. Second, we are discussing cartoon images of a specific fictional character, not photographic images of real people, actors portraying fictional characters, or anything else. Third, I have neither said nor implied that I think any image should be deleted because someone, somewhere has made a pornographic image depicting the same person/character. Fourth, Wikipe-tan, unlike your examples, is a female child. This may seem obvious, but I believe it is fundamental to why some people may be uncomfortable with the character (and probably why some people are fond of the character). Fifth, Wikipe-tan is not an actor playing role or a person photographed by paparazzi. Wikipe-tan was created by User:Kasuga, an individual who also creates images containing "underage nudity" and sexual situations. While this makes Kasuga the ideal person to create the image used in Lolicon, they may not be the best person to create a mascot for Wikipedia. I cannot say that Kasuga intended there to be any sexual overtones to Wikipe-tan, but it is clear that some editors perceive one. If images are deleted on that basis, there is no reason to assume that all images of cartoon children will be deleted. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, then, what about, say, Shinobu Maehara? She was created by Ken Akamatsu, who also has made/still makes (depending on your source) pornographic doujinshi, and there's a great deal of hentai material out there starring her. If, hypothetically, there were a picture showing her in her swimwear at her canonical age of 13 that was on either en-Wiki or Commons, would that mean that image should be deleted on the grounds that it's sexual material? (It's a serious question... I just want to know where, hypothetically, the line should be drawn.) rdfox 76 (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, I haven't suggested here that Wikipe-tan images be deleted, so your question seems somewhat misdirected. I believe the correct wiki-response is WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST, but I'll try to give you a real answer. The two situations are superficially analogous, but you seem to be ignoring the fact the Wikipe-tan isn't a character from a popular series but the creation of a Wikipedia user for use as a representation of Wikipedia. I have no knowledge of Akamatsu's work, but if the situation is as you describe, I would hope that editors were aware of that in discussions about adding, removing, or deleting such an image. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Having been the target of some of Tarc's pungent comments, as well having received similarly pointed supportive comments from him in other discussions, I'd say his comments regularly go beyond what are generally seen as Wikipedia's civility boundaries. However, and more importantly, I've seen a clear double standard in applying civility boundaries to discussions involving sexual content, and note that far nastier comments than Tarc's have been tolerated even when directed at named editors (myself included). Civility standards shouldn't be used to bash one side in a long-running discussion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

it is unfortunately rather routine at Wikipedia to deal with content disputes by personal insult. Even if the insults do not bother the individual whom they are directed at, they poison the atmosphere, inhibit rational discussion, and discourage the less hardy sort of editors. Sometimes that's the purpose: what reasonable normal person would go into a discussion where they know there is an editor ready and eager to call his opponents morons? It's not complaining about extreme rudeness that is an attempt to influence content issues--it's the rudeness. I have been reluctant to even comment on matters involving this particular editor, for I know he considers that I do not act towards him with good faith. But this sort of thing must be stopped. It's hypocritical to complain that relatively innocuous possibly slightly sexualized images of the sort seen universally in the world harm the image of Wikipedia, when it's the continuing recourse to rudeness in discussing them --rudeness of a sort way beyond what is normally seem in public discussions in responsible publications--that does the real harm. I think the images harmless, but I would gladly ban them if we could also ban that sort of invective. If anyone with whom I have no prior negative involvement uses this sort of language and I should notice, I shall give a final warning and then block. I hope someone--preferably someone who supports the person;s underlying position-- will have similar courage here. DGG ( talk ) 08:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:Activist#Hostility. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Cross-wiki promotion

Resolved

 – Article is now at AfD; nothing left to do here.  Frank  |  talk  02:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I could be of some interest to you that User:Lawren00 seems to have engaged in the promotion of François Asselineau and his "political party", both of which were deleted on fr-wiki for lack of notability deletion page. Most, if not all, of teh references of the current page here are spurious (in the sense that they provide little or no information about this person, at best a quick quotation). Therefore, this article and user may be warranting some attention. Best. Bokken | 木刀 13:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you are looking for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.  Frank  |  talk  13:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I know the page but since (1) as a sysop of fr-wiki, I was marginally involved in the deletion there and (2) I do not have enough experience on en-wiki to feel comfortable with such a request (and i know that notability guidelines are different), I do not wish to do what could appear as a WP:POINT request. Bokken | 木刀 13:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The community would decide that either way. People might try to claim WP:POINT but ultimately the issue is whether the subject is notable enough for inclusion. Deletion elsewhere and involvement on another wiki are not the point, unless you try to claim the reason for deletion here is that it was deleted elsewhere.  Frank  |  talk  13:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Bokken appears simply to be giving the community a head up. It's not necessary to WP:BITE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk) 14:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed (with IP). Bokken, there would be no issue if you wished to nominate the article for deletion, or indeed to edit it to remove material supported by dodgy references.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Also agree with IP - no need to WP:BITE.  Frank  |  talk  15:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, on this article sources are all from most popular French Newspapers Les_Échos_(France), Libération, Le Monde, Le Parisien and Le Figaro. I do not know how we can invocate awkward reason such as reliable sources for deleting the article.--Lawren00 (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The question is not the reliability of the sources but the fact that they are barely talking about François Asselineau, meaning that his notabilty is questionable. Udufruduhu (talk) 09:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/François Asselineau.  Frank  |  talk  02:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

User:JimmyDarmodyRules

Resolved

 – Blocked by Mifter. lifebaka++ 02:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Editor JimmyDarmodyRules (talk · contribs) continues create copyright violations to TV pages such as Hell on Wheels (TV series) and Falling Skies by adding text copied word-for-word from other sites ([11] [12] [13]), despite several warnings. Similarly, he has been warned by another editor for continually uploading copyrighted photos and claiming "own work". [14] (Note: all images have since been deleted/removed.) --Logical Fuzz (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Chesdovi and 1RR on Israel, Palestine and the United Nations

Chesdovi (talk · contribs) was blocked in December and January for >1RR and violates 1RR today on Israel, Palestine and the United Nations: two edits are clearly reverts (with an intervening one by User:Number 57): [15] and [16], restoring text, as seen in this earlier revision. My effort to bring this issue to the attention of the editor in question was rewarded with yet another edit on the article ("in your face"?). Insisting on strict adherence to ARBPIA strikes me as desirable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Surely, you're familiar with WP:AE, no? -- tariqabjotu 04:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes -- though I've never started a "case" there -- I had the impression that one does so for "bigger" problems. I take it that that impression is incorrect and that I should go there instead? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no, don't bother. That's not a violation of the 1RR rule. Yes, Number 57 moved the article between the two edits, but Number 57's action was not an edit, so it's not an intervening edit. And even if it were an edit, so long as it wasn't relevant to a section Chesdovi was editing, any reasonable admin would consider Chesdovi's edits (just, what?, ten minutes apart) to be consecutive, with Number 57 just butting in with something irrelevant. There's nothing to see here. -- tariqabjotu 04:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Islamic metaphysics article appears to have been deleted and redirected, can it be recovered?

Good evening,

I am requesting assistance in determining what happened to an article which seems to have disappeared. In particular, if the article can be recovered this would be much appreciated. Specifically, it is the article's history about which which I am most concerned. If the original article history can be restored under the article name Islamic metaphysics, I would be most grateful.

An overripe content dispute may have led to the deletion of Islamic metaphysics and the subsequent redirect of its name to Metaphysics. The incident would have occurred in early October 2010. It was originally reported around that time but I didn't understand the article had apparently been redirected. Perhaps the redirect occurred later, it was reported again here.

I lack the expertise to undertake these forensics. My immediate goal is the preservation of article history. My bigger fear is this may have happened to other articles as well.

Perhaps there is a reasonable explanation for what has happened. I hope so. Thank you in advance for your assistance.

-Aquib (talk) 05:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

This sounds familiar. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a different article, perhaps some different players, but the same bitter dregs. -Aquib (talk) 05:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless I'm horribly mistaken, all the history seems to be accounted for. There are no logs for the page and no deleted revisions. Cheers. lifebaka++ 06:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I was about to write the same thing. Looking at the first few sentences here I strongly suggest not merely undoing the redirect; there are major POV concerns in the nuked text. We are informed from the get go that Avicenna gave the first ontological argument, but this is a minority view, see Ontological argument#History. I see that the main contributor to the nuked article, Jagged 85 has been chastised in a RfC/U for stuff like that. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I see the history remains intact under the original title, even though the name is redirected to another article. So the original article is still there, it is just blanked and redirected.

Not to worry, I don't plan on reinstating it "as is", and thanks much for your time. -Aquib (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Personnel Attacks

I have been editing on climate related articles of Pakistan, but there is the absence of consensus between me and this user, User:HunterZone i am trying to negotiate with this user in order to reach the consensus but this user is continuously deleting my messages on his talk page by insulting me (Personnel Attack), every edit i do is reverted by him, with out any explanation, please suggest me what should be done in order to avoid this. The user seems to be not interested in negotiating with me in order to resolve the dispute.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Former user 9172

Former user 9172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has a long-going struggle to accept that we have a Manual of Style, especially with WP:CREDENTIAL. A short look at revision histories such as this one and this one shows that they are more than determined to have the article look like they think is correct, ignoring both reverts telling them why it shouldn't and countless warnings on the talk page. Now I think they are probably acting in good faith but I think something has to be done about this... Regards SoWhy 16:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks clueless, esp. about formatting. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I left him a note in Greek explaining the non-compliance to the MOS and advising him to comply. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Dr. K. I don't want to have anyone discouraged from editing here but if such a message is required in Greek, maybe they can be persuaded to contribute to el-wiki instead? Please let us know if they reply in Greek. Regards SoWhy 19:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you SoWhy. I think he is proficient in English; he has created a few articles after all. But I don't think he understands the gravity of WP:CON and the importance of complying with policies/guidelines. Hopefully a reminder in Greek will bring this home. I will let you know. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that the matter is resolved. Further edits indicate compliance with WP:CREDENTIAL and no further edit-warring. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I fear that optimism was premature. Further edits such as this one show the same behavior again. :-/ Regards SoWhy 07:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I fear that a short block may be in order. I really don't know why this editor is so unresponsive. But it is becoming time-consuming and disruptive to keep up with him amidst all this edit-warring. Give him a final warning and follow with a block if need be. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we can give up on this guy. Just keeps going... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It's gone beyond ridiculous. It's become similar to a Whac-A-Mole game. Only difference there is no redemption. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

No replies to any of the suggestions/warnings, no change in editing pattern, no apparent effort to conform with the MOS. I like seeing someone creating needed articles, and his English is not that atrocious, but against such persistent IDNHT perhaps only a temporary block might help. Constantine ✍ 00:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Now IP-socking. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

IP sock has now been blocked which puts this formatting feast on hold for 24 hours. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Great. Now we are playing Whac-A-Mole with the socks as well, not only the badly formatted edits. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This is becoming ridiculous; I had to self-revert because he now "wins" the edit-wars using multiple IPs. *sigh*. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this the incident that time forgot? Any admin out there? How can you allow this thing to fester days on end? I knew there is admin shortage but this is getting ridiculous. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 14:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked him 48 hours for block evasion (he went on editing when the IP was blocked). As to the rest, I don't think you've made it really clear to the admins what the issue is, that's why you haven't seen any action.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs)

Thank you Ellen. In short this editor uses formatting contrary to MOS and incessantly edit-wars against multiple editors, on multiple articles, for days on end without acknowledging or responding to repeated messages in English and Greek. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It is quite clear that somebody who refuses to acknowledge any sort of communication should be shown the door. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, If the block doesn't do the trick, and he continues once it's over I am willing to indefblock the account. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 17:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Theresa. I agree. This attitude is disruptive and antithetical to the collaborative editing environment of Wikipedia. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright. Block evasion again. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Skucorp

Resolved

 – Blocked. Phearson (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Skucorp appears to be creating articles for his company "Skucorp" on voter election machines. I have reported him to WP:UAA and attempted to explain to him that he has a WP:COI. He is now making articles with similar titles about voter election machines. Can I have an administrator look into this please?

See his contribs: [17] Regards, Phearson (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Three spam articles deleted and a note left on the user's talk page.  Frank  |  talk  03:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

He will also need blocking, as his user name is clearly promotional. Phearson (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Reporters Without Borders

An IP hopping anon which was previously discussed regarding their edits to Reporters Without Borders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), is now edit warring over the insertion of personal attacks on the talk page. They repeatedly remove comments to them, while restoreing an earlier version their personal attacks. Ironically, their actions are what they are accusing others of doing. I'm suspecting that talk page protection and/or a range block may be needed if the IP refuses to recognize that their behavior is the root of the current problems. I'm bringing it here to discuss as I'm not a huge fan of protecting talk pages, and a range block appears wide enough to impact a large number of other editors.

Note: I have no involvement in either the article or the talk page, other than reverting the personal attacks on the talk page, blocking one of the IPs involved, and posting a notice about the disruption to the talk page. I have no interest in editing the article subject at this time, and will leave the content and content discussions to others. --- Barek (talk) - 14:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Reference link to prior discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive678#Reporters Without Borders and Press Freedom Index. --- Barek (talk) - 16:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I looked into the possibility of the rangeblock previously. There appears to be some collateral last time I checked. I looked into the possibility of smaller rangeblocks though. Based on recent edits, 123.231.82.0/24 and 123.231.85.0, looks blockable, and 123.231.114.0/23 is a somewhat. Will look at others Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 15:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Despite warnings, the IP continued edit warring over restoring a prior version that contained personal attacks, so I've semi-protected the talk-page for 31 hours. I invite comments on this action. If consensus is against the protection, please feel free to lift it without waiting for comment from me (as I will be going to bed soon). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Action supported. Dreadstar ☥ 00:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Less than 20 hours after the short-term talk page protection expired, the anon returned and again reverted to the same earlier version containing the personal attacks. As a result, I'm going to re-protect with a longer duration. Again, if consensus is against the protection, no need to wait for me to comment. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry, BLP violation and disruptive editing

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

Suspected of using a variety of sockpuppets to disrupt articles on friendly fire. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paulioetc. Is currently removing a number of SPI warnings from all of the suspected socks.

BLP violation is taht he persists in adding an allegation that a British Forward Air Controller (individual is named on talk pages related to the topic) faced manslaughter charges or was responsible for a friendly fire incident. This is based on an old report in the Daily Mail [18]. That information is seriously out of date, no charges were ever brought, the subsequent investigation cleared the FAC and the coroner found no individual to blame see [19].

Uses a variety of fringe and WP:SPS to source his edits, none of which satisfy requirements for a WP:RS.

Articles involved: Friendly fire, Royal Anglian Regiment, List of post-1945 U.S. friendly-fire incidents with British victims

He is also removing discussions from talk pages, does not engage on talk pages, routinely ignores warnings and is now disruptively editing using a new User ID User:JamesHawks‎. He is editing faster than we can clear up the mess afterwards. Please could we have some admin action to stop the disruptive editing. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I added userlinks to the user in question (top of your message), if you don't mind. Remember to notify the editor about this thread on their talk page. 212.68.15.66 (talk) 13:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I have commented on the SPI page; I don't think there's anything more to do here.  Frank  |  talk  13:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser confirms sock puppets, noting Paulioetc has already been blocked once for abusive use of sock puppets could we have some action to stop further disruptive edits. At least a permanent block on the sock. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked the sock because it was being used in the same articles etc. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

New Sock?

Circumstantial evidence would suggest Paulio is back with yet another sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paulioetc#09 March 2011. Could I again request admin action. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC) Confirmed by Check User as a sock. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Now blocked. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

User:BKLisenbee suspected of evading topic ban

I suspect that BKLisenbee (talk · contribs) is editing Brian Jones Presents the Pipes of Pan at Joujouka via 68.173.25.146 (talk); see diff. If so, this is in violation of the topic ban that User:FayssalF put in place (July 2008). Most recent occurrence was about a month ago; see ANI archive. FayssalF does not seem to be actively involved with English Wikipedia at this time, and BKLisenbee does not show any intention of abiding with the topic ban. I've notified the IP user as well as BKLisenbee, and I will leave another note at User:FayssalF/JK (which has additional background concerning this matter). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Forgot to mention this earlier, but in December 2010 the IP address (see contribs.) had made edits to other articles covered by the topic ban. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course it not possible that two separate people have the same thought, now would it?--Jojhutton (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course it is entirely possible. I should have re-phrased my last comment: the IP has only made edits to articles covered by the topic ban. This particular matter has been going on for six (6) years (again, see User:FayssalF/JK), so certain patterns tend to raise a red flag at this point. As FayssalF once pointed out (see ANI archive), 90% of the edits to the topic ban articles have been by the same two editors, and FayssalF also explained why he thought indefinite blocks/complete bans on the involved accounts would not be effective. However, FayssalF, who has shouldered the burden of moderation in the past, is currently inactive. Given the ongoing topic ban, I continue to raise the issue here. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that the main user, hasn't even edited since last October, and actually only made 6 edits in all of 2010. Seems to be inactive. The ip only made a few edits. Those edits should easy to revert if needed. I'm not an admin, but I've seen similar requests at ANI before and usually admins don't take action against inactive accounts. But of course that just my opinion and action may still be taken, if deemed warranted.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

There has been a drip drip topic evasion which has substantially changed pages in effect of topic ban note just IP [20]having not been flagged due to off wiki time by the main admin and myself they go unnoticed but Gyrofrog will recognise the geo location Apopka, Florida which is where two Ips associated emanate from at certain times of the year. The diffs are numerous but the editor switches Ip an example diff is [21]This particular edit is in violation of several wiki codes eg WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and evades the topic ban while obscuring info in supposed well intentioned edit summaries. It would take several hours to go through all the pages to find similar but they exist on all pages concerned and include sneaky removal of external links and sources [22]If you suggest it should be done on an edit by edit is I will try later today. Catapla (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

eg this diff [23] deletes a link while reordering the external links on page there are a lot of edits like this from various IPs on the various topic banned pages. Catapla (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Recreation of salted article

Resolved

I came across this on new page patrol which appears to be a recreation of this, which has been deleted multiple times and salted. Not sure if this qualifies as a G4 since I couldn't find a related deletion discussion, but it's clearly an attempt to end-run the page protection with a slightly modified title. I've already G10'ed it once but the author has recreated it. 28bytes (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Jclemens took care of it. Thanks! 28bytes (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, and by the time I got back here, someone else had slapped a resolved tag on it. If the editor puts up a good unblock request, he can be unblocked by any admin who believes he understands and will comply with BLP. Jclemens (talk) 06:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

User:CRACK MONKEY13

Resolved

 – Improper venue. User directed to AIV if CRACK MONKEY13 (talk · contribs) continues vandalizing. Goodvac (talk) 04:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• CRACK MONKEY13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not exactly an appropriate username, but more importantly, their first two edits in quick succession have been rather vandalous.[24][25] - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• • It's hardly a major incident when someone vandalizes Wikipedia once. It happens all the time. And the vandals get reverted and warned, like Mr. Crack Monkey already has been. If he keeps vandalizing to the point where an admin needs to block him, make a post on Administrator Intervention Against Vandalism. rspεεr (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
    • My bad, wrong venue. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

AfD requiring closure

Resolved

 – no action required Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

without contacting a specific admin, this AfD has been active for over 7 days and requires closure Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freedom Through Christ Prison Ministry. thanks LibStar (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

According to the DumbBOT notice within the AFD, it was not properly transcluded on the AFD log until about 12 hours ago. So although the page may have been created on 21 February, it hasn't been properly exposed for community discussion all that time. I'd say it needs to stay open a few more days to make sure there aren't alternative views or improvements to the article now that the AFD is fully visible. --RL0919 (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It was listed here by DumbBOT on the log for 8 March, so it should stay open several more days, yes. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Pokefan199

Pokefan199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I don't really know what to do with this guy. Looks like he had an article deleted so he retaliated by blanking someone's talk page[26] followed by a taunt with the edit summary "Take this!"[27] After that he creates a nonsense page[28] and starts leaving random bullshit on various talk pages[29][30]. I considered leaving some kind of helpful advice on his talk page, but he's gotten a lot of it and he's one of those guys that you know damn well is never going to grow up and edit constructively. I wish someone would just hit the flush handle, but I'm not sure he's done enough damage for that yet. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

One thing I know damn well is that when you assume an editor is never going to "grow up and edit constructively", and state that on one of the more heavily-patrolled noticeboards on the project, they rarely do so. The problem is, when we keep just blocking accounts, we wind up with socking problems from people who might have contributed. I'm not saying every editor can and will contribute constructively. But assuming we know what's going to happen and then not making an attempt is not the approach that will have the best chance of welcoming and redirecting a user to productive pursuits.  Frank  |  talk  04:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

With those number of (vandalism) edits that user should have been reported to AIV already for a vandalism-only account. Also, the reason why he blanked my talkpage is that I nominated his article for speedy deletion, which (according to him) is his company, so I think he thinks that he owns that article and I was the one who deleted that article (even though that article was still there by the time he blanked my talkpage). E Wing (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Article that was deleted: Richard co. is a 1 man company that was created by Richard Schreurs in 2011. –MuZemike 07:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Bandagharka's edit war

I am engaged in an edit war with Bandagharka on 2 articles; Ram Rahim Singh and Dera Sacha Sauda. I felt both articles were very POV and tried to wikify them and add citations here and here. You can see from the revision history of both pages one two that he/she is just reverting back to revisions they like instead of adding on to other editors' revisions. Also he/she has only responded with inappropriate messages on my talk page[31][32][33], including quoting poetry which says I will be "dispatched to hell" for criticizing somebody[34]. I also tried asking another user for help who has some experience with these types of issues but they didn't respond[35]. Basically I would like to edit these pages constructively without having my edits rolled back.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 13:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Why have you not posted a single thing on either of those articles talk pages? Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 14:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

ThanksTheresa Knott For your support to a newbie wikipedian who is only requesting not to be browbeaten from doing good work in Ram Rahim Singh and Dera Sacha Sauda

"Only those who practise love , they alone shall find God" The Sacred Guru Granth Sahib Ji

Dear Profitoftruth85 , Peace be upon us all!! It is not a war , or any thing like that. It ought to be areasoned exchange for which I have most made a couple of humble entreaties on your talk page , which you have removed.There are no POV issues , only unbiased reporting which is well supported by authentic references. First of all , You , Sir , had written that about this person that " He really is crap and teaches crap". Frankly , Isn't such filthy and abusive language apalling ,coming from an intellectually emancipated wikipedian whose name itself denotes The-profit-of-truth!!Is that consistent with BLP and libel guidelines? Mustn't we follow the ideals of wikipedia and basic civility while writing that? Must we take away the basic vestiges of respect which is every individual's birthright? Secondly , not a word is said about this person's opponent's etc in this version . No individual is named. Infact , I have avoided all personal references or even the mention of any other community or social group. I have mentioned terror attacks with RDX etc which have been proven to be the handiwork of zealots /communalist's/terrorist's and hence the wording. Whatever be anyone's grouse , can any sane person call such acts upon anyone as acts of charity? Who are we wikipedians to say that such violent means are jusitifed in silencing this man , whatever be his apparent foibles!? The enbloc deletion of the social work was uneccessary.If it bring out his contributions as a social worker , and that is not attributable to his followers/organisation acting alone , because he is their head and the chief ideologue. I have answered your queries on the POV joke pointwise on the page by supplying the references you had asked for.Please do take the trouble of going through the references and consensus shall surely emerge. All the references are truly neutral and are in the public domain.They are also written by the best experts in the chosen fields and published in prestigious places. Lastly , I have never made any personal attacks against anyone. Since I am a true believer of all religions , and like other faiths , I hold the Sikh religion in the highest esteem. Therefore , I quoted from the sacred Gurbani to illustrate the point and not to hurt anyone's feelings.It is the sacred writings of the Gurus , which says that , Not me.If I have been misunderstood , I most humbly apologise. Lastly , quoting from Saint Kabir, "I am the most wretched and the lowliest , no one is lower than me, Those who act thus, Says Kabir , are the only disciples of the True Guru" I dont say this for effect , but I hope to be able to follow this in its entirety , someday , soon. So , taking a leaf from your kind suggestions , I shall be mellowing down the words that you have objected to. God Bless! Best regards, (Bandagharka (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC))

TLDR - Same question for you - why aren't communicting on the article's tslk pages. Also cut it out with the poetry please. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 14:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

IP crying out for block

Can you take a quick look at this static IP [36] coming off from a 3 day block saying "stupid magyar fasist" the next day. Hobartimus (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• He has a week's holiday. Moreschi (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Harassment

I'm being harassed by another administrator by the name User:Maunus. I've already opened a section weeks ago. Here's the link [37].

After a series of content-dispute problems he had with me the past, he obviously took a personal interest against my person. His harassment is characterized by watching my contributions very closely as evidenced in my first complaint [38].

That time he got involved (without being asked to) in a discussion between me and a 3rd party, giving false and misrepresenting statements about myself, in what I can only assume to be an attempt to create animosity[39]. Maunus' problems with me were over months before this incident, which clearly evidence I WAS BEING WATCHED because we had no interaction at all for months. He finally theatened me to open a RfC, which he finally did. Please see comments of the outsiders to see.

After weeks of ZERO interaction between us, not even crossing into eachother's edit path, HE IS AGAIN DOING THE SAME. He's getting involved in a discussion HE WASN'T PART OF. He was not asked to get involved. I created a Wikiquette Alert against the other user and Maunus ALL OF THE SUDDEN gets involved [40], trying to LURE THE OTHER PARTY to comment in the RfC he opened against me in the past [41]. Finally, the other user was convinced and commented in the RfC [42]. I want to make clear that the ONLY WAY he could have found out about my Wikiquette Alert is by WATCHING MY CONTIBUTIONS PAGE. With no interaction between us, is clear that he's waiting for some person to have an argument with me, so he can missrepresent me and in this particular case, to get the other user to comment in his RfC. The other user was clearly mad at me, so it was easy to assume he would comment against me.

I cannot stand this. I've been a good Wikipedian, I've produced graphics to enhance this project and I'm a good-faith editor. It is not fair to be harassed this way by a person who is obviously WATCHING me in order to JUMP IN whenever I have a problem, just to make his point that I am not a good user.

I demand some action. I demand a detailed view on this. It is not fair. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 21:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Maunus harassment is characterized by getting involved with the users I have a discussion with, even if he's not part of the discussion nor asked to get involved (he argues he tries to "help dispute resolution" but that's in request of any of the parties, something that has never happened). He also never does that with any other user. In plain words, he tried to "join forces" with that two users that had a problem with me, and succeded. I feel harassed because he's obviously watching me in order to see if I happen to have an argument with another editor. I'm so frustrated nobody can get this. He does not get involved in anybody else's discussion. Just mines. And he doesn't contact the other parties to help, he contacts them to "join" him in his arguments against me. I hope this helps to make you guys see my point. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 22:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I just want to make clear that he obviously is avoiding contact with me not to make it look harassment (he kinda admits that here [43] in the talk page of the OTHER user that was having a discussion with me), but HE IS WATCHING ME, "fishing" for users to comment against me. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 21:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Note - you do not seem to have informed Maunus of this discussion, I have done this for you. Please note this is required. Exxolon (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I have defended myself against these completely unfounded accusations at the RfC regarding AlexCovarrubias' conduct. I am not harrassing him or watching him (I have ANI and WQA on my watchlist as well as several articles that he frequently contributes to). Rather, I have fruitlessly tried to engage him in order to adress a problematic pattern with his editing that has been observed by several other editors than me. Alkex refuses discussion through talk pages but deletes requests for discussion without answereing them. This pattern of behavior left me no other option than to approach other editors who had also asked him to stop reverting without discussion and jointly file an Rfc. This is the standard dispute resolution process in wikipedia and in fact the only possibility to adress conduct issues of editors who are not willing to engage in communication. It is not harrassment to follow our dispute resolution process. Following the process of course entails notifying users who have complained of similar conduct issues of the rfc, this is what I have done. I don't need to fish for users to comment against AlexCovarrubias as long as he himself keeps reverting goodfaith users edits and uses personal attacks, accusations of harrassment or racism against them when they ask why their edits were reverted. I urge administrators to take a good long look at the many diffs provided at the RfC and then consider what interest I might have in harrassing AlexCovarrubias or whether I might be acting in goodfaith in order to get AlexCovarrubias to stop reverting edits he sees as "anti-mexican" without discussion.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Again Maunus, you're totally willingly giving false information. Your language is subtle so other people might think I'm actually doing what you're saying. I'm surprised that after I've clarified this in my talk page, in the past ANI post and in the RfC you're still saying the same over and over. To make it clear AGAIN: I don't refuse to discuss, I just erase messages after I read them. As you were told by another admin, it is my right to delete my user talk. Also you make it sound as if I delete only the messages "I don't like", I DELETE ALMOST ALL the messages. And this is about harassment. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 21:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You deletes messages containing questions and requests without answering them first (and continue with the behavior that you are requested to stop). You revert goodfaith edits with no edit summary. How is that not refusing to communicate? ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This is frankly very disgusting from you Maunus. Do I have to tell you AGAIN? You're just asking the same questions trying to misrepresent me. I delete almost all messages. Recently, out of frustration by some users such as you, when I'm asked to discuss some edit, I just rather STEP ASIDE and stop editing. Something that ANOTHER USER already commented about in the RfC you opened. Didn't you read it? This is very disgusting and frustrating. Hopefully, a comitted admin will read the whole RfC. And besides, this is about my complain of harassment. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 21:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Alex - you delete messages without answering. You admit you delete almost all messages. How does this constitute communication? You also evidently do not change your behavior when people ask you to stop reverting without discussion and without edit summaries, because if that were the case we wouldn't have 5 editors all saying that you did this at different times, each of them approaching you on your talkpage and asking you to discuss rather than revert. I simply don't get why it is so difficult to see that communication is essential for collaborative editing and communication require responsiveness to other editors concerns.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Since you're the one bringing the complaint of harassment, you have the burden of proof...but you insist on deleting the very messages that might support your case. IMO that's a classic example of shooting oneself in the foot. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I left the relevant discussion on my user talk page and a link in my main post above. Maunus harassment is characterized by getting involved with the users I have a discussion with, even if he's not part of the discussion nor asked to get involved (he argues he tries to "help dispute resolution" but that's in request of any of the parties, something that has never happened). He also never does that with any other user. In plain words, he tried to "join forces" with that two users that had a problem with me, and succeded. I feel harassed because he's obviously watching me in order to see if I happen to have an argument with another editor. I'm so frustrated nobody can get this. He does not get involved in anybody else's discussion. Just mines. And he doesn't contact the other parties to help, he contacts them to "join" him in his arguments against me. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 22:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Many users will discreetly monitor the edits of someone who looks like they might need help at Wikipedia. If they need help, we help, and if there are no problems, we soon get bored and stop looking at their contributions. That isn't, in itself, harassment. Harassment would be if this person were undoing your good edits, for example, or leaving personal attacks on your talk page. I'm having trouble finding any harassment in the links you've given. However, when I have more time, I'd be happy to review some of your edits to see if you do need more help in editing. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You should probably take note that neither shouting in bold text nor making demands on the admins will sway anyone toward sympathy for your situation. Just my 2p worth. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This is strange... it looks like you already know that most Wikipedia users will leave messages on their talk pages for a while, long enough to respond and allow a conversation to happen, and then, after a few weeks, will move them to an archive. You know that's so customary that many users will take the blanking of their notes as a negative, and that their feelings will be hurt. But you seem to be complaining that other people are reacting to you as though you've hurt their feelings? I don't quite understand... you chose to hurt their feelings, so I don't think there's anything that I can do to make them feel better- but you could. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This is also odd; you call another user 'racist,' but I don't see where the racism is. That's a very serious problem regarding one of you- if he is making racist personal attacks or adding racist content to articles, we need to stop that at once, but if you're calling someone else 'racist' without good reason, that's a personal attack in itself. Can you provide some diffs of this user's most racist edits? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

As Maunus correctly pointed out, there's no need for anyone to look for users who lament Alex's conduct, as his lack of manners and his habit of making grave, groundless accusations against anyone who disagrees with him make sure that there are plenty of users who are dissatisfied with his shabby, disrespectful behaviour.--LK (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

FisherQueen I'm not complaining about anything but Maunus' harassment. A topic that seems to have been left aside. I'm sorry to say that I had little hope for this to be reviewed since Maunus is an administrator, and this kinda proves me right. You guys are totally missing the point why I opened this. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 21:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

When there are concerns about an editor's behavior, we do use their editing history to find, fix or otherwise address any problematic editing or violations of Wikipedia policy - this is not considered harassment, it is what administrators are supposed to do. So far, I haven't seen any evidence of harassment on the part of Maunus. I urge you to take FisherQueen's excellent advice above and perhaps take her up on her fine offer of assistance; or find a suitable Mentor to help. Dreadstar ☥ 22:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

First of all, don't forget Maunus had serious problems with me in the past so there's a personal component here. Secondly, he does not get involved out of concern or to help. He basically is watching me to contact whoever has a problem with me, in order to "join forces". He doesn't offer to resolve anything. He just contact others to pick on me. That's harassment. And has happened two times now, at least that I know of. And finally, he does not act or gets involved in other's discussion. That's shows his personal interest against me.AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 22:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You realize that it is a requirement in order to file an RfC that two people endorse it? How can one file an rfc without approaching an other editor who has a similar problem to ask if they thing it is an idea to file an RfC? Also, of course I have had personal disputes with you, how can one file an RfC against an editor with whom one has not been in a personal dispute? I can appreciate that in this case I asked someone one your talk page, which was probably a little rude, but he was asking you to stop reverting his edits without edit summaries just like I had done several times in the past so it seemed fairly logical to ask him there. Underlying Ik was having the same problem with you again today. I am not harrassing you - you have a pattern of behavior that causes you to have troubles with editors repeatedly - I am just the first editor to call you out on that in an Rfc..(well the second editor actually since there was already another rfc about the same topic).·Maunus·ƛ· 22:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, no matter how you spin it, this only shows that there are at least four users who are tired of your disrespectful behaviour.--LK (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You're really going to have to provide diffs to prove your accusations. Dreadstar ☥ 22:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This is just disgusting. You're making this personal, and willingly giving false info. I told you why I thought your behaviour in particular was not appropiate [44] and then I even THANKED YOU [45] after you understood my point. And it was me who opened a Wikiquette alert because of your behavoir. You're just sore and that's why you're commenting here. Anyways, this is about harassment, remember? You're the only one trying to "spin" the conversation. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 23:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict x1)(Full disclosure: I am not an admin)

Alex without evidence that prove your accusations there isn't much anybody here can do. Furthermore, when you file a complaint at ANI you can expect your own behavior to be analyzed as well.

If you really believe you are being harassed here is what you do: Lay it out for us. Give us links to your evidence along with a brief summary of why you had a problem with Maunus's conduct in that instance. --*Kat* ^(meow?) 23:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Your point being that it is ok to repeatedly reinsert uncited information removed by another editor because VP:V says that "uncited information may be deleted" but not that it "has to be"... That is a fairly innovative interpretation of that policy.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Attention please

I need someone to take a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/AlexCovarrubias2#Question_to_Participants and tell me that I am not crazy. I really don't see what I have done wrong. I will give a short summary of the development from my viewpoint:

1. . I have had several disputes with User:AlexCovarrubias regarding articles related to Mexico. These have been content disputes, where I feel that he is trying to push a certain Nationalist Mexican POV into articles and censor information that he views as negative and that I see as central to describing the topic (e.g. social inequality, discrimination against indigenous groups). He often simply reverted my edits without edit summaries, and whenn I started discussions on the talk page he didn't participate, or he simply said "I disagree" with no arguments and then continued to revert. When I asked him why he reverted on his talk page he deleted my messages without answering, then left the topic for a while untill one day he just removed the material I added again. This was a pattern that repeated over several months. The few times we did have interaction he would accuse me of being "anti-Mexican" (which is ridiculous since I study Mexico professionally, is married to a Mexican citizen andhave lived in MExico for several years).
2. . Looking at AlexCovarrubias talkpage I saw that several other editors also tried to ask him why he reverted their edits - their messages where also deleted without being answered. Some of them tried several times to get him to answer. I decided to approach one of them and suggest that we open an RfCU about AlexCovarrubias conduct. We did and this enfuriated AlexCovarrbias who began to argue that this was harrassment to contact other users to ask them to take such steps against him. I don't see how this can be true because openeing an RFC requires to people to endorse it - how can two people decide to open an Rfc without one asking the other? How can it be harassment to follow the dispute resolution process after trying to communicate civilly on his talkpage but being denied?
3. . Yesterday AlexCovarrubias was in a dispute with Underlying Ik, - AlexCovarrubias had removed fairuse images used outside of the scope of the rationale form the article Mexico, AlexCovarrubias reverted and accused Underlying Ik of being a "racist" - presumably because he only left a picture of a desert (the only one that was properly licensed) which AlexCovarrubias found to be "stereotyping Mexicans". Underlying Ik also remove duncited material in the article about certain Mexican companies (Alexcovarrubias focuses a great deal of his efforts on trying to portray Mexico as a very important industrial nation). Alex reverted the removal first without an editsummary, and then the second time he argued that "WP:V says that uncited material may be removed, not that it has to be". Then he opened a wikiquette alert against Underlying Ik accusing him of racism(with no evidence). I saw the thread at WQA and as Underlying Ik tried to defend himself against the accusations of racism, I joined the thread and told him the RfC was still open - this seemed loigical since he was experiencing the exact same behavior from AlexCovarrubias that the three other editors endorsing the rfc did. This made Alex even more furious and accused me of hounding him and watching his contributions. (This is false I am watching Ani and WQA, and the Mexico (but notice I had stayed out of the dispute between him and Unerlyinh Ik because I didn't want to inflame the issue))
4. . Now AlexCovarrubias started accusing me of harassment, because I have had the audacity to start and rfc and suggest to other editors who have been affected by his problematic conduct to comment there. At the RfC several editors are stating that I did not go about the issue of creating an rfc in the right way, but they don't say what I and the other editors who have had problems with AlexCovarrubias should have done instead. I need to know: what should I have done in this situation? Talkpage discussion didn't work, messages were deleted without being responded to. The behavior of reverting without discussion continued. How were we supposed to deal with this without it being "harrassment"?·Maunus·ƛ· 16:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know what to think about this. You were extending peace at the RfC you opened against me, and I have accepted and agreed. Oh and I haven't opened a RfC against you, that's false information. Can you please provide the RfC link that I supposedly opened? Now I'm surprised to see this message here. I don't want to think that you only extended peace there and not here, just because this is the administrators board. I won't answer any of your claims (all of them very missleading), since I have already answer them and addressed them properly in the entire RfC. So I only hope that whoever is gonna read the RfC reads it all and patiently. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 17:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I wrote this before the statement at the rfc. It was a typing mistake that made it look like you started the rfc - you haven't started an rfc about me, but you have been accusing me of harrassment in the rfc that I started. I just wanted to clarify the chronology of this and am now entering into the voluntary interaction ban in regards to you that I decided to impose on myself afer having posted this above. I still think it is problematic that I am being accused of harrassment when I have follow the letter of our policy on dispute resolution and I hope that when you are less angry you will realize that I have not actually been harrassing youbut have been trying to resolve our dispute in good faith and publicly retract that accusation. This is the last you will her from me in a while.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• You're not crazy, Maunus. I've watched this unfold, and looked into it enough to see what's going on. If I had the energy I'd try to figure out some way of getting Alex to see the light, but I don't have the time, desire, or energy to deal with someone like him. Sometimes people who just repeatedly scream the same silly things over and over can win because others aren't willing to take the time to deal with them in a productive way, and I'll fully cop to that shameful attitude right now. There are some promisingly sane people who've commented above, with orders of magnitude more patience than me, and perhaps one of them can make some progress. But whether they do or not, you deserve to know you're not crazy. Walking away seems wise. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add my two cents here. I am a user that has had difficulties with several administrators, especially in Spanish, to the point that I dropped Spanish articles altogether. Started to have a problem here with Maunus, but we both managed to resolve it constructively. The issue at hand seems to be getting too long and at a point somebody will start adding “Legally Privileged”. It is next to impossible, frustrating, tiring, time consuming and useless to continue these exchanges.

On the one hand, we users, have a hard time dealing with the fact that we working ad-honorem , doing something that we like, simply for the satisfaction of doing it. The actions of some administrators are very negative, viewed from our side.

On the other hand, I am certain that administrators have a hard time dealing with us commoners, and perhaps they do not have the time to be, at least polite, in their also difficult work. I believe it is a fcat that if Administrators had a little more patience and polished a little their communication skills, many problems would be resolved. We newcomers need help and guidance, if possible some comfort every now and then. I believe it is up to Administrators to make us more productive and have better quality, all we need is help!

And solutions is what I propose here, both parties need to apologize to one another and find common ground to work collectively at the tasks at hand. The abstract Wikipedia atmosphere makes it nearly impossible to execute a fair trial. And at the end what is to be gained? Absolutely nothing. Maunus knows I have a short fuse but, again, we managed to resolve and are working together now. To AlexCovarrubias I offer that I know the frustration and feelings experienced. Rather than exchanging witnesses and proof and whatever, I respectfully propose to use your time more constructively and move forward to do what we all like to do.--Raúl Gutiérrez (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how this commendable outpouring of goodwill would do anything do address the legitimate concerns expressed by other editors about Alex's conduct, some of whom are not administrators. I'm one of them, by the way, and don't feel I have anything to apologise for.--LK (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Chinaraileng38265: mass creation of Chinese railroad articles

Resolved

 – Sock blocked, pages speedied. Nothing left to do here. T. Canens (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Chinaraileng38265 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Chinaraileng38265 has been mass creating articles on non-notable Chinese railroads. I think similar things like this have happened before.(not necessarily with this user though). Not sure where this should go.205.155.141.9 (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: Just realized that a thread was started here as well:WP:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Chinaraileng38265.205.155.141.9 (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I find Wikipedia useful for traveling and this information could be helpful. Google has some possible refs. I am sure that there would be Chinese verification. I do not have a problem with it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't a single article better show all these stations than 50+ one sentence articles?

"Zhongliangshan Station is the station of Chongqing Metro, services of spur part of extension Line 2, and the code is ???"

This doesn't appear that useful(and it's the only sentence in the article), and all the info on various stops in a railway system could be centralized into one main article on that system.205.155.141.9 (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes agree better as one article that is than split into pieces when becomes to large. Either way referencing is required.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Whoops. Unaware of this conversation, I've been marking these pages as patrolled. While there's certainly a larger discussion on notability to be had, I don't see any reason to immediately tag them. Should I cease and desist? elektrikSHOOS 19:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been marking them as patrolled too; the pages themselves aren't speedyable. It's the enormous amount of them that's the problem, for two reasons. First of all, it's disrupting Special:NewPages to be flooded with 150 articles all at once, and the second problem is that none of them have any references whatsoever. Doc James has warned them about creating articles with no references (that's the second warning; there's another one in the talkpage history as well); if it continues, I think a block may be in order until this user gets the point. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• The bot policy is clear on issues like this. Article creation in this manner is prohibited without prior agreement. NW (Talk) 19:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Is Chinaraileng38265 a bot? I may just be missing it, but I see no indication that the account is such. Silverseren^C 19:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• The policy applies to any user, whether they be a bot, AWB-ing, or simply copy/pasting. NW (Talk) 20:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)How about this BRFA, filed by a user that has since been blocked as a sockpuppet? I'm not certain, but it does look similar in both username and contributions. Reach Out to the Truth 20:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• The linked policy actually says "...automated or semi-automated article creation task". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)And as noted at the village pump thread, the bot request to do this exact task got shot down a little less than a year ago. Whether it's actually automated is of minor consequence; it's so fast it's as if it's automated, and is extremely disruptive to those of us on NPP. I think we may need to block this user until they get the message, if they start up again. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure, but does someone else's moves of pages this user has created seem strange? Page history We hope (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

That user, User:Bus88MRT, took part, suspiciously, in that BRFA linked by Reach Out to the Truth, above.

• Railway station of Chinese are created from template, translated from zhwiki.Chinaraileng38265 (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Kittens would appear to apply as well. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Blocked as a block-evading sockpuppet - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tratra22395768/Archive and accounts listed therein. T. Canens (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
    • And G5'd the pages. T. Canens (talk) 01:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
      • How'd you pull that off without getting RSI? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Thanks to Animum, of course. T. Canens (talk) 04:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• We have a huge number of articles on Japanese railroads. For example all the stations on the Aichi Loop Line, some of which are quite small. I believe there was a large discussion about this several years ago and it was decided that even if they are not known to western readers even the smallest get close to a thousand customers a day and therefore have inherent notability. Many of those articles need better refs as well. I think if the issue is not a Notability or other policy violation just an inconvenience issue, we should deal with it temporarily until the editors finish creating the articles. We should also direct them to examples of how to make the articles better. (I do like the Kittens analogy though) Colincbn (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Really? Do you have a link to that large discussion? Because I'm pretty sure the McDonald's near my house gets a thousand customers a day, and the grocery stores several times that, but that doesn't give them inherent notability. I'm mostly just curious if there was more to the discussion than just numbers. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I was not involved in the discussion. I asked an admin who is active on Japan railway articles about it and he explained there had been a discussion that ended up with them all being kept (which I am glad of). But I don't know the details. The admin was Nihonjoe, you could ask him if you are interested. Colincbn (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You may see "disrupting Special:NewPages" as an inconvenience issue, but it goes beyond that. When people are flooding NPP the way this person was, it makes it more difficult to detect articles that really need to go. There are only a very few people doing NPP (Kamkek and I have done the majority of the last month ourselves), and it's absolutely imperative that we don't go through the Siegenthaler incident again. If we can't keep up with the flow of articles because someone is mass-creating them more quickly than we can patrol them, it makes it impossible for us to do our job as well as we need to. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The pages he created, as a topic, is notable. But my concerns is that he created these pages just by copy and paste, with tons of errors and typos. Python eggs (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I am working on this. Wikipedia lags very behind in this field. The speed of writing on Wikipedia is far slower than the speed Chinese workers is constructing. It is a shame. More contributors is welcome. One thing is, pages should have references, and don't just create lots of pages with just one or two sentences. Python eggs (talk) 04:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Are Chinese railway stations any less notable than the hundreds in Category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.49.174 (talk) 12:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Colonel Warden (again)

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.

---

Would someone else please indefinitely block Colonel Warden until he agrees to stop indiscriminately removing prods? ([46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55]. We've had numerous ANI discussions, RFC/Us, AN discussions, ad nauseum, and it is clear that he will not stop pulling this kind of stunt without editing restrictions to stop him. I would be immediately accused of violating WP:INVOLVED, so I cannot do it myself. His only regret seems to be that he didn't have time to remove more.—Kww(talk) 23:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I've interacted with him as well, and his very strong inclusionist tilt has troubled me somewhat Purplebackpack89 23:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

You say that there have been WP:RFC/USERs about this. Could you link to them?  Sandstein  23:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

As one would expect, such an RFC can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden. Deor (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Any user may remove any prod at any time. While leaving a good reason is a best practice that I entirely adhere to, I don't see any misdeeds here. Jclemens (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Further, it appears that those are a set of related PRODs, added in rapid succession by one user. It's hard for me to see how that is particularly "indiscriminate". He clearly objects to a series of closely related PRODs, just like the original PROD'er nominated a series of closely related articles. Jclemens (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I notified User:Colonel Warden of this thread. - It says at WP:DEPROD that "You are encouraged, but not required, to also: 1. Explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, 2, 3, ... after removal of the prod If you still believe that the article needs to be deleted, or that the article should be deleted but with discussion, list it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. - Off2riorob (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see any need for admin action here - if someone thinks that a number of PRODed articles about schools deserve discussion rather than uncontested deletion, I think that's ok. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, they could be likely merged or at the least redirected to the main schools'/districts' articles as opposed to being outright deleted. However, I for one would appreciate a little more communication here. Moreover, as Jclemens said, it's mostly on a group of closely-related primary schools, so I don't think it's necessarily indiscriminate; it's just that there are a few of them involved. –MuZemike 00:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• One user went through and prodded a lot of school articles. He went through and deprodded them. No foul done. Prods are there for uncontested deletes. If you can't get everyone to agree, you take it to the AFD as is proper. Dream Focus 00:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Extremely bad-faith...and honestly a bit dickish...to simply run through and de-prod articles for no other reason than you can. However, there is nothing technically actionable here since as it states at the page, "encouraged, but not required". This goes to show how fundamentally broken and useless the prod mechanism itself it. Tarc (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• This is a loophole that the Colonel knows well. This loophole is the reason that PROD is used far less often than AfD, and it is one of many reasons that there are so many articles at AfD every day. Anyone can deprod an article for any reason, or for no reason at all, with or without an explanation. Most reasonable editors would at the very least provide a brief rationale in their edit summary (more than just "-prod"), and in the case of a mass deprodding an experienced editor would be expected to post a brief notice on the PRODing editor's talk page, letting them know that they deprodded a bunch of articles, with a brief explanation why. However, since all of these things are suggestions and not requirements, this is not a blockable offense. We can all look forward to a few dozen extra AfD's to vote on today or tomorrow, thanks to the Colonel. —SW— ^gab 00:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The one mass prodding editor could just nominate all those articles for deletion at once. Get some feedback instead of just going off on their own and deciding to wipe out a dozen or so articles at once without any discussion anywhere. And the real reason that there are so many articles at AFD every day is because people waste time nominating things without even doing a quick Google news search first, or just nominate something they don't like even if its been to AFD a few times already. With the high number of AFDs that end in keep, obviously a lot of nominators with deletionists tendencies are just wasting everybody's time. Dream Focus 00:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It's called disruptive editing, and it's most definitely blockable. If the consensus here is to block him, I would have no objection to implementing it. Rklawton (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

So prodding a large number of articles, one after the other, without discussion, isn't considered disruptive editing, but deprodding them is? Dream Focus 00:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Depends on who's doing it, obviously, friend or foe. (Why are there so many clueless administrators on this project?) Malleus Fatuorum 01:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Malleus is spot on on this one. Calling de-PROD'ing a bunch of articles, such that one can have a discussion leading to consensus disruptive editing (which it's clearly not), while not seeing anything wrong with the original mass PRODding in the first place, speaks of skewed vision. PROD is an easy-come, easy-go process, and trying to construe it as anything else and call for sanctions on another editor smacks of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Jclemens (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• In my opinion the PROD process is broken because it is skewed in favour of obstructionist editing, rather than favouring uncontroversial maintenance (as it should be). Even in the case of lots articles being PRODded at once, there is still the expectation of a coherent PROD rationale- as is the case here. An editor who PRODded a lot of articles and provided no rationale whatsoever would be blocked in short order but an editor who dePRODs them with no explanation whatsoever, even one with a history of bad faith removal of maintenance templates, cannot be touched. This is inconsistent and unproductive. It's time for the PROD process to be fixed. Reyk _YO! 01:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  • This is ANI, not a forum for discussion of the PROD process. Malleus Fatuorum 01:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
    • It's relevant to the discussion. Reyk _YO! 01:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
      • No, it isn't. This report starts off "Would someone else please indefinitely block Colonel Warden [because I don't like him or what he's done]". Malleus Fatuorum 01:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Don't misrepresent me, please. Ignoring the results of an RFC of which you were a topic isn't just a matter of personal dislike.—Kww(talk) 02:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
        • (ec)Yes, it is relevant. We are talking about an editor who is arguably being disruptive by obstructing another editor's good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia, without being willing to discuss it. The circumstances and conditions that allow him to do that clearly falls within the scope of the discussion. Reyk _YO! 02:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It baffles me how people fail to see disruption here. Colonel Warden abuses the deletion processes in order to save articles. Some people may believe that the articles he attempts to save are worth saving: that is their right. That doesn't excuse abuse of process. The person that placed the prods explained why. Colonel Warden couldn't be bothered to explain his actions, despite RFCs and previous ANI reports focusing on the fact that he needs to use edit summaries to explain his actions. He frequently misrepresents sources in order to cheat articles past AFD: the RFC pretty much clinched that. Unfortunately, his supporters derailed any efforts to resolve that problem. His RFC/U wound up with a fairly mild set of gentle reminders, such as "In general, the removal of prods and other tags in good faith is not a problem, but Colonel Warden is reminded that often those tags exist as a guide to help other editors to clean up articles, and good faith effort should be made to either resolve the issues noted in the tags, or if they cannot be found, to remove the tags only if they truly do not belong. If an issue cannot be resolved, it is OK to leave a tag in an article for another editor to deal with." Removing prod tags while making no effort to repair the articles in question and no comment as to why he felt the PROD tag was inapplicable is clearly counter to that consensus, and show that he has no intent to comply.—Kww(talk) 01:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about removing cleanup tags, which are "those tags exist as a guide to help other editors to clean up articles", but instead prod tags which exist only to destroy an article, not clean it up. As far as the complaint that he is abusing the delietion process to save articles, that makes no sense at all. If the article didn't deserve to exist, you could have it deleted in AFD. If he believes those articles could be kept, he has the right to object to a prod. Dream Focus 01:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Read the RFC summary I quoted above: it says "prods and other tags".—Kww(talk) 02:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I can see that you're baffled, but let me try to explain it to you. There is no requirement that those removing prod tags explain their reasoning. If the editor placing the tag disagrees with the removal then the next step is AfD; it's long been that way. To characterise the removal of prod tags as "disruptive" but their addition as in some way saintly is frankly bizarre. Malleus Fatuorum 01:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Did I say "saintly"? No. Did I imply "saintly"? No. Did Colonel Warden clearly ignore the results of the RFC/U of which he was the topic, which specifically called out his behaviour with PROD tags as a problem? Yes. —Kww(talk) 02:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Your position that adding prod tags is acceptable but removing them is disruptive is at the very least dishonest and at odds with policy and reality. It's rather disappointing, although not altogether surprising, to see an administrator so out of their depth when it comes to the basics. Malleus Fatuorum 02:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You know perfectly well that Kww isn't taking that general position. If you want to call someone dishonest, you yourself should refrain from dishonesty. Reyk _YO! 02:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I certainly have not taken the position that removing prod tags is inherently disruptive. I've argued that Colonel Warden's chronic removal of tags, without explanation or justifications, after an RFC on that issue found against him, is disruptive. Surely you can see the difference? I'm not out of my depth at all, Malleus.—Kww(talk) 02:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Look, you're wrong. I do understand your frustration though. If I ruled the world wikipedia would probably lose about 90% of its articles overnight, but I don't, and neither do you. Colonel Warden has behaved just as properly (or improperly depending on your bias) as the original tagger. Malleus Fatuorum 02:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The proposed deletion process was made to deal with completely uncontroversial deletion; that's why it may be contested at any time by anyone, including after the deletion has occurred. This is simply not blockable. The problem here is not Colonel Warden's actions; it's frustration with the process itself, and, as Malleus has correctly observed, that's not an issue that's suitable for this noticeboard. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

My frustration is not with the process. Numerous editors use PROD in good faith, tagging articles they believe should be deleted, and removing tags when the article is salvageable. Colonel Warden doesn't show any sign of using the PROD process in good faith. My frustration is with an individual editor.—Kww(talk) 02:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The process allows editors to do the thing you are objecting to. So your frustration would be better directed at the policy. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless you are going to bring in User:TheGrappler for the exact same issue, I cannot see a way to enforce anything. Mediation, RFC, or other dispute resolution methods to invite larger comment, yes, but mass tagging and mass detagging while frowned upon are difficult offenses to enforce. --MASEM (t) 02:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Note the color difference in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TheGrappler and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden. That's a substantial difference in historical background.—Kww(talk) 02:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• See also WP:POINT which clearly applies here. Rklawton (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Though I would be reasonably happy to see all those school articles disappear from wikipedia, I can't see anything wrong with the en-masse prod removal. Isn't that the whole point of wikipedia, a tussle between many opposing viewpoints that is supposed to be sorted out by consensus? Also, I'm not sure this appeal to past behavior or the existence of RfC/Us is kosher. Col. Warden is apparently an inclusionist, a not unreasonable view to have, and we just have to live with it. I don't see the removal as 'indiscriminate' since there is obviously a method here. --rgpk (comment) 14:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• WP:PROD is deliberately made to make de-prodding easy, even for no reason at all. Even so, most of the (rare) times I have PROD-ed an article, the article has wound up deleted, so I don't think we are dealing with someone who will de-prod everything just because they can. The de-prods seem to come from a belief that the very short and school articles shouldn't be deleted, and given that Colonel Warden usually holds highly inclusionist viewpoints, I have no reason to doubt his sincerity on this. Whether or not school articles should be deleted was one of the big controversies a few years back, and the issue is still somewhat contentious. I think the PROD process is a poor one for school articles due to the controversy, and so I don't see the disruptive element in Colonel Warden's actions in this instance. If you feel the articles need to be deleted, use AFD. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed this had been reopened. I'll reiterate my main points. I'm not claiming the editor placing the PRODs was necessarily correct. I'm not claiming that a good-faith editor couldn't have justifiably removed the PRODs. The PROD placer may have been mistaken, and most editors that chose to remove the PRODs would probably have been acting in good faith.

Colonel Warden is not a typical good-faith editor. He's been the topic of RFC/Us. He's been the topic of ANI reports. He's been the product of many, many discussions over time. What have those discussions centered on? Three things:

1. Misrepresentation of source material to "rescue" articles.
2. Deceptive or missing edit summaries.
3. Abuse of deletion processes in order to "rescue" articles.

The last RFC/U was closed by Jayron32: not widely known as either a deletionist or inclusionist. Nearly everyone would see him as an uninvolved admin. His summary of the consensus includes:

• "In general, the removal of prods and other tags in good faith is not a problem, but Colonel Warden is reminded that often those tags exist as a guide to help other editors to clean up articles, and good faith effort should be made to either resolve the issues noted in the tags, or if they cannot be found, to remove the tags only if they truly do not belong. If an issue cannot be resolved, it is OK to leave a tag in an article for another editor to deal with."
• "The use of edit summaries in an accurate manner is imperative, and where needed talk pages should be used to further explain complex actions or to engage in discussion where one's actions are contested."

Colonel Warden is not the general case. He is a problematic editor that shows no sign of abiding by community consensus. Can other editors remove tags without comment? Yes, they probably shouldn't, but they can. Can Colonel Warden do so? No, because community consensus has found that he shouldn't remove tags without making an effort to repair the problem, and that his refusal to use edit summaries is a problem. We shouldn't have to undergo the RFC process repeatedly with an editor that is intentionally deaf.—Kww(talk) 15:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• • I'm not sure I agree with all this. If someone tags a bunch of related articles en-masse with a prod and then someone else removes those tags en-masse, the process is working as it should. The history of the tagger or de-tagger is of no consequence in this and repeatedly referring to prior RfC/Us is not kosher. IMO, that is. --rgpk (comment) 15:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Let's explore that: hypothetically, let's say that an editor had been the topic of an RFC specifically on the issue of inappropriate deprodding, and that RFC had concluded that his deprodding was inappropriate. Would the outcome of that RFC be irrelevant to discussions of future deprodding behaviour? If not, how is this case different?—Kww(talk) 15:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
      • In this particular case, I don't see any other options available to Col. Warden other than removing all the prod tags. He believes that we should keep these school articles and can hardly be expected to 'fix' them on a case by case basis, particularly since prods come with a deadline. Either mass prod-ing should not be allowed at all or, if it is ok to do so, then mass de-prodding should not be considered disruptive. What's good for the goose .....! --rgpk (comment) 16:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
        • At a minimum, he could be expected to provide some rationale as to why the analysis in the PROD tag was incorrect. That does not seem to be an especially onerous requirement.—Kww(talk) 16:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
          • What can I tell ya. Since he's de-tagging a cluster of articles about schools that were prod-ed en-masse, it's fairly obvious that he feels that school articles should not be deleted. And, when asked, he did explain his rationale on his talk page. Like I said, we're probably better off without these trivial articles sitting around but that's what AfD is for. Let it go.--rgpk (comment) 18:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Umm, how about the very first line of the summary? "After weeding through this long discussion, it seems that there is not any general support for the position that his removal of prods and other tags is of great concern in and of itself."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Precisely why I didn't come here complaining about the constant peppering of deprods in his edit history. I complained about a large set without any provided justification, which, in my mind, goes against the specific conclusions.—Kww(talk) 15:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Erm, why are people carrying on arguing this? It's clear that no action is going to be taken, and that's all this noticeboard is for. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Concerning edit summaries, "- prod" is a short and accurate description of what CW is doing, removing a prod-tag. The PROD tag is different from other tags in that it cannot just remain on an article indefinitely, you want to stop the deletion from happening, you have to remove the tag. If CW were on a spree removing {{unreferenced}} tags from unreferenced articles, we would have a problem. The removal of prods from school articles is a declaration that "I think articles on schools belong on Wikipedia", fair enough. Let me say that I am not a cheerleader for CW, indeed I wrote a rather critical view of a possible "vengeance" AFD, and there are indeed issues where his conduct is worthy of criticism. I just don't think that the de-proddings here is one of them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• The point is that CW is well-known to be a disruptive editor when it comes to things related to deletion, as evidenced by his recent RfC. So, if he were interested in improving his behavior, he would have probably provided a rationale as to why he doesn't think that these school articles should be deleted (especially when you take into consideration that these types of articles are commonly deleted, per WP:OUTCOMES). "-plot" is not a rationale for why he thinks these articles are the exception to the rule. If this were just any editor, probably no big deal. But, for an editor with a long history of disruption, I can see how this can be concerning. CW is notorious for testing how much he can get away with before he gets in trouble, and then once he's found the line he rides it as hard as he can. So, if anything, this ANI thread serves as a notice that he's once again crossed the line. However, I think it's clear that it's not a blockable offense, and so this thread should probably be hatted. —SW— ^soliloquize 18:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• That's exactly what I disagree with. Whether or not he is generally a disruptive editor, he hasn't done anything wrong here. Using this as an example of having once again crossed the line is not the correct use of this discussion. --rgpk (comment) 19:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• I was informed of this discussion yesterday but did not respond as it had closed by the time I got to it. My usual practise is to patrol all prods, a day at a time. I look out for ones which seem worth investigating and that's usually just one or two per day. In this case, there was a big bundle of articles about UK schools and I made a start on deprodding them but didn't get very far before going to bed. My general position is that such schools usually have notability by virtue of the inspector's reports which are independent, reliable and detailed. The contrary position seems to be that of WP:MILL which is neither policy nor guideline. The idea that quotidian or mundane topics are not notable is explicitly refuted by the notability guideline which explains that topics are not required to be important or famous to be notable. Anyway, such cases are often seen at AFD. I have been able to make something of them in some cases. In other cases, it often happens that consensus favours merger into some more general article about the district. Outright deletion is rarely the outcome and so the use of prods does not seem appropriate and would be contrary to our editing policy. I had supposed that this background was quite familiar to the usual parties in this but can expand in some suitable forum as and when time permits. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• The school pages in question were not notable (or notability was not asserted according WP:N which primary schools are subject to), the stubs were no more than a directory entry, and they probably stood little chance of being expanded. The PRODer was acting in GF, they could have been redirected, but it's not a blockable offense to remove a PROD whether one likes what or how CW did or not - there's no proof in his reply to DGG that he was going to go through the whole alphabet, or that his action was deliberately disruptive. I concur with Jclemens, Boing! said Zebedee and Sjakkalle, and anyway the problem concerning the bunch of school PRODs at ([56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65] has probably now been resolved, and for this episode, adding one more to CW's list of blocks would not be constructive - he knows the rules as well as, if not better, than anybody. Kudpung (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• The Ofsted inspection reports pretty much guarantee notability in my experience. Other good sources can often be found but the work of researching such topics in detail is quite time-consuming and few editors seem to attempt it. My experience is that you can't tell how much promise such a topic has from a superficial inspection. Our editing policy is to give such topics the benefit of the doubt and to persevere. Peremptory deletion, in the form of a prod, makes no provision for such inspection and still seems inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• I see reopening this after I closed it has only added more heat and less clarity. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• What a ridiculous AN/I. The use by KWW of the word "indiscriminate" is baseless and absurd; I expect more from a sysop. And of course KWW is deeply involved, as he admits in first opening this (though its not a matter, as he suggests -- of him being "accused" of it ... it is a matter of it indubitably being the case). It's time I would suggest for KWW to begin living up to the strictures of wp:admin, and modeling best behavior. Would someone close this again?--Epeefleche (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Is it time to propose an interaction ban for KWW? He's complained loudly and long about Col. Warden using the PROD process precisely as intended. It's simply not reasonable to presume that an RFC/U on inappropriate tag removal would somehow prohibit appropriate tag removal, and the fact that he's carried on about it at such length is troubling, and reinforces my assessment pf WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality. Jclemens (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Support interaction ban on KWW. I support that. KWW is wandering far away from the strictures of wp:admin. He himself (if half-heartedly, coyly, and with apparent regret) has admitted that he has an "involved" problem here. Let's do him a favor and save him from drifting into sanctionable waters. An interaction ban on KWW would seem to me to be the least draconian way to address the problem, and I therefore support it. Otherwise, we all know where this is ultimately headed -- and that is not in KWW's interest, while at the same time it would be a waste of time for the community.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose interaction ban - Just like how Colonel Warden "didn't do anything wrong", neither did KWW. He didn't actually block CW, he just started a discussion on a noticeboard. Starting a discussion on a noticeboard is not a banworthy offense, just like mass deprodding is not a blockworthy offense. If KWW had actually blocked CW, then you might have a case. What I can support, however, is the closing of this thread which has become useless. —SW— ^express 21:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose interaction ban - Let me get this straight. The accusation against Colonel Warden was that he was using one of Wikipedia's processes in a bad-faith way, and you defended him by saying he was acting within the letter of the rules. But you'd like Kww sanctioned because he's using ANI exactly as intended -for discussion- but you don't approve of his intentions. Seems hypocritical to me. Reyk _YO! 21:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• The instructions for this page above state emphatically, "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page.". This was not done. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Do you believe this warrants an interaction ban? If so, you will concede that Jclemens should have discussed his grievance with Kww on Kww's talk page before airing it here. Reyk _YO! 22:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• You don't need an interaction ban for kww; you need a "shutup already" ban on the dozen or so people (admittedly, including kww) who thought it vitally important to drag out a discussion that was clearly going nowhere by repeating the same points over and over again. and again. and again. In particular, Kosh Vorlon should be trout slapped for un-archiving this, especially since he didn't actually have anything to say. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• This was a ridiculous point from the beginning. Removing a Prod tag cannot be disruptive by definition as all it accomplishes is moving the process to a discussion. Prod is only for clear deletions that could not be contested. The only method for contesting a prod by policy is to remove the tag. Kww had no grounds to open the discussion, and there was no need to reopen it once it had been closed. There is clearly no cause for admin action. Anyone can remove a prod tag for any reason at any time and we must AGF that when they do so, it is an actual contesting of the grounds of the editor who added the tag in good faith. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 21:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Someone please close and archive this abomination. And we're not going to ban KWW from interacting with CW because he opened this silly discussion, we'll just remember this one if it happens again. Let's go improve some articles!!--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 22:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• I agree. This has all the hallmarks of spiraling out of control. I'd close it but, since I've commented, ... --rgpk (comment) 22:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Yup. This is pointless. Colonel Warden isn't going to be sanctioned for deprodding en masse a bunch of articles that were prodded en masse, and Kww isn't going to be sanctioned for complaining about it. End of story. Reyk _YO! 22:29, 10 March 2011 (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.

78.128.177.248 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - vandalism on Petr Nečas

This IP added three "nicknames" to the article Petr Nečas: Koniášovič, 23:13, 8 March 2011 (refers to Czech catholic priest and censor active in the period of counter-reformation, his name has very negative connotations in the Czech Republic), Analphabetus, 15:35, 9 March 2011 (no explanation needed), Fidel 07:26, 10 March 2011, 09:31, 10 March 2011, 09:48, 10 March 2011. The last edit was referenced, see [66]. The article contains complaint of a Czech communist deputy, who compared Nečas to Fidel Castro because of the length of his speech. I've explained the matter on IP's talk, reverted, but my last edit was reverted again and called vandalism. Now I see that the IP continues disruptive editing on other articles. I'm here because I think this problem needs intervention of an uninvolved admin. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Well - I admitt was joking with my first, unreferenced edits on the Wikipedia, but I changed my ways later, and I want to improve the quality of articles with referenced informations, so I don't understand why is Vejvančický accusing me, and calling my edits "vandalisms" (with false accusations in unrelated charges). The ref I provided for Nečas's nickname clearly says that "deputies are calling him Fidel now", with mentioning of single communist deputy saing this verbatim. I can also provide other link proving that this nickname is used by deputies (perhaps except his fellow ODS deputies - but this is not mentioned in ref verbatim) in general. But I couldn't see this as an appropriate forum for solving content disputes, especially when one of the parties to the dispute is using dirty such tricks as accusing from vandalims, especially someone who repeatedly removed referenced information he does not like, under false pretences, or without any explanation at all.78.128.177.248 (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

78.128.177.248, I assume you know well that the nickname Fidel is inappropriate for the article about Petr Nečas, the second link you provide here refers to the same conflict and there's no evidence that Fidel is a widely used nickname of the Czech prime minister. I'm not here to waste my time with revert games and I'm trying to resolve the incident as quickly as possible. You didn't respond when I contacted you on your talk and therefore I'm looking for a help of an uninvolved party. I think you might be a good editor, but you should understand that this kind of editing is unacceptable for a serious encyclopedic project. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

My apology: You responded, but I missed your reply because of new messages on your talk page. However, my objection still stands. What do others think about it? Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Petr Nečas, being about a living individual, comes squarely under our biography of living persons policy. As such there have to be strong and impeccably-sourced reasons to include negative content. From the policy: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." I've removed the reference - even if there was a case to be made for including it (which to my mind hasn't yet been made), it certainly doesn't belong in the lede (per WP:UNDUE). 78.128.177.248, please be more careful to adhere to WP:BLP in future. EyeSerene^talk 11:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you EyeSerene. It doesn't belong anywhere in the article, much less in the introduction. The magazine Týden chose the comparison of communists as an attractive and shocking headline for their article, that's all. 78.128.177.248 didn't succeed with Koniášovič and Analphabetus and s/he found a more sophisticated and clever way how to introduce harmful information to the article. Petr Nečas is recently a subject of intensive criticism in the Czech Republic. That's caused by somewhat aggressive economic reforms of his government. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Glad to be of help and thanks for the explanation. If the criticism is notable there may be a case for a more thorough and neutrally-presented write-up of the reaction to his reforms, but I agree probably not in the bio article as it currently stands and certainly not in the form the IP was adding it. EyeSerene^talk 14:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there's a lot of room for expansion. The article needs neutral editing, not this kind of information. Again, thanks for your opinion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 20:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

RevDel needed at Burges High School (El Paso, Texas)

Resolved

 – Handled by Mifter. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Blueballs514 (which probably deserves a username block) has inserted various content intended to ridicule several of his classmates, private persons, presumably minors. He's also created at least one stub article with similar intentions, although that was more innocuous and has already been speedied. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked the user and hid the revisions with rev-del, but an oversighter should still remove them permanently as admins only have limited access to rev-del. Best, Mifter (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Block review: Lewismash

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

I indef blocked Lewismash (talk · contribs) for this and this, which I consider personal attacks and a menacing threat of violence.

However, because I'm the one who opened the AfD that is the source of this outburst, I figure I should gather other opinions regarding the situation per WP:INVOLVED. If any other admin sees fit to adjust or remove the block, I have no objection. — Scientizzle 21:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, looks like personal attacks and threats to me. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Good block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Concur, severe threats, indef block appropriate.  Sandstein  23:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

As the subject of the threat can I ask for a REVDEL of those edits? I got on to read it and suffice to say I'm quite shaken that based on the claims he makes on his BLP article of producing content for a Christian IPTV service he would say these kinds of things just because I asked for proof of nominations and affiliate lists. Now I'm even afraid to merge his BLP article into this AfD like I planned to do this afternoon. Nate • (chatter) 00:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I second Nate's sentiment, though I'm not sure it makes anyone safer. It would be handy to have a group of trusted editors who aren't personally identifiable who can clean up after these sorts of messes whenever an editor becomes threatening. We shouldn't all have to hide our personal information on the off chance that one day we'll run across such an encounter. –SJ+ 01:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I actually don't think RevDel is appropriate in this situation...I've removed the offending content, but WP:REVDEL is a bit unwieldy: it would necessarily delete several revisions between the offensive content and the cleanup in order to have the disired effect, the edits mixed in some possibly relevant information with grossly improper content, and the deletions wouldn't really accomplish much since there are no real WP:OUTING concerns. Just my $0.02. — Scientizzle 17:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, I endorse the actions above. Just don't want to read it anew when I check on the AfD (and not really concerned with outing as it doesn't use my full name and the editor has no interest in coming to my area anytime soon for sure). Nate • (chatter) 02:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Peamm

Peamm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The user compares another user's statements with Nazi and communist methods and threatens legal action (diff). He is also currently involved in an edit war. The user is blocked indefinitely on dewiki for faking entries here and, as far as I understand it, preparing to do the same on dewiki. --Millbart (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Text dump from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Hohenzollern / Albrecht Line removed. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Omg, legal threats on ANI. That rarely goes well. Indefblocked. Moreschi (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah, I mean how could he nazi that coming? HalfShadow 20:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Also, I luuurve long non-existent titles. Moreschi (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Now appealing his block, first by saying my block was illegal (!!), but then apparently retracting his legal threats. Quite possibly the way to go is shorten the block to 24 hours or something (for edit warring and trolling), but I'll leave that for someone else to determine. Moreschi (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Unblock declined. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Good block. One overlooked element is that the user makes the claim at being one of the subjects of House of Hohenzollern / Albrecht Line. Even ignoring the shenanigans, that's either WP:BOLLOCKS or an insurmountable WP:COI. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I just came across this account which appears to belong to the same person: Peamm2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --Millbart (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Also blocked, and IPBE removed. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk page abuse by blocked user

The user talk page privileges of indef-blocked user Makisgay (talk · contribs) should be revoked because said user posted defamatory material after the block was placed. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Given that the user name is inappropriate and the talk page was being used for to post defanatory material, done. If I erred, I have no objection to any admin reverting. Rlendog (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Block is good. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

wide spread edit war over Cypriot related articles including Yialousa

Help! there is widespread edit warring at Cypriot related articles over turkish laws dating back to world war 2 including an edit war at Yialousa, the revert war is between Dox1donny and Seric2, Chesdovi also has had a minor role in the edit war. can an admin step in please--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 18:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

They seem to have stopped. Further edit warring should be reported at either WP:AN3 or WP:RFPP. TNXMan 19:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of collapsing a mighty wall of text by Dox1donny that appears to be wholly relevant to a content dispute, not a conduct one. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 07:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Sock of Justice Forever. Blocked and tagged. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 10:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Eyeballs Needed

Admins are going to be needed on most Earthquake and Japan articles, along with Hawaii articles, for the moment as an 8.8 Earthquake and possible (though not confirmed) 13 foot tsunami in Japan and warnings expanded as far as Hawaii. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 07:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Please also help keep an eye on ITN. There is a correction now which needs to be made as it is providing incorrect information on the main page. Thanks. – SMasters (talk) 08:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected Kurihara, Miyagi for a bit, may need attention afterwards. Amalthea 10:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Irish Prime Minister ready to post on the "In the News" section

The following has been ready to post for a while now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#.5BReady.5D_Enda_Kenny_becomes_Irish_Taoiseach. Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Topic bans for Porchcrop

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.

Topic banned per consensus under the terms in the subsection here; specifically (1) no responding to reports by others at WP:UAA; (2) no instigating discussions users about their usernames, but instead listing at UAA; and (3) no removing or altering speedy deletion tags placed by other users. Topic ban lasts through 11 September 2011; presuming the terms are abided by, the contributors is free of restrictions as of 12 September. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

---

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

• I've tried not to let it come to this, but enough is enough. This user has four failed RFAs and recently had a fifth he was working on deleted when it was made clear to him it would fail as well. He seems desperate to appear "adminlike" but fails at every turn. He has caused disruption at WP:UAA by submitting unfounded reports and even worse making uninformed incorrect replies to other reporters and initiating discussions to try and get new users who have not actually violated the username policy to change their names. He tried to have the history of his talk page deleted so nobody would ever see anything that could possibly reflect negatively on him. (subject of a previous ani thread). And over the last few weeks he has been causing disruption in the area of speedy deletion, again by acting like he understands policies that he clearly does not. These are all areas where he is running into new users and giving them a very bad first impression. Polite advice has been tried. Stern warnings have been tried. Nothing helps, he seems unwilling to accept that his understanding of certain policies is deeply flawed despite literally years worth of comments to the contrary. There is a competence issue here. Nobody doubts he is trying to act in good faith, but his attempts to make himself appear well-informed on Wikipedia policy are causing problems on an almost daily basis. There are piles and piles of threads on his talk page that support this view. Therefore I suggest the following restrictions:

• Porchcrop may not respond to reports by other at UAA for a period of six months
• Porchcrop should not instigate discussions with users about their usernames but instead report them to UAA for review by admins for a period of six months
• Porchcrop may not remove or alter a speedy deletion tag placed by another user for a period of six months
• Porchcrop may not nominate himself for adminship for a period of one year

• Additionally Porchcrop is strongly advised to seek a mentor

Beeblebrox (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• In the interest of full disclosure, it should probably be noted that Porchcrop has an editor review request up here. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support proposal. This user clearly means well, but lacks competence and risks becoming unwillingly disruptive. I also agree with Beeblebrox that he could really use a mentor. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - any particular reason why the thread title refers to 'Lord Porchcrop', which is not the user in question's name? GiantSnowman 00:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

  He's changed his sig recently - he used to sign "Lord Porchrop" - I've changed it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

  Aha, thanks for explaining. GiantSnowman 00:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support, with regret because he is very enthusiastic and is trying to work with 100% good faith. He has done some good CSD removals recently - I supported him over a couple, but he's getting way out of his depth at the moment and is showing some bizarre misunderstandings. His understanding of UAA policy also appears badly flawed, and he really shouldn't be replying to UAA requests at all. (Lots of people have tried to help over a lengthy period, but we're not really getting anywhere - I hope another 6 months makes some difference) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

  Additional comment. At this stage, in recognition of Porchrop's enthusiasm and the amount of good work he has done, I would only support Beeblebrox's original proposal - I would not support the more drastic sanctions suggested below at this time. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support as above - his heart is in the right place, but his execution isn't up to scratch. Getting a mentor is a great suggestion, and I hope it works out. GiantSnowman 00:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I appreciate Porchcrop's enthusiasm and ability to keep a level head when I am essentially pulling my hair out on this side of the Internet. I've made comments on his talk page and quite frankly, I'm spent at the moment to add more here. Hopefully, during these next six months, Porchcrop will spend some quality time reviewing Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Edited to add: full support of the recommendation made by Frank below. Best regards, Cind.amuse 00:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Necessary to prevent disruption.  Chzz  ►  01:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment from Porchcrop I have an admin coaching request pending. So an admin coach could be my mentor. And also see my learning log about the policies and guidelines here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porchcrop (talk • contribs) 19:33, 8 March 2011

Entire text of that request for coaching: "I had 4 failed RFAs. And I would like to know when I can become an admin." I don't think it's going to be answered anytime soon. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not an admin coach you need, Porchcrop, because you won't be ready even for admin coaching for quite some time - what people are suggesting is that you need a mentor as a general editor and general Wikipedian. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support as well; as much as I like the enthusiasm, today's example of sticking a UAA-wait on my report for User:The Record Label is misguided, and it seems to be a pattern. A six month break from UAA and trying to get through the bear pit would probably do everyone involved some good. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support but I think it should be made simpler: Porchcrop is limited to article pages and talk pages of articles he is actively editing, and no CSD tagging at all. Yes, it's restrictive, but it's also very simple. No UAA. No AIV. No anti-vandalism edits. Strictly learning how to write articles, find sources, verify sources, work with other editors, you know....build an encyclopedia. The rest will come as that experience develops....not before. (I said as much in my comment at his latest editor review.)  Frank  |  talk  02:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Suggest modification While I am supportive of this proposal, the rigid time frame concerns me. Not only does it potentially hold up development of the editor if he improves quickly (relatively speaking, say 6 months) nor would it prevent disruption if the user turned out just to not get it even after a year. Make the relaxing of the restrictions conditional to the approval of his mentor and not time elapsed and I would support without reservation. -- ۩ Mask 04:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support, but agree with Frank that steering Porchcrop towards article work exclusively would be even better. 28bytes (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't want to seem to extreme in my stance, but if there is support for more stringent sanctions I am all for it. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Guys, I have helped alot in the project, and I have alot of experience now. If you'll still have problems with me, please report all of them here, otherwise I feel that this is an unfair and unreasonable ban. -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 05:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Given the number of editors who've advised you that the "put all your (false?) negative information here" page is a bad idea, I'm somewhat surprised you're still directing people to it. Why even have an editor review if you're not going to take on board the reviewers' suggestions? 28bytes (talk) 05:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
    • What is that reason for me not understanding the policies and guidelines and taking the ban? -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 19:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
      • WP:COMPETENCE and the fact that this thread is here, I would imagine. Doc talk 06:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Porchcrop: Beeblebrox and other experienced editors have offered you detailed advice about the policies you're getting wrong, and in almost every case, your first instinct is to argue with them. If you're not going to listen to what they have to say about UAA, AIV, CSD and the rest, and just keep on doing things wrongly while insisting you're right, then the only option the community is left with is to ask you to stop working in those areas entirely. 28bytes (talk) 06:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
          • On my talk page it already says that I do listen to other editors if they explain to me clearly how I am wrong. And could you explain how I don't have competence? -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 06:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

And they have indeed explained many times how you are wrong. Yet, you continue to make the same mistakes, despite repeated warnings. Clearly, this is an issue of competence, is it not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a big difference between saying on your Talk page that you listen, and actually listening - people have explained many times, very clearly, what you're doing wrong. But it's not getting through - instead of careful listening, understanding and acceptance, we get argument and refusal to follow good advice (Like that "Negative feedback" page thing - I absolutely will not use that, I'll use your Talk page because that's what Talk pages are for). Or do you honestly think that you alone are right and everyone else is wrong? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support Frank and AKMask's suggestions. Stuff like this (sorry, admins only) is mind-blowing to me. Grandmasterka 07:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support proposal due to distinct lack of competence and inability to get the large number of clues given to them. Skinny87 (talk) 07:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support – while I also would support a restriction on proposing anything for speedy deletion, as I think it's only fair to do so. Otherwise, after looking at the deleted contribs and from what was said above, there are some huge red flags in which I see. And after witnessing the Wiki Greek Basketball fiasco, I'm rather surprised Porchcrop has not been blocked or banned yet. –MuZemike 07:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Porchcrop, other editors have told you, repeatedly, how you can improve, and they have been as clear with their advice as is humanly possible. If you still don't understand their advice, you must stop editing in these areas. Please trust them when they say you've done something wrong, and don't try to argue the matter: nobody is out to get you. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 09:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support the Frank proposal. Porchcrop, one definition of a competent person is someone who has the qualifications, knowledge, training and/or experience to both do a task well and to recognise when a task is beyond them. Unfortunately you've shown again and again that you can't tell when you shouldn't be doing something because you don't have the knowledge and experience to do it properly. If you really want to stay on Wikipedia you need to stop creating problems that other editors have to spend time cleaning up. Eventually, no matter how good your intentions are, the other editors will decide that it's more trouble than it's worth and stop you editing here at all. Write some properly-referenced encyclopedic articles, find out the stuff you don't know, and forget about adminship and backroom work until you've learned enough to be competent. EyeSerene^talk 10:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support - although I hardly see what good ending the ban in six months would do. I'd actually be curious to know (although I know I have no right to) how old this user is. If he has reached the age of majority and this is his best effort after three years, I think it's a little unlikely that much further improvement can be expected. I also agree with MuZemike's suggestion: no deleting or adding CSD tags. The Frank proposal seems just fine, too. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Porchcrop has made many valuable contributions to the project, and sometimes offers good admin like advise, for example here But there has been some disruption and Beeblebrox's proposal is well judged. Frank's call for harsher sanctions seem unnecessary and overly simple. Porchcrop's anti vandalism seems generally good so unless theres evidence to the contrary theres no need to deprive the project of a useful vandal fighter. Also porchrop seems to more orientated towards maintenance work, so we should only exclude them from areas where theres been ongoing disruption. So strongly oppose Frank's suggestion. Porchrop now has a wiki otter, though a mentorship would also be useful as Otters lack the patience to be good substitutes for a proper mentor. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to note I've offered to be Porchcrop's mentor [67][68]. I'm not an admin (indeed WP:EDITCOUNTITIS - I have less edits and been here less time) and I would not be coaching him for adminship, so I may not be suitable for the requirements, but I would be willing to try. Worm^TT 13:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I've had a look at your interactions with other editors you're mentoring and I think you'd make a great mentor - I hope Porchrop takes you up on your kind offer -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support the proposal - I've also been following Porchcrop's work and I'm afraid I have to agree with the many comments above. He seems not to be able to follow the advice he's been given so many times. In particular, he does not appear to have understood the criteria for becoming an admin. Kudpung (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support. It's simply clear that this is necessary. Truth be told, I think this is a fairly lenient proposal considering the circumstances. Swarm ^X 19:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Beeblebrox's proposal. Oppose Frank's suggested additions to it - bans like this should aim only to prevent disruption, not to try to force individual editors into having an aim and focus that is seemingly incompatible with their current character and attitude. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support, with a sense of strong regret that it has come to this. I hate to put restrictions on an active editor that means well, but far more effort is being expended cleaning up over this user than we are getting out of their attempts to help. Lankiveil @ Alt ^{(speak to me)} 09:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC).
• Comment Thank you for your kind words above B!sZ, I really appreciated them. Porchcrop has accepted my offer to mentor them. From the enthusiam shown, I have no doubt Porchcrop can become a fantastic editor and whilst the community's patience has worn thin, I feel that Frank's suggestion is too strict - especially since he has shown good faith in accepting a mentor. I have no problem with the first 3 suggestions by Beeblebrox, 6 months not "acting like an admin" is not unreasonable. I do not agree that a member should be banned from submitting an RfA self-nom, however ill-advised. Porchcrop clearly edits with the goal of being an administrator and while the enthusiastic edting based upon that goal needs focussing - I refuse to remove that goal and therefore his enthusiasm for the project. Worm^TT 10:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

  That's great news. My real concern about his admin ambition is that it is distracting him from the much more important task of becoming a great editor - he's yearning for something that's currently beyond the horizon, when he should be concentrating on the ground immediately beneath his feet. I don't think he will ever have a chance of adminship unless he can put aside his burning desire to be one for a while, and instead focus on improving the encyclopedia in whatever ways he is best suited. And any more way-too-early RfA runs will severely damage whatever long-term chance he does have. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

  I intend to explain that to him, he should focus on now and each RfA diminishes the chances of the following one. And I also intend to work on focusing his work on something he enjoys rather than the admin flag. But if we restrict him from making RfAs (which IMO are not disruptive per se, though his attempts to be an admin are) then we are taking away his goal - very different to him learning patience himself. Worm^TT 12:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

  Yep, I think that's a fair point - and in his favour, he did withdraw his recent RfA attempt after seeking community opinion on it first. I'd be happy to drop the proposal for a 1-year ban on RfA, and leave that for you to deal with - I'll offer an updated suggestion, below. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - My suggestion of simpler restrictions was meant specifically to be simple, not harsh. Despite the opposition to that proposed simplification, what folks who are resisting restrictions on Porchcrop's editing are not realizing is that Porchcrop is disruptive, even while trying to help. I don't think anyone here is saying that Porchcrop is acting in bad faith; what I see more of (and agree with) is that Porchcrop is either unable to understand how things work around here or unwilling to comply. Mentors are great, and I appreciate that folks are willing to put in the effort. If that strategy can convey the concepts in a way that helps Porchcrop contribute within community policy, I'm all for it. I don't see how that is going to be different than four editor reviews, but if the end result is Porchcrop making productive instead of disruptive contributions, I'm sure we'd all view that positively.  Frank  |  talk  12:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

  I can see that you were aiming for simplicity, but it was very restrictive. Some folk are not built for content creation and other work like cleanup, anti vandalism and all the other maintenance tasks may be where Porchcrop excels. I know there are currently issues and I intend to work on them with him - though I acknowledge the fact I could well fail - I just don't want him too demoralised! Worm^TT 13:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

  And to be fair to Porchcrop, he has actually done a fair bit of good anti-vandalism work. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Consensus?

I think the section above shows we have a consensus for something pretty close to Beeblebrox's original proposal. But now that Porchcrop has accepted mentorship, would we agree to dropping the mandatory 1-year ban on RfA and leave that to his mentor, Worm^TT, to deal with? I do sympathize with  Frank 's points too, and his suggestion would make it simpler - but could we leave that to the mentorship process too? I'd like to see if we can get a consensus for...

• Porchcrop may not respond to reports by others at UAA for a period of six months
• Porchcrop should not instigate discussions with users about their usernames but instead report them to UAA for review by admins for a period of six months
• Porchcrop may not remove or alter a speedy deletion tag placed by another user for a period of six months

Then leave the rest to mentorship - and we can revisit it should the mentorship process prove ineffective. Would a quick Support/Oppose !vote help here? I think we do need a specific conclusion, and to state clearly on Porchcrop's Talk page exactly what the community has decided. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support (with some misgivings per WP:TROPHY, WP:COMPETENCE etc, but nothing that won't sort itself out one way or the other in the long run) EyeSerene^talk 13:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support am happy with this solution. Worm^TT 13:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Late to the party and non-admin observation, having reviewed everything here already... support but I think it'd be good to lay out some hard and fast rules on what kind of sanctions Porchcrop can expect for breaking any of his restrictions. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 13:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support, with thanks to Worm and Feyd for volunteering to mentor.  Frank  |  talk  13:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support, although as above I think steering Porchcrop towards article work and away from the relentless pursuit of the admin buttons would be ideal. 28bytes (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I think Worm has made a very generous offer. I know Worm's work and I'm sure he will provide the right kind of mentoring. I would like Porchcrop to tell us that he has read and understood not only this ANI, but also taken on board the comments and advice on his editor review page. Kudpung (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

  Thank you very much Kudpung. Just to mention, I intend to summarise and work through the points raised at the editor review, so if anyone wants to add anything that would be a good place Worm^TT 16:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support and I too would like to thank Worm and Feyd for volunteering to mentor. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Frankly, the next time we have an AN/I discussion on this, it'll be about an indef, good faith or not. I can't imagine why these restrictions haven't been proposed earlier. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Grudging support We all know that if he submits an RFA within a year it will go down in flames like the Hindenburg, the RFA ban was as much to prevent that as to stop disruption, but if his mentor thinks he can talk some sense into him and stop from doing things that misguided I wish them luck. You're going to need it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support and hope the mentoring will work. Swarm ^X 17:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support and good luck. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 04:04, 11 March 2011 (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.

Long-Term Personal Attacks - User:Pfistermeister

User:Pfistermeister has a long-term history of issuing personal attacks against other editors. Their Talk page and edit summaries alone provide what I believe to be ample evidence of this. When I attempted to have a civil discussion with them regarding one of their edits unrelated to this problem I was rewarded with my own attack; upon given them a formal warning they blew it off with another attack. I believe intervention by a non-involved party to be merited at this point. I'm not including diffs at this time as I believe the evidence is easy enough to locate; please let me know if you feel otherwise. Thank you for looking into this. Doniago (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• I went to Pfistermeister's talkpage to add my voice to the suggestion that they should respond here, when I looked over the edit summaries and some of the user talkpage interactions... My view is that we should indef block Pfistermeister and let them make their case via the unblock appeal. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oh dear, yes, that looks bad - I support an indef block to get him into some sort of dialog -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

  Looks like he's been given another chance now - but support block if he does it again after Moreschi's final warning. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, only a look at the edit summaries and the two last edits says it's indef block time.  Sandstein  23:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Maybe I'm going soft in my old age, but this chap does actually appear to be reasonably smart and right in his content disputes a fair chunk of the time. I know his behaviour is totally unacceptable, but I've given him a final warning to try to wake him up. He probably deserves that much, at least, before we pull the trigger. Moreschi (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• I'm not too soft, but an indef block is too harsh. Keep in mind that WP:NPA makes clear that an attack needs to be personal, which so far none of these are. I would warn him, and from there proceed to a temp block. He may be acting incivil, but we do not know that he genuinely means any harm(it doesn't seem so to me), and if users here have not been hurt by his insulting their intelligence, and if he isn't engaging in edit warring or tendentious editing or truly offensive attacks(racist, etc), then I think a bit more leeway should be given.AerobicFox (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The relevant policy: Wikipedia:NPA#Blocking_for_personal_attacks

• Extreme personal attacks, or personal attacks based on race, religion, nationality or sexual identity of an editor are often grounds for an immediate, indefinite block until the remarks are retracted.
• Lesser personal attacks often result in a warning, and a request to refactor. If a pattern of lesser personal attacks continues despite the warning, escalating blocks may follow, typically starting with 24 hours.

Under this criteria escalation to 24 hr. block should proceed before indef blocking, since all his insults seem to be directly towards people's intelligence, and not their race, sex, etc.AerobicFox (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Sequence is normally 24, 48, 72, 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, Indef or approximation thereof. We don't normally jump from 24 to indefinite. 82.25.102.59 (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no "jump" between indefinite and 24 hours - indefinite blocks can be lifted within minutes should the issues be resolved. I rarely use determined period blocks of longer than 72 hours on registered accounts, because if they do not get it after a couple of short finite blocks then they can stay away until they do. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• I issued a 24-hour block as the bare minimum for such actions; I will not oppose any lengthening, however - up to and including indef. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

  You blocked him after he got his warning, but before he did anything wrong again? That doesn't seem right. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

  His response to being warned was this. That warning did note a block was possible for carrying on. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

  No, I mean the final warning that he got after that, given by Moreschi (and noted above). I don't think it is right for an editor to be given a final warning, and then blocked without doing anything further wrong. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

  I was inclined to just settle for the warning, thank you all and let it rest unless further problems ensued. I'm aware that blocks are intended to be protective, not punitive. That being said, when a response to a block notice is this I'm inclined to think an editor is really failing to take the hint. Especially given that to my mind a one day block is little more than a wrist-slap, that kind of response seems to reflect a lack of interest in changing one's behavior. Just my two cents though. Doniago (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

  Oh dear, that response is pretty bad -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

  "Screw off" - sounds fun :D. I'm inclined to ignore xyr for now, and see what happens when the block expires. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Slowking4 mass creation of stub art articles

Slowking4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Articles created

Not sure if there is a place to start a discussion on mass deletion (if not please feel free to move where appropriate), but User:Slowking4 has recently been mass creating stub articles for each modern bronze/steel sculpture ever created, and each article uses a Fair use image to illustrate that piece.

Typical article:

Two-Piece Reclining Figure: Points is a sculpture by Henry Moore.[1] It is located at the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden.[2][3]

I'm not sure what all the procedures are, but can someone issue a warning, delete the Fair use images, and merge the articles into a list on the artist's main page?(or something along those lines)AerobicFox (talk) 06:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds oddly related to a certain thread higher up on the page... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I've prodded several of the more recent [[seemingly random chunk of bronze]] articles, but the user's contribution history seems to indicate he will contest all prods. Not sure what they're up to but something isn't right. N419BH 07:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, might be better to boldly redirect these microarticles to the main article on the sculpture park they are in. Thoughts concerning this? N419BH 07:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Redirect sounds good.AerobicFox (talk) 07:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• A serious concern here is the overall approach to non-free images. Until just a minute ago, there were three non-free images in the two sentence stub House I. It's debatable whether any image is appropriate in that article; since there is no sourced commentary about the work whatsoever, it can't very easily claim transformative use. It's purely decorative. But three images is well beyond WP:NFC. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring for the moment the NFC issue, the sculpture is based on illusion, and multiple images are needed to illustrate that the sculpture is not at all what it appears to be. The sculpture is probably worthy of its own article, but needs sources from published works rather than a stub with three pictures. On the larger issue, this is part of our perennial problem of free content versus copyrighted public art, and I see no easy solution. The net effect is a systemic bias against the visual arts. I disagree with the tagging as "not notable:" we're talking about art in a major museum collection. Nevertheless, articles consisting of "X is a sculpture in the Y museum collection" don't provide much encyclopedic value. Acroterion _(talk) 14:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The fair use concerns are sort of all that worry me. As I was just explaining to the uploader, when an image of a piece art is displayed alongside critical commentary, the usage of the artwork is more likely to be transformative. When it's simply used to note that a piece of art exists, it is probably not. It may increase our understanding of the image, but that's not necessarily a compelling enough reason to warrant the use of a copyrighted work without license. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "X" is an artwork in "Y" museum isn't exactly transformative. I was mostly giving vent to my general frustration that free-content policies (which I support) have marginalized Wikipedia's coverage of the visual arts. The solution is to encourage galleries to contribute freely-licensed illustrative material, something that's met with mixed success to date. In the meantime, we're heavily skewed in the direction of performing arts. Acroterion _(talk) 19:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

My concern is that it seems he has created these stub articles to avoid getting his fair use images deleted as being orphaned fair use images.AerobicFox (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

An immense amount of critical work has been published on major artists , and I think there would not be the slightest difficulty in showing that every one of the major works by Moor and Lichtenstein and similar people to be individually notable. And if they are, it's fair use to illustrate what we are talking about, for there is no other way to discuss the subject clearly. As Acroterion says, if it takes several images, it takes several images. They do not seem to be added here for decorative purposes where they are not immediately relevant. When one works in an area like this, adding text and images appropriately go together. If there is insufficient sourced commentary at the moment, there is an obvious solution, which is to add it. Calling this sort of material seemingly random chunks of bronze is a expression of lack of seriousness in dealing with the arts. DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I am almost certain that just about all of these are not notable enough to warrant their own articles. Many great artists(and alright sculptures) have sub-par works, Emily Dickinson—one of my favorite poets— wrote dozens of cheesy, sentimental, poorly written verses throughout her life time. I don't believe these pieces have anything more than general commentary on how they were produced, when, etc, and I don't think any of these pieces has done anything really influential or significant, but notability would be a discussion for Afd.AerobicFox (talk) 07:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It is the burden of those who wish to add non-free content to ensure that its usage on Wikipedia is suitable; an image of a sculpture gives better understanding of that sculpture than no article at all, but that alone doesn't make for a valid fair use defense. We can't create an article that consists of merely a picture of a non-free piece of art; this would almost certainly fail the "purpose" test of fair use. WP:NFC lists under "acceptable" images "Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school." It stretches the definition of "critical commentary" to the breaking point to apply it to an article that reads in its entirety "Work is a sculpture by artist. Constructed in 19xx, it is located at Example Museum." Wikipedia:NFC#Applied to Wikipedia also notes that " However, to be more certain of avoiding legal liability, and to understand the meaning of Wikipedia policy, editors should consider the legal rules as well. See fair use for further information, and the Stanford University summary of relevant cases, on the subject of fair use. Non-free material is used only if, in addition to other restrictions, we firmly believe that the use would be deemed fair use if we were taken to court." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Redemption movement

Visitor10001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a new user, has been pushing a fringe POV at Redemption movement (a tax protest scam that, as far as I can tell, he thinks is legally valid). That's no big deal, but he's gotten so frustrated at being reverted that he posted this and this. Although he says he's leaving, I think that should be made official.

On a related note, I'd like to ask that an admin explain to Veriss1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that Lenin and McCarthy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did not violate WP:BULLY or any other policy or guideline when he posted this relatively innocuous, one-sentence item at WP:NPOVN. To my understanding, this is precisely what the noticeboard is for: You see an article that has a problem, you post to a noticeboard to get eyes on it. No warnings or talk page discussions are required. To be clear, I do not think Veriss1 has done anything "wrong" or needs any sanctions or threats of sanctions. He's just not accepting my explanation of how the content noticeboards work and might benefit from hearing it from an acknowledged expert in the rules (like an admin). Now just give me a few minutes to drop an ANI notice on the talk pages of the three users I've mentioned by name. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Woohoo! Congratulations. When out of Wiki-bureaucratic options, escalate the non-situation to ever higher heights of Wiki-bureaucracy. The complainant has absorbed one fact along the way of this completely unneeded drama, that I do not accept that the new user User:Visitor10001 required referral to the Point of view/ Noticeboard simply because the original complainant, Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here, was too lazy to read up on or simply failed to adhere to the prerequisite rules of that noticeboard. That complaint did not and still does not belong on that noticeboard, cut and dry, as the complainant utterly fails to meet both the letter and the spirit of the board's listing requirements by his own words choosing to by-pass discussion on the article's talk page.

I am ready to be "schooled" if it is deemed that I have been out of line defending a new editor from WP:BITE, WP:OVERREACT and now it is becoming clear, WP:BULLY, who's views I happen to oppose but who's right to express his minority views I fully defend. I continue to stand by my assertions of overreaction, crying wolf, nuisance alarm and WP:BULLY on the part of the complainant and others piling on at the subject noticeboard. I also now add WP:BITE as an additional appropriate tag for turning this learning period for a new editor into an overblown drama. Now let us stop WP:LAWYERING and turn to more productive things like fixing this broken article.

Bottom line, both this notice and the notice at Point of view/ Noticeboard are way out of line and should both be squelched immediately. Either way, I humbly await my "schooling". Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 09:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

First off, calm down. The above (which you seem to be posting variants of all over the place) comes across as quite breathy and excitable; generally speaking it is acceptable to ask for advice from a notice board, particularly if the issue has few "eyes on". I'm not going to unpick the talk page in depth but it seems that discussion had occurred on there for a couple of days before a FRINGE board post. Perhaps the NPOV board was a step further than was needed at that point, but I don't think it was a huge problem.

As to the comments made by Visitor1001, nothing seems actionable there.

No comment on that editors treatment, although the content he added seems to have been not wonderfully written it appears to have stuck in some form. I also see removal of uncited material; please check out WP:BURDEN, from a casual glance it looks like Visitor did remove uncited material, and those adding it back in need to cite references for it. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

None of his comments? Not this one? And his post to Famspear's talk page here pushes the line, but not quite an attack. He's got a couple of warnings for that on his talk page now, which hopefully will calm him down. Ultimately, he is a supporter of a fringe concept and needs to understand that articles here are written as shown by sources, not neutral meaning no criticism allowed or various weasel words used to mitigate the criticism. Ravensfire (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

His edit comment here of "Placed these back in. They directly relate to the topic. Thanks, and I will be standing by to undo any edits! Have a nice day." on Sovereign citizen movement is also a concern. I'm going to try to explain about edit warring and 3RR on his talk page. Hopefully that will head him off. Ravensfire (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If he's gone, and stays gone, blocking the account is just a punishment. Blocks, however, are only supposed to be used to prevent (further) disruption. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, which is why I left him some notes on his talk page. Articles like this are often helped when a strong proponent of the view comes in and actively edits and discusses. I hope he does come back. Ravensfire (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, the posting at the fringe theories noticeboard, took place about two hours "after" the one at the NPOV board (and by a different user). Errant's post here seems to assume the reverse. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

"Macedonia"-related mass page moves

We've just had a bout of disruptive mass page move of "Macedonia"-related pages by Fn1m (talk · contribs), obviously following a political agenda (replacing "Macedonia" with "Skopje", in line with Greek POV). These pages are in the scope of naming conventions protected under a special Arbcom mandate (see WP:ARBMAC2#Establishing consensus on names). Some admin eyes on this account would be good. Perhaps some move protections are in order, and/or sanctions under WP:ARBMAC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Topic-banned. Moreschi (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Another school project gone thoroughly wrong due to confusion between wikis and Wikipedia

Please see the userpage and talk page of Scienceinsociety (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). I'm trying to explain what is wrong, but would welcome some backup. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• I had given some advice, but foolishly on the article that I had proposed for CSD (A2 science in society - Biodiversity Hotspots). Perhaps you can copy that text to their userpage, as I cnnot know whether they actually saw that stuff of not. --Crusio (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Done! --Orange Mike | Talk 15:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Leads

Doing new page patrol I noticed that the recently deleted Wiki Leads article had been recreated. From the page log it appears this was previously deleted as "G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user" in the middle of a deletion discussion.

I'm not privy to the deleted history, so I can't tell if the blocked or banned user is the same user who's recreated it, or whether the new article is "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" of the original, so I'm not sure whether G4'ing it would be appropriate. Can an admin take a look? Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It may not be a bad idea to give ArbCom a heads up, as the original creator of the article was banned by them. –MuZemike 15:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Should we salt? Or is it a good honeypot? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It's been recreated at a few other titles, as well. Salting might be a good idea. I dropped a note to Tiptoey, who has blocked at least some of the accounts, because I don't feel comfortable removing email and talk-page access from these accounts without knowing the background. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I salted the article. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I have e-mailed ArbCom. 28bytes (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Link Vandalism

I am not a user so I do not know how to report vandalism, but in the article Basel III, this link is a spam: http://www.basel-ii-association.com/. I work in bank regulation and this link is to make users pay for some online certificates and boost their google page ranking. It has nothing to do with the article or the subject matter. It might be that such link is all over wikipedia also in BAsel II article and so on. I delted it and it appeared again. So I am putting it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.41.129.24 (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Repeat vandalism from dynamic IP

Resolved

IP 117.207.196.206 has been vandalizing the List of Nairs article repeatedly about 20-30 times in the last one hour or so (blanking entire sections, inserting derogatory passages). I am tired of reverting the edits. Can someone help me? Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

See this edit also, which happened a few months earlier. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Ask for page protection.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The IP is now blocked. Today's blankings may or may not have anything to do with other blankings on 05:07, November 24, 2010...but it's not really actionable. Watchlist the page, warn the vandals and go to WP:AIV, and try WP:RFPP if that doesn't work. There's probably not much further to be done here. — Scientizzle 17:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Byron670

Resolved

 – Byron670 blocked for edit warring. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC) and now, blocked indefinitely for inability to interact with other humans in a civilized way --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Byron670 (talk · contribs) appears to be a determined POV warrior with a severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on Banana republic. He's at 3RR there and has made some poorly-considered edits to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch), an overall battleground approach to editing here. Some assistance would be helpful, as I'm more or less involved. Acroterion _(talk) 01:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The edit war was in fact started by the above party to suit his own biased interests. I have been working well with other editors to remove any weasel words etc from the entry to comply with POV. Acroterion is the originator of the edit war. All other editors and I are engaged in a relevant discussion of the issues of the post. It is in act Acroterion who is in violation of POV by attempting to stymie the discussion by edit warring. I formally complain about his abusive tactics.Byron670 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC).

I see four different editors reverting your edits to Banana republic. You can't claim that you're in an edit war with one editor when you're the only one being reverted. Corvus cornix_talk 01:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

And they've just gone back to reverting again after posting here. Not only edit warring, but way over the 3RR limit, which they have been warned about. Corvus cornix_talk 01:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Why does 3RR not apply to them as well. And I am not claiming anything. I attempt to add a dictionary definition to Wikipedia supported by a prominent writer. It is not my fault I am being singled out for attack.Byron670 (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Because 3RR is a restriction placed on each individual editor. A group of people can't violate 3RR, by definition. In any event, when more than one person reverts you, it's time to go to the article's talk page, and slowly discuss the issue to see if you can get consensus for the change. Edit warring isn't allowed, even if you think you're right. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

And yet again another revert. There's no point in his edits being reverted if no admin will block him, so let's just leave them alone, I guess. Corvus cornix_talk 02:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Still trying to band together to silence a lone voice. If the admins thought that I was being unreasonable believe me I would have been blocked by now. You should all take this as proof that I am right. Noam Chomsky is right. It is neutral. It is unbiased. Deal with it punks.Byron670 (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Current revert count:

• Byron670: 6
• Acroterion 2
• Arthur Rubin 1
• Gabriele449 1
• Corvus cornix 1
• Yobol 1

Comments as to the relevance or accuracy of Byron's edits should be on the talk page, but Chomsky is not a reliable source, nor necessary a notable commentator.

I don't think I can block for 3RR, as one of the reverters. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Nor may I. Note this. Acroterion _(talk) 02:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you all see that it is Acroterion that is continuing this edit war. Now he says that Chomsky is not a valid source. He is attempting to cherry-pick which data is 'correct'. This is an extreme violation of NPOV and should be dealt with as such. The above denial of factual data should be seen as nothing more than an opinionated, biased attempt to use Wikipedia for Acroterion's own political agenda's. Acroterion is turning Wikipedia into a battleground, which I thought was against the rules.Byron670 (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I also suspect that Acroterion is using multiple accounts to spread his reverts around to avoid suspicion. I was also under the impression that this was against the rulesByron670 (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Byron, please don't refer to other editors as "punks" - see WP:NPA. Exxolon (talk) 02:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

sorry i should have used the word mongoloids. I mean how sensitive are you people. When i said punk. I was being polite. Let it be said that I have attempted to keep this debate civil, but the abusive tactics by Acroterion and most definitely not beyond reproach. It is his actions that should be being investigatedByron670 (talk) 02:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

This edit deserves a block regardless of the edit warring. Corvus cornix_talk 02:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a definite WP:NPA violation. Byron, even if you are right regarding the content dispute, referring to other editors as "mongoloids" isn't the way to make friends and influence people. Please redact that comment. Exxolon (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the text he keeps adding:

===The United States of America===
The recent worldwide economic collapse was precipitated by the American moneyed elite's grab for a bigger piece of the economic pie. Instead of allowing the collapse of the financial institutions, which would have been in keeping with the [[Free Market]], the government used taxpayer money in a corporate bailout that did nothing but line the pockets of the executives and CEO's. This was accomplished by holding the nation's money hostage in an action of economic terrorism to force the politicians to do their bidding, regardless of the consequences. Note the recent American attacks on [[Civil and political rights]] and [[Human Rights]] in order to protect the status quo, for example the attacks on workers Collective Bargaining Rights, in addition to the Republican attempts to destroy the Endangered Species Act. This puts America fully in the realm of a corporate Plutocracy.<ref>Chomsky, N. "[http://www.alternet.org/economy/150003/chomsky%3A_only_a_massive_uprising_will_change_our_politics/.]" </ref>

It's not at all neutral; I've now reverted it myself. – Athaenara ✉ 02:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Enough is enough. I've issued a report at WP:AIV Corvus cornix_talk 02:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Not needed - "02:28, 11 March 2011 Floquenbeam (talk | contribs) blocked Byron670 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring)" Exxolon (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• (e/c) I've blocked Byron for edit warring for 24 hours. If he doesn't have a major epiphany and change his approach to editing in a collaborative environment when the block expires, I'll re-block indefinitely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Major Epiphany would cut it... I would go for Colonel Redemption or even General Salvation because of this. 212.68.15.66 (talk) 07:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

ROFL. Love it. And you're right about the diff. That sounds like something a troll would say.--*Kat* ^(meow?) 13:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

well, that's enough of that. Blocked indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Good call there. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Note that the user stated his intention to create new accounts if blocked,^diff so a continued watch on the subject will be necessary. Acroterion _(talk) 14:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• *That* is a personal message to me, from Grawp. He demonstrates knowledge of past encounters and of elements of my real-world life. Welcome to the fucking internet.^[1] Jack Merridew 20:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Braganca4646

This user is same as the IP 123.236.241.218 . As an IP he editwarred, insulted people and pov pushed in mulitple articles. He was warned by multiple users and some of his edits were rev deleted. Now he has registered an account and is continuing to do the same. (the user and the ip are the same person - they are doing the same thing). I have reverted him across a couple of articles, but he continues to do the same thing. He has cleverly started an account to bypass the final warning given to the IP. Someone please block this guy.--Sodabottle (talk) 06:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I have given citations for my articles and every edit of mine has been sourced,I insulted no one,I should not be blocked,I am being falsely accused by this Sodabottle guy who considers himself the whole and soul around here,he should be blocked as he keeps reverting my edits even when they are cited and sourced,who is he to demand my blocking,he should be blocked and I am not the user with the ip range 123 whateva,he just wants to get me blocked as he has some personal vendetta against me for editing the Sambhaji article Braganca4646 (talk) 06:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

This followed by this was the user's reaction to notification of this thread. Hans Adler 07:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

After denying that he is not the IP, he posts to my talk page apologising for his "mistakes" and then immediately removes the message. It is clear both are same, and he started the account to bypass the final warning.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Both the IP and the registered acct have stopped their activity, so please sound the alarm again if the activity resumes. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 19:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Burger Fuel

Resolved

 – IP is obviously insincere. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I was patrolling when an IP blanked the Burger Fuel article and posted a legal notice claiming the article was copy vio from their website. I have investigated and found no material that was copied and have thus restored the article. I am posting here as I don't know what further action should be taken, if any. I will notify the IP of this post. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 07:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

"Drinks - THE ULTIMATE IN LIQUID GOODNESS." There's where I'd be tempted to commit a copyvio! Wish I had come up with that one... Doc talk 07:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Apparently they are the inventors of the patented doofer. Oh now I am getting silly; it's time for bed. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 07:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL! Oi. On the off chance that this was a sincere but profoundly misguided effort to send a take-down notice, I would have recommending pointing them to Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Copyright; a take-down notice must be sent to our designated agent to have effect. But this pretty well puts paid to that. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, MRG, thanks for the tip. If I see one that's serious, I will be able to give guidance to the complainant. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 19:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Tomjovanovic

User talk:Tomjovanovic is being problematic. Just came off a block, to further ignore other user's asking him to stop his disruptive edits. Took to AIV but suggested I bring it here.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 23:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You haven't notified him of this post - I have done this for you. Exxolon (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

All you have to do is look at the talk page and the user's contribs to realise the problem's that occured.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 11:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

This was pointed out to me by another editor - [69] - Tomjovanovic has not made a single edit to a talk page. I've encountered Tomjovanovic a few times and the lack of communication can be very frustrating. He does, on occasion, use edit summaries to explain some of his edits, but they're just not frequent enough (and I do so hate having to look back through an article's history trying to work out what edits were made). I think this user either needs a stern note asking him to communicate with other editors or a block until he learns how to use his talk page. - JuneGloom Talk 13:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I am being treated unreasonably

I keep being told that I am editing too much on some of the pages I edit. I also do not believe that relatives by marriage or adoption are proper familial relationships. Blood is thicker than water and marriage is not. Marriages can end but a lot of the other contributors do not seem to appreciate or believe this and they keep trying to block me when I edit a page which they do not seem to accept. Other points of view are welcome.-user:tomjovanovic 17:16 11 March 2011

This is the first time since September 2010 you have replied to any of us. And you say we have been unfair? User Ooh Fruity even decided not to warn you after you continued after your block, then what did you do, ignore it and carry on changing dashes on pages. You may believe that, but you have to leave a note on the wiki projects talk page or at the MOS for fiction. Just because you believe something, does not mean it's then right. We work together on Wikipedia and communicate with each other as a collaborative effort to improve things. Reach a consensus which is what we did to decide the family infobox info.. How can we work on your suggestions if it's taken near enough 6 months to get a reply from you. These are fictional characters, so we leave it be on relations, the article is meant to cover there whole duration, living people have things like that updated.. It's obvious you don't want to listen to our views either. Because you carry on, even trying to edit war sometimes. You do edit too much, but you seem to misunderstand then what we mean. Storylines are in universe content, they only have a small place in fictional character articles because they are not really encyclopedic. We've explained this before, but you added so much prose to the list of Emmerdale character articles - for a character who has been in the series for a week and is not notable. I'll include this on your talk page just incase you miss it here. RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 19:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh my god, I'm in shock. You spoke! Hey, we're not monsters, it didn't have to get this far if you had just responded. Personally I found your silence more frustrating than anything else. You have been treated fairly, but when you refuse to discuss your edits you tend to get picked up on things more often. I think the only message we want to get through to you is the firstly acknowledge others, and keep in-universe plot details for fictional characters brief. If your edit is disputed, just discuss it on the talk page. It's that simple! Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 23:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Gunnertony01

Gunnertony01 (talk · contribs)

Earlier I saw page move vandalism by this user, moving Phil Thompson to A well known sky sport pundit with a big nose, and I moved it back. I then had a look at his talk page and saw warnings for creating nonsense, so I added another warning. But when I checked his edit history I saw lots more blatant vandalism. So I indef-blocked him as a vandal-only account.

But then looking back a bit further I saw he'd made some good edits too, so I wondered if vandalism-only was a mistake. But a closer closer inspection revealed a strange history of mixing good edits with vandalism and clueless stuff going back to March 1st, including the creation of clueless templates (Template:Arsenal F.C team in the 1990s, which might be a good idea for a template, but its implementation was woefully inadequate - and he'd already added it to lots of articles).

Vandalism/bad edits included [70], [71], [72], [73]. What I've now done is I've changed the block reason to "abuse of edit privileges", but have left it indef, as this is very disruptive stuff and I think we should see some recognition from him before he has any chance of getting back - it's taken me about an hour to go back over all his edits and fix up what needed fixing.

Anyway, I thought I'd ask for feedback/advice here, on whether you think I've done the right thing (and to give a heads-up if anyone should consider an unblock). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC) (modified -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC))

• Indefinite is not finite, so a good block. When the editor decides they are willing to make decent edits to articles that are not related to Arsenal FC, and not treat WP as an extension of a footy fanzine, then they can be unblocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Tomatosoup97

[74] A wholly unwarranted, threatening talk page message. I simply removed a recently added header I thought was unneeded (and clearly explained such in my edit summary here), merging the material in the header above it, in line with WP:BRD. Instead of proper discussion on the talk page (where previous concerns of mine have never been addressed), I get a clear threat from someone trying to WP:OWN the article.

Funny thing is that the edit wasn't even by Tomatosoup97, but User:Oanabay04, who's pattern of edits and behavior is similar. oknazevad (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

A vandalism warning was clearly inappropriate, a level 4 warning all the more so, especially from an experienced editor. Rlendog (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

That is an interesting contrib history for Tomatosoup97. Very sparing over the years, but with a fair knowledge of WP protocols, and a suggestion of a harsher stance than someone with a similar editing history such as, for instance, Oknazevad (a couple of specific transport subjects and Billy Joel...) As for the warning, which I note you have removed, I think it can be ignored. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Odd, I don't remember editing Billy Joel. oknazevad (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Oknazevad, you've notified Tomatosoup97 but not Oanabay04 - please note you must notify ALL editors you ask this board to look at - I have notified Oanabay04 for you. Exxolon (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

My bad. I've never files an ANI before. oknazevad (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Please remove me from this subject. For the sake of transparency, it should be known that I am familiar with the user with the handle of Tomatosoup97 and have communicated with the person before. But this threat did not come from me, and it does seem a tad harsh. Thank you kindly.Oanabay04 (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I still have concerns about your lack of communication on the talk page at SEPTA Regional Rail, but I apologize for dragging you into this. oknazevad (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Since you are apparently familiar with this editor, perhaps you could advise them on the appropriate use of warning notices and what does and does not constitute vandalism? LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

76.119.137.236

Resolved

 – IP blocked. Nothing to see here. -- Doc talk 04:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

76.119.137.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
BlennGeck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Deliciousgrapefruit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
LynnCityofsin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The IP looks like the latest incarnation of the indef'd user BlennGeck aka Deliciousgrapefruit, making the usual complaints about the Glenn Beck article being "biased", meaning it eschews the various tabloid junk as BLP violations. The user has been notified. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

"Methinks he doth protest too much." For a newbie. By any chance, did the other accounts have a problem specifically with both you and AerobicFox as well? What are the odds?[75] Doc talk 08:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall how I got wind of that guy. But, yes, I at least was involved in the process that got DG and BG blocked. I think AF was part of that process also. The socks' chief complaint is that the article about Glenn Beck is not criticial enough - the same complaint that right-wingers make about articles about left-wingers. Some folks don't understand what wikipedia is about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I am hearing some loud quacking here. But then again, perhaps ducks do that when bunnies abound.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

One need only look at the talk page of the Glenn Beck article (and follow any related links), to make the observation I did. Further, this pig pile on a new user, only confirms what I said to Geoffrey Landis. Obviously people who go against the stream on the glenn beck talk page, receive needless investigation from some of the regular users. To what end? To keep the Glenn Beck talk page devoid of negative comments? I would suggest this has an intimidating effect on new and old editors. If anything an ANI page should be opened to address possible abuses by users like Baseball Bugs, Aerobic Fox, Cptnono, and the other regulars who participate in these group assaults on new users on the glenn beck page. 76.119.137.236 (talk) 13:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

"New" user? That's funny. Tell us another one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not the only editor to receive this treatment from your group. And I posted a simple criticism of the Glenn Beck page (one in which I said its fine if others didn't agree). Instead of responding politely, or assuming good faith, you checked my posting history to see if there were any bannable offenses (exactly as I predicted on G.L.'s talk page). I wasn't even being disruptive or editing the actual page. I just made an observation. Certainly sock puppetry can be a concern, and I understand the need to investigate into that. But, your behavior on the GB page, is on a whole other level. I would think the admins would be much more concerned about systematic attempts to ban users you disagree with. 76.119.137.236 (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

This is all moot. As we can see here your IP is from Lynn city Massachusetts. The same as the socks Lynncityofsin, of the other IP, and almost certainly BlennGleck and DeliciousGrapefruit. To reiterate, you were originally banned for page blanking, edit warring, vandalism, and screaming and cursing at other editors on the Glenn Beck page, and creating another sock is not an acceptable way around that.AerobicFox (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Canterbury High School (Ottawa)

Resolved

 – zot. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Worgen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has vandalised this article a couple of times and has been warned a few times. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Notified Worgen about this thread - please note this is required. Exxolon (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I apologize for forgetting to notify Worgen. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

So, how long do we wait for them to respond/continue vandalising before we block them for being a disruptive, and doggedly unfunny, SPA? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Why wait? This is a vandalism-only account according to its contribs, and doesn't need a response here, or warnings. Been here for a month, with no evidence of an intention to contribute constructively. When I started here in 2007, I'd wikified several articles in that time, and started some, and got a coupla Barnstars into the bargain. Time to kick into touch, I think. Rodhullandemu 23:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, vandalism only account. Not sure why people were treating it like an IP, starting the warnings over when there was a few days gap. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way, Me-123567-Me, for future use, this kind of thing can be reported at WP:AIV: usually you get a quicker response, and there's no need to notify a vandal that they've been reported. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It's been a while. I had forgotten about that page. I'll remember for next time. Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Smith (executive)

 Done

Please speedy close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Smith (executive). Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Obvious sock/vandal. I've blocked the editor. I'd speedy close it myself, only I don't know how. Rklawton (talk) 03:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I've closed it as obviously implausible given the sources in the article and the fact that Smith is one of the title subjects of a notable documentary. --RL0919 (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Azumanga1

I've repeatedly asked this user to stop adding incorrect categories and removing appropriate ones but the user continues the same behavior despite requests to stop. Please see edit history for Press Your Luck (which was not a FremantleMedia program), edit history for The $1.98 Beauty Show (which is being moved to category:Beauty pageant parodies, where it becomes the only article in that category), and edit histories for The Price Is Right $1,000,000 Spectacular and Whammy! The All-New Press Your Luck Sottolacqua (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not seeing an issue here at all. Press Your Luck is under the current day ownership of Fremantle and has had revivals in other media under that name (it should be categorized under the ownership which does have an article, which the independent producers of the original do not have), and $1.98 is a beauty pageant parody show, while the Spectacular was produced by Fremantle and should be categorized as such. The programs are properly categorized and Azumanga is an experienced editor who knows games shows and categories left and right, so I cede to their judgment. Nate • (chatter) 07:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Posting Japanese nuclear story on WP:ITN

The Japanese nuclear power plant story - here is ready to post. Sorry for bringing this up here, but this looks like a seriously big deal that would be good to get posted quickly. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with EH, this is a huge story and none of our regular ITN admins seem to be keeping up with the issue. Thanks to any admins who can step up. Jusdafax 09:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

78.155.239.29 - fake credits added to to "The Fox and the Hound"

78.155.239.29 is at it again - he added a bunch of fake credits to the Wikipedia listing for The Fox and the Hound. On IMDB, I had to delete many of these same names of people who didn't work on the film. Compare the credits on its IMDB page, from which I removed all the fake entries, to the credits that are up on the film's Wiki page now. There are DOZENS of names of people who had no involvement in the film. These edits need to be reverted, and seeing as this person even now continues to add false information, I believe the admins should take measures against him.--TServo2050 (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Does there even need to be a full credits in the info box? It's practically as long as the article. Rehevkor ✉ 20:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Might be Disney vandal/Bambifan101... I have blocked the ip for 31 hours and warned them that as the address appears stable (edits to the same articles going back months) that further disruption will incur longer sanctions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Also  Confirmed:

• ILoveMovies246 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• TailsTheFox246 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

I am strongly considering full-protecting The Fox and the Hound due to over-excessive sock puppetry. –MuZemike 22:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm beyond considering. This has been the target of innumerable socks, and even two meatpuppet attacks by persuading admins from foreign language versions of Wikipedia. It's a non-descript 30-year-old animated feature about which it is highly unlikely that any new facts will come to light. Full protection for 6 months.—Kww(talk) 22:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, Back up the truck. A Full Protection for 6 months because two new accounts and an ip changed some information? Think we went a little overboard on this protection did we?--Jojhutton (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

No, the article has been under attack by the same user for 3 years. I don't know what definition of "sustained vandalism" you use, but that certainly meets mine. Bambifan101 has been after that thing for a long time, and there's no reasonable expectation that new information will need to be included in the article: after 30 years, not much is happening with regard to the topic.—Kww(talk) 01:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me state here what WP:FULL says:

Brief periods of full protection are used in rare cases when a large number of autoconfirmed accounts are used to make a sustained vandalism attack on an article. Persistent vandalism, or the possibility of future vandalism for highly trafficked articles, rarely provides a basis for full-protection.

Sustained is, according to the dictionary: Maintained without interruption

There appears to be some interruption in the edits and the vandalism today was done by an ip and a non-confirmed user. This doesn't fit the definition of WP:FULL.

Also, 6 months isn't very brief.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll agree that I'm in WP:IAR territory here. If a consensus develops that my action was excessive, I'll heed it.—Kww(talk) 02:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Pretty obvious who it is. Indefinite semi-protection and WP:RBI is all that is needed here. Oh and WP:DENY; WP:DNFTT will help too. Fully protecting the article is giving him what he wants: recognition that he's causing a problem. I've got it watchlisted. N419BH 02:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have to say though, that it was obvious that you had the best interests of the page in mind, but I think the collateral damage may be a bit much for a six month full protection. Even BLPs don't get this sort of love.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

First off, let me apologize for what I started. I don't know about 6 months of continuous full-protection as that seems quite a bit, but a much shorter period of time, like 1 week or something; I would even support going down to semi and then go to full on the next attack. That or we simply "give up" and stop blocking them altogether. –MuZemike 05:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am not going to give up on combating Bambifan101 but I will note that that vandal has forced the (topic?) retirement of at least one good editor. Short period protection is not going to deter them, nor indeed is long term but it may cause them some inconvenience. As the general editing to that article is moribund then inconveniencing the troll is equitable, im(ns)ho. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

"Moribund" is a pretty good description. I chose 6 months basically because of the long duration of the problem. It's one question whether protection will do any good at all, but, assuming that we feel that it does, why would one think that two or three weeks is going to do anything to deter a 3 year long effort?—Kww(talk) 14:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Still feel that this is not within the guideline of WP:FULL. Its not a BLP, so its hard to justify such a lengthy Full protection,and given that a semi-protection will most likely cause the vandal to get his socks to auto-confirmed before editing the page, that may be enough to take care of the problem. Has Semi-protection even been tried yet?--Jojhutton (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and indefinite has been applied several times - take a look at the logs for the page - this has been going on for a LONG time, and I see no problem with locking it down again. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Bambifan's been doing this for years. Full-protect is the only defense left that'll definitely work. HalfShadow 20:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Note - Its generally not proper for admins to edit a fully protected page unless first brought up on the talk page per WP:FULL: Any modification to a fully protected page should be proposed on its talk page (or in another appropriate forum). No request or any acknowledgment to the edit was ever mad on the talk page.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  • From the same paragraph on WP:FULL: ...if the change is uncontroversial, any administrator may make the necessary edits to the protected page. Really now, that edit had nothing to do with the reason for protecting the page. So I resent the implication that I did something inappropriate. — Edokter (talk) — 21:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, but it must first be brought up on the talk page. No admin can decide what is controversial or not without first making a proposal to it on the talk page of a fully protected page. One of the arguments for keeping the page fully protected is that It's a non-descript 30-year-old animated feature about which it is highly unlikely that any new facts will come to light. That means there is no reason for anyone to feel the need to edit the page, yet just hours after the page was protected, an admin edited through the protection, which means that there is still reason to improve the article. So why should admins only have the pleasure of editing the page at will?--Jojhutton (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Or, as an alternate (if the community is willing, that is), we could turn on Pending Changes for that article. –MuZemike 21:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Pending changes may work. Is that still being utilized?--Jojhutton (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It hasn't been disabled, but 'testing has ended'. However, in the spirit of WP:IAR, I think it's a good idea. — Edokter (talk) — 21:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

But wouldn't it, in essence, be as effective as semi-protect, or am I missing something? HalfShadow 21:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm favor of a semi protection. Make the vandal have to jump through the 3 day waiting period and 10 edits hoop before editing. Thats a pain in the ass if your socking.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Judging from this thread, that is exactly what he would do. With pending changes, capturing these edits is more bulletproof. — Edokter (talk) — 22:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection hasn't worked in the past with Bambifan101 or some of our other prolific sockers. Look at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Bambifan101/Archive. Another example is WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Brexx/Archive, which even had to be archived to be maintainable: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brexx/Archive/2009 had to be split off. Pending changes has proven to be ineffective against socking as well: too many editors just approve anything that isn't obvious vandalism, and Bambifan101 has proven to be quite good at inobvious vandalism.—Kww(talk) 22:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm hard pressed to find any sustained auto-confirmed vandalism in the past year. It doesn't mean that there isn't any, I just couldn't find it. Per WP:FULL: Persistent vandalism, or the possibility of future vandalism for highly trafficked articles, rarely provides a basis for full-protection. Full protection should only be used to stop immediate vandalism or edit warring.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

We get it, Jojhutton; you mentioned it on bold for 3 times, now. So, when are we expecting to unban Bambifan101? –MuZemike 01:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

A curiosity, Bamifan101 and Jojhutton share exactly no letters in their usernames EXCEPT THE LETTER "N", which coincidently is the last one in both (not counting numbers) names. Just saying... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Sad thing is, until I saw the signature, I thought you were serious. It's amazing how tortured SPI evidence can get at times, isn't it?—Kww(talk) 14:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh...did I just get accused of using a sock puppet? Or was the above signature suppose to have a different meaning?--Jojhutton (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Sarcasm. 15:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he was just making a joke. If you followed SPI, you'd be aware of how silly the arguments can get:Freddy369 must be the same editor as Alicia1113 ... the digits after the name are both divisible by 3!, and similar.—Kww(talk) 16:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I changed the full-protect to pending changes per the above... hope I don't get shot for it. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Not shot, but please put it back. Not only is pending changes non-standard, it doesn't work for sock-puppeting prevention, as I mentioned above. There may not be a strong consensus for what I did, but there's even less for pending changes.—Kww(talk) 16:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• If it solves the problem and is likely to do so more effectively than semi-protection or pending changes, why not go with full protection (even long term)? I see no reason why it isn't a valid option if it is what it takes to get the job done, especially as it isn't likely there is going to be any major content work on this article. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 16:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Wait, how does it not work? He can try to edit and any Bambi edits will not actually appear in the article. I don't see what your argument is here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• They won't appear until a reviewer approves them. Very few reviewers disapprove of anything but obvious vandalism, and BF doesn't participate in obvious vandalism. That was the most painful thing about the pending changes trial: watching good editors become accidentally complicit in sockpuppeting.—Kww(talk) 17:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• I was just looking through the Bambi socks and what I noticed was that there were liteally hundreds of articles being vandalized. Should we Full Protect all of those articles? Not sure why this one was chosen for a 6 month full protection, while the others are not even semi protected. If you full protect one, Bambi will just move on to another article, if he hasn't already.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• This has been his most chronic target: it's obviously some kind of obsession with him. Don't assume that that he isn't mentally ill in some fashion. Logic doesn't really apply.—Kww(talk) 17:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Still, I didn't see enough auto-confirmed socks to justify a full protection, let alone a 6 month full protection. In fact I couldn't find any recent auto-confirmed vandalism on this page at all. Could someone, who may be more in the loop, provide some diffs of recent auto-confirmed vandalism, in order to make it easier to determine what type of protection this page may actually require.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• (I will also note that 78.155.239.29/ILoveMovies246/TailsTheFox246/TailsTheFox2476 is not actually a Bambifan101 sock. All these users should remain blocked, but I will point out that the geolocation of the IP places it in Letterkenny, Ireland. The same person has made the same false claims in comments on YouTube videos, which has pointed me to his YouTube account - according to this, his name is Gerald McGrory and he lives in Dunmore, Ireland. This person isn't Bambifan101, but that doesn't change the fact that he's a vandal who should remain blocked, and admins should keep a lookout for any future socks of this guy.--TServo2050 (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• Viewpoint Pending changes is basically the right idea. It was used at Gödel's incompleteness theorems for a while against multi-year sock onslaught by associates of Carl Hewitt, mostly from IP addresses (see SPI archive), similar situation to this. It would have helped to have something like an edit comment giving instructions to reviewers about what they should be rejecting ("per talkpage consensus, please reject any edits related to XYZ") but it was better than nothing even without that feature. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 11:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Panagiotis Xenos-Kokoletsis's clueless edit-warring redux

Resolved

 – user now blocked indefinitely and talkpage access revoked, as he will not stop making legal threats towards other editors editing pages he has created. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)]

Fresh from a recent block for disruption and related sockpuppetry-assisted edit-warfare, Panagiotis Xenos-Kokoletsis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has come back with a vengeance. I left a note with Theresa Knott but she seems unavailable at the moment. So if you don't mind please block this editor. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

This can't be helped; see all the well-meaning notes in his talk page history. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It can only be helped by an indef at this stage. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

FWIW he even reverted my ANI notice for this incident. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I left a query on his Talk page asking why he saw fit to delete that...if I'm stirring the pot, feel free to trout me for it. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The only thing you deserve is a chocolate cookie for your great effort. :) But given the past history of this user your edit will be reverted. Thank you anyway. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

After this, I've indeffed. (Note the IPs listed here.) Blanking notices from your talk page is one thing; this is something else. An indef, of course, is not infinite. But there needs to be some kind of showing of willingness to collaborate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The diff you provided is unbelievable. Even the most clueless of vandals don't act this way. This redefines cluelessness. Hopefully if some clue returns to this user they can be rehabilitated. But I will not hold my breath. Thank you very much Moonriddengirl. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Legal threats

Now repeating the same legal threats and insults from his main account. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Legal threats by sock of Kokoletsis

The now blocked Kokoletsis has issued legal threats on the talk page of Moonriddengirl through a sock. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

He's already indefinitely blocked. Administrators aren't really in position to do much more than that. I'm attempting to talk to him, but worried that your two new block warnings may confuse him, given his status. He seems to be a bit confused already. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted them for that very reason - I hope Dr.K. doesn't mind. I thought you'd said all the necessary at this time. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't mind. Thank you Elen for your concern. I simply wanted to give him a message that legal threats and personal attacks are not allowed. Since Moonriddengirl has explained this to him I don't mind the removal of the warnings. Also I realise that the templated messages may not have carried the message optimally but I have given up trying to converse with a user demonstrably incapable of any kind of intelligent dialectic exchange. Thanks also go to Moonriddengirl for her reply. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

This whole thing is very much sliding into huge I-didn't-hear-that-tirades. I appreciate your patience here, and you're certainly free to keep trying for a while, but I doubt it's gonna bring any results. Interpreting our messages first as "seeking friendship" first, and then as "threats" shows what kind of warped mind we're dealing with. But like I said, try your best. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

(personal musings: so when I leave stern templated warnings I "bite the newbies"... now when I leave explanatory personalized prose, I am harassing people into "creepy friendship come-ons"... *sigh* Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC))

In a wiki environment where the collaborative effort vitally depends on intellectual exchanges among the various editors, one cannot stand in isolation and keep to themselves, incommunicado and out of touch with their surroundings and act independently of the community, especially if they also violate the communal norms. Not coincidentally, the etymology of the word "idiot" is from the Greek term which refers to "one who keeps to himself". Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

MBMadmirer

With respect to MBMadmirer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has been blocked for about a month, (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MBMadmirer/Archive) the reason given was sockpuppeting; however, while checkuser showed a number of potential socks, they were not involved in the contested editing. And those that were did not check out as socks. Could a block have been justified under Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Blocks? There may be a public relations firm involved, see http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/09/koch-wikipedia-sock-puppet/ Note the emphasis on sock-puppeting, which I'm not sure applies. I think the appearance of what seemed to be socks at Talk:Political_activities_of_the_Koch_family#Time_for_a_deletion_debate is what precipitated the initial flurry of activity. Anyway, is there a basis to continue to block MBMadmirer and if he is unblocked what warnings, advice, restrictions, etc should be made? User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

A month is pretty fair for editing under a COI with the subject, if not a little over. I don't see a username policy violation so that's clear. I would highly recommend a topic restriction in relation to the company/any COI edits, and block immediately if not followed. -- DQ (t) (e) 19:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear what's going on with this issue. Am I correct in thinking that MBMadmirer works for some kind of PR firm, and was making these edits on behalf of a client? Are the other accounts supposed to belong to other employees of the firm, using the same IP address? If so, how can we distinguish the different users? His apparent co-workers, user:Jeff Bedford, user:Crislen and user:Nanorlb, were unblocked by Arb user:Elen of the Roads as not being a socks and who "do not appear to be editing with COI". A review of their editing histories show they aren't editing about hobby-type articles. Isn't editing an article on behalf of a paid client a COI?   Will Beback  talk  22:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually it is not clear that he was doing PR work for the firm on behalf of the Kochs. What he says is

I am an admirer of the Koch family and Market Based Management. I have worked in politics and contributed to a number of wikipedia pages in the past. One of my employer's clients is Koch Industries. The purpose of this account is to contribute to articles related to these subjects. Of note, Koch Industries is a client of my employer, and with this in mind, I have carefully read through Wikipedia’s policies regarding WP:NPV, WP:V and WP:COI, and find it important to follow these closely. Keeping this in mind, I intend to seek the input of fellow editors when approaching potential edits, only moving forward after reaching adequate consensus.

I think he needs to declare exactly what his relationship is with the Kochs, and the PR firm, if there is to be an adequate declaration of conflict of interest. Given a conflict of interest, the questions are what are proper bounds; has he conducted himself within them in the past; was the block deserved at the time; what are proper guidelines for him now, which depends on his role. If he is just an admirer of the Kochs that is wholly different from doing professional PR work on Wikipedia for them. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I unblocked I think four accounts in the end of it. User:CBuiltother had been editing an article where he had a lot of sources because the subject of the article was a client of the company, but he had been very scrupulous and upfront about it. Jeff Bedford, Crislen and Nanorlb did not appear to be editing in a problematic manner either, and Jeff has a good understanding of copyright in images. MBMadmirer was editing problematically - not just the COI, he was edit warring as well, as I recall, and so drew attention to himself. The owners of the ffffour accounts I unblocked did not proxy for him, although Jeff Bedford said he knew who the guy was. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that information. If I understand correctly, all of these accounts are editing with a COI, but the judgment is that the ones which have been unblocked are editing properly given their COIs because they've acknowledged that they are engaged in paid editing. Is that right? I assume that they were tagged as socks originally because they are editing from the same IPs. If so, then I'd further assume that either we know they aren't socks only because they've said so or that we know they are socks but they aren't being abused because they work in different topics. Is that correct? While paid editing is not banned, using Wikipedia for advocacy is, per WP:NOT. Did the investigation of these accounts address that issue?   Will Beback  talk  00:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Crislen did not appear to be editing with COI (she was editing articles about Maryland, but not with any high level of activity). CBuiltother was aware of COI issues and taking steps to have all edits checked for NPOV and verifiability etc. Nanorlb had previously indicated (at David Lauren) when he was editing an article for which there was a possible COI as one of the Ralph Lauren brands was a client of theirs. Jeff Bedford communicated with Arbcom by email, and showed a good understanding of our policies, as well as providing some evidence that these four and the blocked editor were all different people. All four were warned to watch out for COI and to adhere closely to Wikipedia policies. If they have access to source material which meets our standards and which allows them to improve articles, and they avoid writing advertising puffery, this is a net asset to the project. They have been editing for some time, and no-one had complained of problematic editing from the four of them. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm rather interested as to why we often are so hypercritical of paid editing but are fairly fine with this kind of thing... NW (Talk) 02:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

My own view is just that the identified paid editors seem to be not very good at what they do (maybe we don't notice the good ones). These guys understand our policies, write well, and have good sources.

It is not that you can't identify the good ones, I thinking of one who edits for a popular consumer product; it's that you can't make much of a case because they are civil, reasonably good editors, and follow our policies; in fact, use our policies to the advantage of their client in such a way that it seems that they are paragons of virtue while you are the one breaking the rule when you add anything critical about their client. Doing PR for the Koch brothers, however, is a bit more difficult. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a need to make sure they are not gatekeeping articles, obviously. That's something that should be watched out for. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

My question right now is: why are we discussing this? I see no indication that MBMadmirer has requested to be unblocked. Unless they want to come back, I don't really see a reason to unblock. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Now that I read things more clearly (I should have asked for a clairifciation in the first place), I have to agree with HelloAnnyong, why are we dicussing the unblocking (which has not been requested) of a COI 3RR violator? The unblock of a user should require proof that 1) they understand the policies or 2) it was an incorrect block. In this case only the 1st applies because of the 3RR vio. On to the other people, if they understand NPOV and COI and are editing constructively, I have no problem with letting them live edit. -- DQ (t) (e) 05:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, I think it was just a question of whether it was accurate to label him as a sock. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, whether there was even a good reason to block him; most of his edits were to talk pages, I can't find any 3RR violation, let alone a warning. He did make some aggressive edits. My interest came from http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/09/koch-wikipedia-sock-puppet/ which implies a sock farm that did a lot of "polishing". I doubt he would edit after all this trouble and managing to produce negative rather than positive PR. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, not 3RR, but Edit Warring that Elen mentioned earlier. Maybe Elen could post the diffs, because I don't see it either. If were still talking about labeling him as a sock, we have no real basis to do it, because even with the article, we have more evidence that this was just recruiting. (I got to go now, will finish commenting later). -- DQ (t) (e) 14:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I have unblocked him and left a note at User_talk:MBMadmirer#Discussion_with_respect_to_your_block. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

User Lashuto

Resolved

 – Pls see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Folkinfo search plus others for deletion discussions Moxy (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what to do about about an editor (Lashuto (talk · contribs)) that is hell bent on adding external links and now has made a second template at Template:Musician-info-footer despite what was said and shown to the editor at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 March 7#Template:YouTube artist about our policies on the matter. I was going to speedy delete the new template but not sure this will solve the over all problem. Moxy (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Moxy, this discussion belongs on Template_talk:Musician-info-footer.--Lashuto (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Take it to TfD as well. It doesn't fit any of the speedy criteria and it's currently unused, so running it through a (now-highly publicized) TfD shouldn't be an issue. Cheers. lifebaka++ 07:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Lashuto has made this a (minor) ANI issue with this edit at the TfD which added: "I fear that Moxy is on some sort of external links hissy fit. Where is the policy rule that "Navboxes are for internal links"? Was there an ArbCom decision on this matter?" Would an uninvolved admin please peruse the two TfDs mentioned above and inform Lashuto that there is a strong consensus against the use of templates/navboxes to encourage linking to videos: such "official" templates offer video links a false aura of legitimacy. Johnuniq (talk) 07:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

On further review, there's quite a bit of incivility coming from Lashuto on the YouTube artist TfD. I'll be dropping him a note about it on his talk page. No other action is required at this time. Cheers. lifebaka++ 08:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you "Lifebaka" - I seem not to be able to communicate with him and need someone (hopefully an admin) to step up and try to communicate with him. I have been told to Foff in our first encounter and since then get responses like this. I no longer wish to communicate with him. I have been nothing but polite and pointing to policy the whole time. I simply want him to read and follow our policies and guidelines on spamming that he has been shown. All he plans on doing is advertising for music as we now have Template:Allmusic artist Template:BAE band Moxy (talk) 08:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• I've been trying to assume good faith with User:Lashuto, but I find it a bit concerning that as brand new editor, his first edits are to spam YouTube artist pages to scores of articles, followed by creating a template to enable even faster spamming. When the template was put up for a deletion discussion and it became clear that there strong consensus is to delete, he starts creating yet more templates for yet more commerical music download sites, spamming them to yet more articles, and has now created a template that allows him to add 6 of these sites to an article in a single edit. Even assuming this is a good faith attempt to improve Wikipedia, perhaps someone could request him to please stop these mass additions until these discussions have run their course. Voceditenore (talk) 12:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

O well more and more -- Template:Folkinfo search - Template:Moozone artist - Template:Qriocity artist - Template:Grooveshark artist - Template:Harmony Central ..Moxy (talk) 11:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

File an RFC/U about the behavior, if necessary. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I have left a fairly strongly worded message on Lashuto's talk page urging him to stop creating templates for the time being and start being civil. If problems persist I think blocking the account needs to be considered to prevent further disruption. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I hope he takes heed because I agree that blocking should be considered if he doesn't stop. This is becoming very disruptive. Note that he is also creating unreferenced stub articles simply to have yet another music site to put in a template, e.g. Online music database and the already speedy deleted folkinfo.org. Voceditenore (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments such as this one give me the feeling that there is a better than 50% probability that the editor is being intentionally disruptive. --rgpk (comment) 21:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Quoting The Pointer Sisters? Old school spamming. Doc talk 03:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Maybe I'm just too sensitive, but the diff RegentsPark links seems to go beyond "intentionally disruptive" right over to "grossly offensive or degrading." The disturbing sexualization of the discussion seems to indicate to me that this user clearly needs to find a home at a different website than this one. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Would someone please check these templates that have been created by Lashuto in the last couple of days:

• {{Allmusic artist}}
• {{BEA band}}
• {{Deezer artist}}
• {{Folkinfo search}}
• {{Grooveshark artist}}
• {{IMDb search}}
• {{IMSLP search}}
• {{Internet Archive search}}
• {{Moozone artist}}
• {{MusicBrainz artist2}}
• {{Qriocity artist}}
• {{SearchMusic}} and Template:Musician-info-footer redirects to this
• {{Trim pagename}}

In addition {{Harmony Central}} has been significantly edited (not sure if any others). Johnuniq (talk) 04:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Every one of them fails WP:ELNO#EL9. Once the author has stopped creating new ones they should all be TfDed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 07:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

How do we go about blocking this guy - Its clear he does not care about what has been said - this has just been made Template:ACE workid. See also His Multiple accounts.Moxy (talk) 04:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I am listening. Sure, I know it is easy to nuke everything I created. My question is, which is betta for y'all: all the YT EL's ya got on on pages like Lupe Fiasco discography or just one convenient http://www.youtube.com/artist/Lupe%20Fiasco . The former sounds like whack-a-mole to me and latter sounds like new and convenient and only sort-of YT-evil. Whatever. Either way is fine with me, I guess.--Lashuto (talk) 07:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

In that case there's already a perfectly workable solution in {{YouTube user}}, as the official videos (which are the only ones that aren't copyvios) are located under an official account. Of course we shouldn't be using the individual videos as references anyway, but that's a bigger problem with the article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Re the multiple accounts, I have filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dresian. User:Dresian, User:Teecono and User:Lashuto have been notified. Voceditenore (talk) 08:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• All three are now blocked, and apparently the one I thought was the sockmaster (Dresian), was independently blocked today as the sockpuppet of an unnamed banned user. The SPI is awaiting a CheckUser to look for sleepers. Then there's the mess to clear up... Voceditenore (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

User Loonymonkey Sucks

Someone has created an SPA account (Loonymonkey Sucks (talk · contribs)) for the sole purpose of "getting far-left editor Loonymonkey banned". I know nothing about Loonymonkey (talk · contribs) (I did check his/her history: there are no blocks; he/she has been registered for over three years and made less than 50 edits). Loonymonkey Sucks (talk · contribs) is canvassing editors to sign a petition that will be submitted to Jimbo. This strikes me as at best odd, and possibly a violation of several policies. Cresix (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Less than 50 edits? The user seems to have nearly 9000. Are you sure you looked in the right place? RolandR (talk) 11:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right. My mistake, and a very stupid one! My apologies. Cresix (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The username clearly violates the username policy and has therefore been reported at UAA. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

User just got blocked. Cresix (talk) 05:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed as each other:

• Loonymonkey Sucks (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mr. Boomabang (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Paul Beaucritz (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

–MuZemike 17:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Should sock tags be placed on any of these user pages? Cresix (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say so. GiantSnowman 18:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Fleetham

This message was first posted on WP:EAR, but I was advised to place it here.

User:Fleetham has been around for a while, but I only encountered him when he started work on articles relating to the Chinese auto industry in 2010. I have been spending about a third of my time since, trying to repair his often disruptive and confusing edits. I have engaged in countless talkpage conversations on his, mine, and article talkpages, but absolutely nothing has any impact. The problematic articles are manifold, but the biggest dispute is at Share taxi. A visit to Share taxi (and Yulon Motor, Jianghuai Automobile etc etc) and some digging around should make the problems fairly obvious. Ownership, over-referencing, chopping articles into countless subsections, and a refusal to engage in any fruitful conversation with other editors are the main problems I've encountered. There is a long harangue of the various issues (with links and quotes) listed here.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

There are some strange behaviors here, evidently including some linguistic challenges, and I don't understand at all what he means here by "all these facts need citations because I tend to add stuff that isn't true". That strange self-reference to false information aside, he seems to be trying to improve articles, but not necessarily going about it the right way. But ANI cannot handle disputes over over-referencing or chopping articles into countless subsections, until other avenues of dispute resolution have failed (see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. ANI might be able to help with "ownership" issues and refusal to engage in consensus. In terms of refusal to engage in consensus, I do see conversation here, but unfortunately it is only between the two of you; WP:3O or input from other noticeboards could help clarify consensus there. With multiple parties engaged in conversation, it becomes much easier to see who is talking and who not and who is edit warring to override consensus in implementing their preference. If there are examples of him editing in spite of clear consensus, diffs of those would be very helpful. I'm afraid that this forum is not the place to expect others to go "digging around." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the editor targets articles that are generally pretty boring, so it is hard to get other editors involved. Another editor has been getting involved here: Talk:Share_taxi#Dolmus_section - which is nice, as it has upped the civility level a notch. I would just like for someone to take a look at this editor as they are impossibly rigid and won't agree to anything other than their favored version. I know it's boooring, but...  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

For another data point involving different editors, see the lengthy debate on Talk:Fastenal where User:Fleetham makes 14 references to assorted Wikipedia policies. - Ttwaring (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

IP-hopping editor at Rachel Ter Horst

Resolved

 – semi-protected, material RevDel'ed Jclemens (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

An IP-hopping editor is repeatedly adding text to this article describing images he's seen of this "glamour model," first uncited, then cited to images which purport to be of the model. These "references" uniformly fail WP:RS and WP:BLP; they're message board posts in a dubious forum, boobpedia.com, etc., as well as violating policy regarding linking to copyvio sites. This has been a recurrent problem with the article, similar text, even more graphic, has repeatedly been removed without incident in the past [76] [77]. The content is clearly inappropriate, the user clearly an experienced editor; I don't know whether rangeblocking would be effective/appropriate or if semiprotection of the article is required. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Reference from vintage erotica forum - not sure I see the dubaiety - which has 20 pages of images of Miss Ter Horst taken from various RS magazines: Playboy, Mayfair, Club, Men Only, etc. I'm not particularly experienced an editor but I do know what an RS is and I do know that Hullaballoo is vandalising, and deserves a block for this. --92.40.18.104 (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring from US House of Representatives

143.231.249.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Mrxpress2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An IP address registered to the US House of Representatives, 143.231.249.138, is edit warring on a politician's article. I thought I would bring this to ANI's attention because I know the potential gravity of blocking such addresses. Kansan (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Could be the Mrxpress2 account, logged out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

That IP address is used mostly for partisan edits to spin articles in favor of conservative Republican incumbents. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Note that the IP address has an extensive block record and that the latest edits which include largescale remove of sourced content [78] (I don't think that the HuffPo is a good source there and it should be replaced by something less partisan but the content as a whole seems sourced) come right after the last block expired. A longer block may be in order. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It's most likely the staff of some of the congressman editing their bosses articles. Nothing serious to worry about, this type of thing happens with corporations also. Just treat this as a usual case.AerobicFox (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

These two have removed the entire "political views" section from Daniel Webster (Florida politician) multiple times and refuse to consider anything other than their own views about it, accusing those who edited the article of being liberal Democrats trying to insert their POV. This is ridiculous because, unlike them, I will freely admit my potential biases and say that I wrote most of those sections and I am a Conservative Republican who took great care to only say things from news sources and minimize my own biases when writing the article. If anything, it may have unintentional biases TOWARD Mr. Webster, since I voted for him; the fact is, they are whitewashing from an internet address withing the US House of Representatives, and this is reprehensible. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 03:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. There is no reason though to fear this will blow into anything more than the usual POV pusher just because the IP is from the house of representatives. If they're edit warring to remove content they don't like then they should indeed be banned.AerobicFox (talk) 05:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I find this case of extreme interest and urge an admin or admins to look into it and take action if need be. Jusdafax 04:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Braganca4646 Part 2

Resolved

 – Editing holidays awarded by EdJohnston --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yesterday, I reported User:Braganca4646 for POV pushing/edit warring and evading final warning by creating an account after multiple warnings. Admin Diaana added a note saying that he has stopped editing and to report again if the IPs and the editor start editing again. Only a day later he is back and doing the same thing. There is an SPI open for him, but that is getting nowhere despite people there asking "why he hasn't been blocked yet" and him continuing to edit both as IPs and as the account.

Here we have an editor who edit warred, insulted people, had his multiple contributions rev deleted, received multiple "final warnings", registered an account to evade the final warning, tried blanking the ANI report and is repeating the same POV pushing/edit warring. Can someone please block this guy and be done with?. He has already wasted multiple editors' time and shows no sign of stopping. This sort of delaying just wastes people's time and makes them frustrated. (Please dont dismiss this saying he hasnt edited in ten hours, come back in a day and make me file yet another ANI report tomorrow) --Sodabottle (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I have spent about the last hour examining the activity of both IPs and the user account. Whilst the edits since the SPI was launched are not as extreme as the ones before, there are still serious issues and I have said so at the SPI investigation. Please relax while HelloAnnyong makes the decision. It's night time in India and Braganca4646 is not editing at present. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Pattern of Editing Article by Redsjava and Anon IP 70.239.199.8

Redsjava (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
70.239.199.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

UPDATE: I ran a whois check on the IP address, and the results could be found here. This record shows a connection to the Academy of Art University, the article in question for this inquiry.

Here's the relevant details from the record:

NETWORK

NetRange 70.239.199.0 - 70.239.199.255

CIDR 70.239.199.0/24

Name SBC07023919900024051223105052

Handle NET-70-239-199-0-1

Parent SBCIS-SIS80 (NET-70-224-0-0-1)

Net Type Reassigned

Origin AS

Nameservers

Customer Academy of Art University (C01249896)

Registration Date 2005-12-23

Last Updated 2005-12-23

I'm experiencing what appears to be emerging issues with both user Redsjava and anon IP 70.239.199.8 for the article Academy of Art University. The account Redsjava seems to be used to exclusively edit Academy of Art University. Although the IP account 70.239.199.8 has been used to a large extent to edit the article Academy of Art University, the IP account has been used to edit other articles in addition to this one.

The anon IP 70.239.199.8 went behind RedsJava to revert the content in the Academy of Art University article, using the same reasons as Redsjava. Both appear to make edits to the same article in tandem. RedsJava has questioned my actions regarding the affected content by posting unsigned messages on my User Talk page, even though I posted my rationale in the article's edit summary and on its Talk page. I was able to identify the poster after a bot added the signature of that person's account.

At one point, I had to post an advisory for both RedsJava and IP 70.239.199.8 for WP:SPAM when both accounts were used in excess to advertise degrees from the school. In this case, one of these account was used to add the advertising content, and the other account was used to revert my removal of the questional content from the article.

For the last editing incident, I repeated in part my rationale for restoring the content and directed the user to revisit my post on the article's Talk page. This response was left on the User Talk page for Redsjava after a bot identified this user as the poster of this unsigned message. I have responded from Redsjava/70.239.199.8 for the second time after one user or the other leaving unsigned messages on my page.

In the meantime, here are the diffs for revisions in question that involve both Redsjava/70.239.199.8:

(1) Adding excessive advertising in the article:

January 24, 2011 IP 97.65.178.2 adds excessive links from school's site to advertise degrees

January 26, 2011 Lwalt restores the previous version of article to remove the excessive linking to school site

February 3, 2011 IP 70.239.199.8 reverts the content to restore the excessive linking to the school's site added by IP 97.65.178.2.

February 6, 2011 Lwalt restores the version of article that does not include the excessive linking.

February 7, 2011 Redsjava undid revision by Lwalt, but this time removing the links to the school and leaving in place text to advertise degrees in the list of individual programs when the information is mentioned in the prose of the article.

February 11, 2011 Lwalt edited the article to cleanup formatting issue and remove references to degrees in list, since this information is already mentioned in the content of the subsection.

(2) Deleted sourced content from article:

March 8, 2011 Sourced content deleted by 70.239.199.5

March 8, 2011 Sourced content restored by Lwalt

March 9, 2011 Sourced content reverted to deleted status by Redsjava

March 12, 2011 Sourced content restored to article again by Lwalt

Here are the diffs for the dialogue related to these incidents:

unsigned message by Redsjava/70.239.199.8 about removing excessive linking from article. Another user with an anon IP 97.65.178.2 seemed to be involved in the first incident, since edits to the content in that case also involved Redjava/70.239.199.8 to some degree.

Bot identifies poster of unsigned message to Lwalt regarding sourced content restored to article

Lwalt posts message to IP user 70.239.199.8 regarding marketing links. I edited the message to correct the error in year of the date from 2010 to 2011.

Lwalt posts the same message to Redsjava regarding marketing links. Diff for the complete message is no longer available as user likely deleted the original message.

Response of Lwalt to second unsigned message

Edited response referring poster to article's Talk page to discuss the issue

Are Redsjava and 70.239.199.8 the same person? This person seems to be itching for some sort of edit war (something I don't care to engage in or waste my time or energy with this behavior) using both accounts to push a point of view. Is there anything more that's needed to address this issue or encourage discussion of different viewpoints, rather than these disruptive actions? →Lwalt ^♦ talk 03:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Most likely Redsjava is connected to the school and the IP edits are them editing logged out, perhaps unknowingly. The fact that the IP and redsjava are using the exact same word-for-word rationale to remove well-sourced negative content indicates to me they are the same person. I don't see any evidence of abusive sockpuppetry, but I do see a few instances of disruptive editing. N419BH 05:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Suspicious image uploads

Resolved

 – All sketchy images have now been dealt with. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 15:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Can someone who can actually see the images please check out the uploads of HappyLogolover2011 (talk · contribs)? For example, the image description pages at File:M11 bg02.png and File:K12 miu1.png make absolutely no sense; they seem to have been copied from other images. I have reverted the addition of those two images to the sky article, but there are also some Disney logos and other things that might need to be checked out. Graham87 03:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

(Apparently this didn't post last night) The two images look like a copyvio but I can't pin point where. TinEye search 1 & TinEye search 2. As for the disney images, I don't think the user understands that FUR prefers low resolution images. -- DQ (t) (e) 13:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

They look like something lifted from a movie. Any idea what "the Mansion" refers to? Maybe Disney's Haunted Mansion or one of its spinoffs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Both of the sky images are now listed at Files for Deletion. I hunted for a source but was unable to pinpoint where they were lifted from (I strongly suggest they are copy vio). I am going to examine the other uploads; some of them have been in our collection for a while but HappyLogoLover has uploaded new versions that are a little too big and need to be deleted. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 15:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

This Tin Eye website is great. It is now officially cool beans. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 15:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. Graham87 01:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll just assume that the new versions of the files that the user uploaded are OK. Graham87 02:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I checked each one and deleted almost every one. But it seems the activity has resumed so it's back to the drawing board. I will re-check what they are up to --Diannaa ^(Talk) 07:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

FUKAB (and aliases)

Resolved

Three days ago, FUKAB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (whose username appears to also be an intentional slur directed at Abandonia - which is frequently referred to by the shorthand "AB") has vandalised the Abandonia article and created an attack page directed at Abandonia on his personal userpage (now deleted due to CSD/G10). After his edits were reverted, the following message was sent through our website's contact form:

glad you liked the change to your wiki page oyu sad fucjks,. if only you had been nicer and more polite and helpful and this would never have had to happen at all. instead you are a Bunch of assholes who probably fuck eavch other in the ass all night cos you r so in love with each other you sick fucks

The logged sender corresponds to a user who has been recently disabled on Abandonia due to his behavior in our forums. Details of both that and the source of the e-mail may be provided if needed.

Yesterday, a new account called Fukabandonia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalised the userpage of L-Zwei (who reverted his prior vandalism) and then reverted the disruptive edits back into the Abandonia article. His activity on L-Zwei's userpage may be construed as an attempt to violate WP:OUTING (explanation: Abandonia has a staff member called "Chosen" with whom one of the vandal's prior aliases had interacted with).

The user has not met the conditions for a WP:AIV report yet (due to not having received a sufficient number of warnings), but his behavior in combination with the usernames utilised and the e-mail he sent to us shows that his sole purpose on Wikipedia is to vanadalise the article and attempt harrassment of pople he believes to be members of Abandonia's staff or associated with it. --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 13:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Did no one tell him how much we enjoy dealing with off-wiki disputes? Both indef'd. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Requesting block for editor making overtly racist edits

Resolved

 – Indeffed N419BH 05:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

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

User:Giornorosso was recently warned about edit-warring on Types of rape for repeatedly inserting "Race is a very significant factor in determining offenders. Most of gang rape offenders in the UK are black", which is a gross distortion of the source. This followed their insertion of "nigger" into an image caption, which sadly went unnoticed. Here are a few more choice examples, but there seems to be a specific agenda underlying all of their editing: [79], [80], [81], & [82].

Giornorosso has already been indef blocked on de.wiki for a single racist comment. On Commons, they have included pro-Gadaffi comments in image uploads ([83] & [84]). I suggest that their contribution history be carefully reviewed following an indef block (Gang rape is a new fork of Types of rape, for example). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The n-word comment was added by an IP, not Giornorosso. His edit was to add an image of Barak Obama. Another edit calls someone a "black supremacist" without a source. Another adds unsourced stats on prison populations. One of your diffs is of Giornorosso adding the n-word to a page to describe a group of people. No comment on the links from other wikis. N419BH 00:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

? I wonder if you were looking at the wrong link. He added the word "nigger" in the link supplied; no IP has edited that article in quite some time, as it has been semi-protected since 2008. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)This is the diff of him adding "nigger" on the Nigeria article which is what was being referred to by DC I believe. There is a distinct theme to many of his edits relating to Roma, blacks, muslims and crime. Some of the edits are sourced - rather dubiously, but some of his edits like the Nigerian one are pure vandalism of a particularly offensive kind. This an editor with an obvious agenda and a willingness to vandalise. I would propose an indef. block. Fainites ^barleyscribs 00:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for racist vandalism. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

He's requested an unblock, of course. Could someone more familiar than I with how SUL works verify that this demonstrates that it's the same person on the various wikis? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It's the same person. If it weren't, the last column would say something like unattached or unconnected. I'm denying the unblock request. NW (Talk) 16:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Materialscientist‎

Resolved

 – Strike through and semi's applied. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Can we get some semi-protection and RevDels there please? - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 14:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 15:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

(Not by me, I went there and found the actions taken - just placing resolved template, at second attempt, here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC))

Hauskalainen

Hello. Hauskalainen (talk · contribs) has recently made a series of allegations that I and another user (User:Slatersteven) are are involved in off-wiki collusion and are supporters of the British National Party or extremist politics in general.

Diffs: [85] [86] [87] [88] [89]

I made clear to Hauskalainen that I wan't happy and asked him to remove the comments at his takpage here: User_talk:Hauskalainen. He has responded, but does not seem to see that he has done anything wrong. Far from removing the comments, he went back and edited them so as to additionally offend against Godwin's Law: [90].

My request is: please could an admin either delete the material contained in the diffs above or else give me clearance to do it, then please give some advice to Hauskalainen so that the behaviour isn't repeated.

Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I would add that the user seems to be using the accusation as an attempt at intimidation [[91]]. The user has also refused to appoligise or to retract the accusation [[92]].Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly a series of personal attacks and Hauskalainen should be blocked unless it is retracted. TFD (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone should advise Hauskalainen that excessive use of the caps lock key and the bold face markup has the opposite to the intended effect. Instead of strengthening one's argument, it weakens it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I think at this stage a warning is all that is needed. Unless this represents a patern of attitude.Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• I have indef blocked the account until they provide the alleged evidence or they confirm they will redact said allegations. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Would it be OK to remove the material from NPOVN? I consider the claims made there to be a serious slur and it's quite a public location. --FormerIP (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be best if it were redacted rather than removed, so the more legitimate aspects of the discussion can remain in the original format. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

This is my concearn, if he does not retract it the accusatio remains there. Thus the slur on our characters. I have no major issue with it but would have liked toi have had the chande to refute the evidacen rather then allow the inuendo (and thus the doubt) to remain.Slatersteven (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Please feel free to review this edit: [93]. Steven: I've also slightly edited one of your posts in the process. Hope that's okay. --FormerIP (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

No probs, but i am not sure that there was consensus for the materials removal.Slatersteven (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Question, regarding LessHeard's comment above: "provide the alleged evidence" - why would providing such evidence of the user's membership of extreme political movements justify the users comments? It's not against Wikipedia policy to be affiliated with political groups if it doesn't affect your editing, but WP:NPA and its derivatives are applied across the board. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I've got no problem with the idea that Hauskalainen can be unblocked if he can convince a reviewing admin that his allegations had a basis, because he won't be able to do that. --FormerIP (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The accusatin (and thus the evidacen) is about POV pushing based uopon political advicacy (and indead COI).Slatersteven (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

IRWolfie-

User IRWolfie- is seriously disrupting the Frank J. Tipler article by deleting peer-reviewed papers in mainstream scientific journals and proceedings. Here is a diff: [94]. As I said to him on that article's Talk page on this matter after he had already been repeatedly told about how this is improper:

This time around you also deleted "Cosmological Limits on Computation", which was published in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics (published by Springer). You also deleted numerous other mainstream scientific peer-reviewed journal papers, such as from the International Journal of Astrobiology (published by Cambridge University Press) and Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science (published by Wiley-Blackwell). You also deleted the peer-reviewed proceedings papers (peer-review is a standard process in proceedings papers).

Based upon your deletions of these peer-reviewed papers in mainstream scientific journals and proceedings, it appears that you are simply attempting to disrupt this article.

--Jamie Michelle (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

My response in Talk:Frank_J._Tipler#Journals and my improvements should show that I am acting in good faith to try and improve the article. The "journal of religion & science" is not a reliable scientific journal nor is the Journal of Astrobiology. The "Cosmological limits on computation" is about the possibility of universal turing machines also and so not related to the specific claims. I have made further edits to tidy up the article and separate Tipler's scientific work from his personal work on religion. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The International Journal of Astrobiology is published by Cambridge University Press. Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science is published by Wiley-Blackwell and is the world's leading journal on science and religion.

The paper "Cosmological Limits on Computation" was the first paper published on the Omega Point cosmology, so you have not the slightest clue in the world as to what you are talking about.

Based upon your complete ignorance on this topic, there is no possible way that you could improve the article, except for perhaps grammar.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no need for personal attacks. Also note that I am a fully qualified physicist. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

also the "zygon: journal of religion & science" is not a scientific journal as is evident from http://www.zygonjournal.org/. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science is published by Wiley-Blackwell and is the world's leading journal on science and religion. Here is Wiley-Blackwell's Zygon homepage: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1467-9744 .

You ignorantly said that the paper "Cosmological Limits on Computation" didn't much concern the topic of the article, when in fact it was the first paper published on the Omega Point cosmology, so you have not the slightest clue in the world as to what you are talking about.

I didn't make a personal attack upon you, I simply pointed out the fact that you have not the slightest idea about this subject, and so it is logically impossible that you could improve the article except for edits involving grammar and typos, and the like.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Again please no ad hominem attacks. Zygon may or may not be a good journal or not, but still it is not a scientific journal. Zygon describes itself as "Zygon is an interdisciplinary journal". "The paper Cosmological Limits on Computation" concerns itself with the fundamental feasibility of a universal turing machine. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The paper "Cosmological Limits on Computation" is the first paper published on the Omega Point cosmology (Tipler even explicitly names the Omega Point in this paper). The Omega Point cosmology *concerns* how a universal Turing machine is physically possible. So you have not the slightest clue in the world as to what you are talking about.

Pointing out that you have no idea whatsoever as to what you are talking about on this subject is not a personal attack upon you. Rather, it's simply pointing out that it is logically impossible that you could improve the article except for edits involving grammar and typos, and the like.

Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science is published by Wiley-Blackwell and is the world's leading academic journal on science and religion.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Note there have been problems with Jamie Michelle tendentiously editing Tipler articles in the past. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That is a false statement. A number of vandals, and also stalkers of myself, had shown up due to their ideological dislike of the Omega Point (Tipler) article from having seen a news report on Prof. Tipler that was posted on some antitheist discussion boards, with some of them being banned for their vandalism and their nasty and extremely hateful abuse of me.

I notice you also appear to be among their circle, given how you follow me around in order to make comments like the above and in order to support those who disrupt the Tipler articles, which doesn't speak at all well for you.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that Jamiemichelle is still reverting every change I have ever made to the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That is a false statement. I did not add back the correspondence. You have admitted above that you know absolutely nothing about the Omega Point cosmology, and so it is not logically possible for you to improve the article except by editing grammar and typos, and the like.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is a diff of your revert: [95]. Here is a diff of before I edited the page and after you reverted all changes. The only paper you have removed is the nature correspondence, whereas you removed all further edits I made to the page. [96]. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

So you here admit that your statement that I have reverted every change you made is false. Like I said, I did not add back the correspondence. All your other edits which delete the peer-reviewed papers in mainstream science journals and proceedings are highly disruptive, and so of course they are going to be reverted.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are the diffs of the attacks against me by the user Jamiemichelle. [97] [98] [99]. The user also reverted my edits three times within 24 hours as can be seen here [100] IRWolfie- (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I have never made any attack upon you in the slightest. You are the one who has repeatedly admitted both above and on the Frank J. Tipler Talk page that you do not have even the slightest knowledge about the Omega Point cosmology. I have merely used these admissions by you to point out that it is logically impossible for you to improve an article whose subject you know nothing about, except for making edits concerning formatting, grammar, typos, and other such edits which don't require any knowledge of the subject.--Jamie Michelle (talk)

• (Non-administrator comment) Content dispute, tendentious editing on both sides, and possible ownership issues. Suggest dispute resolution process. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no "tendentious" edits on my part, as I'm merely reverting highly disruptive edits by a person who has repeatedly admitted that they know nothing whatsoever about the subject which they are presuming to edit. Nor is there any "ownership" issues on my part, as deleting peer-reviewed papers in mainstream science journals and proceedings is extremely disruptive. I would hope anybody would revert such edits, particularly by a person who has admitted that they have no clue about what the papers talk about which they are deleting.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Content dispute, and a fairly major mess. Looks like some possible ownership issues and perhaps undue weight given to some fronts. Sorting through it at the moment. Both of you are at 3 reverts for the day, by the way. N419BH 21:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Jamiemichelle (talk · contribs) violation of WP:3RR

It appears as though the following constitute reversion of the same information, namely the re-addition of ten references to back up a single sentence:

1. 1:50 3/13/2011
2. 18:11 3/13/2011
3. 19:20 3/13/2011
4. 19:36 3/13/2011

The final two attack IRWolfie's credibility in the edit summary. N419BH 21:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously I'm accusing him of being disruptive, and hence lacking in credibility. That's what this report is about.

IRWolfie- has repeatedly admitted above and on the Frank J. Tipler Talk page that he has no knowledge whatsoever about the Omega Point cosmology. That wouldn't be a problem in and of itself if he would not attempt to make edits based upon that complete lack of knowledge, yet he has repeatedly attempted to delete the paper "Cosmological Limits on Computation" based upon his ignorance of the subject. He finally on the Talk page admitted that he was wrong in attempting to delete that article.

Now Tim Shuba (who is part of an antitheist crowd that got involved in articles associated with Prof. Tipler after a news report on Tipler was posted to some antitheist discussion boards) has re-deleted this article, which IRWolfie- admits that he was wrong to delete. As well, Tim Shuba has also reinstated IRWolfie-'s other deletions of the peer-reviewed papers published in mainstream journals and proceedings.

These edits are improper and violate Wikipedia policy regarding credible sources.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Your four reverts in one day are also improper. I agree with Tim's edits and have added a few myself. Instead of arguing about which version is correct, why don't you find references to back up the positive statements made about the gentleman. One reference will do per sentence. N419BH 22:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but, for the record it should be noted that I made no such admittance that I have "no knowledge whatsoever". IRWolfie- (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You have repeatedly admitted that you have no knowledge whatsoever regarding the Omega Point cosmolgy. Look above in this thread: you repeatedly stated that the paper "Cosmological Limits on Computation" didn't belong in the article, because you said it was about universal Turing machines. On the Frank J. Tipler Talk page you admit that you were wrong about this paper.

The paper "Cosmological Limits on Computation" is the first paper published on the Omega Point cosmology (Tipler even explicitly names the Omega Point in this paper). The Omega Point cosmology *concerns* how a universal Turing machine is physically possible.

When Prof. Tipler states in that abstract "In particular, it is shown that it [i.e., a physical universal Turing machine] is possible only if the universe is closed and only if its future c-boundary consists of a single point", that is the Omega Point cosmology that he is speaking about. And again, Tipler explicitly names the Omega Point in this paper. The Omega Point is the is name that Tipler gives in this paper for this future single-point c-boundary: hence the name "Omega Point", meaning end-point at a literal geometric point of infinite sharpness.

So you have not the slightest clue in the world as to what you are talking about on this subject. It is therefore logically impossible that you could improve the article except for edits involving formatting, grammar, typos, and the like, which don't require any knowledge on the subject.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Tim Shuba

User Tim Shuba has reinstated user IRWolfie-'s disruptive edits already reported on this board: [101].

Tim Shuba is part of a crowd of antitheist ideologues who for some time now have been dirupting articles associeted with Prof. Frank J. Tipler. Viz.: [102].

Awhile back, a number of vandals, and also stalkers of myself, had shown up due to their ideological dislike of the Omega Point (Tipler) article from having seen a news report on Prof. Tipler that was posted on some antitheist discussion boards, with some of them being banned for their vandalism and their nasty and extremely hateful abuse of me.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I've moved this from being it's own thread to being a section of this one as the matters are directly related. You didn't notify Tim as required. I strongly suggest reading WP:BOOMERANG before continuing. N419BH 22:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to notify him, but I'll do that now.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Disruption of article, improper deletion of peer-reviewed papers in mainstream journals and proceedings

IRWolfie- has repeatedly admitted above and on the Wikipedia Administrators noticeboard [103] that he has no knowledge whatsoever about the Omega Point cosmology. That wouldn't be a problem in and of itself if he would not attempt to make edits based upon that complete lack of knowledge, yet he has repeatedly attempted to delete the paper "Cosmological Limits on Computation" based upon his ignorance of the subject. He finally above admitted that he was wrong in attempting to delete that article.

But his other deletions of peer-reviewed papers in mainstream journals and proceedings is also utterly improper and a violation of Wikipedia policy regarding reliable sources: "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." [104]

Now Tim Shuba (who is part of an antitheist crowd that got involved in articles associated with Prof. Tipler after a news report on Tipler was posted to some antitheist discussion boards) has re-deleted the "Cosmological Limits on Computation" paper, which IRWolfie- admits above that he was wrong to delete. As well, Tim Shuba has also reinstated IRWolfie-'s other deletions of the peer-reviewed papers published in mainstream journals and proceedings, which as I said is an utter violation of Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources.

Out of ten of Prof. Frank J. Tipler's papers that are published in mainstream scientific journals and proceedings, all of them except for three papers have been deleted from the article. It blatanty appears that IRWolfie- and Tim Shuba's intentions here are to make it appear as if Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology hasn't been as widely published in the mainstream scientific literature as it in fact has been. At any rate, this is an utter violation of Wikipedia policy regarding reliable sources: "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science."[105]

The following are the seven (out of ten) of Prof. Frank J. Tipler's papers published in mainstream scientific journals and proceedings which have been deleted by IRWolfie- and Tim Shuba:

• Frank J. Tipler, "Cosmological Limits on Computation", International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 (June 1986), pp. 617-661, doi:10.1007/BF00670475, Bibcode:1986IJTP...25..617T. (First paper on the Omega Point Theory.)
• Frank J. Tipler, "The Anthropic Principle: A Primer for Philosophers", PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1988, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers (1988), pp. 27-48; published by University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Philosophy of Science Association.
• Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists", Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 24, Issue 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1989.tb01112.x. Republished as Chapter 7: "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions to Scientists" in Carol Rausch Albright and Joel Haugen (editors), Beginning with the End: God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg (Chicago, Ill.: Open Court Publishing Company, 1997), pp. 156-194, ISBN 0812693256, LCCN 97-114.
• Frank J. Tipler, "A New Condition Implying the Existence of a Constant Mean Curvature Foliation", Bibcode:1993dgr2.conf..306T, in B. L. Hu and T. A. Jacobson (editors), Directions in General Relativity: Proceedings of the 1993 International Symposium, Maryland, Volume 2: Papers in Honor of Dieter Brill (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 306-315, ISBN 0521452678, Bibcode:1993dgr2.conf.....H.
• Frank J. Tipler, "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe", NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop Proceedings, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, January 1999, pp. 111-119; an invited paper in the proceedings of a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, August 12-14, 1998; doi:10.2060/19990023204. Document ID: 19990023204. Report Number: E-11429; NAS 1.55:208694; NASA/CP-1999-208694. Mirror link.
• Frank J. Tipler, "The Ultimate Future of the Universe, Black Hole Event Horizon Topologies, Holography, and the Value of the Cosmological Constant", arXiv:astro-ph/0104011, April 1, 2001. Published in J. Craig Wheeler and Hugo Martel (editors), Relativistic Astrophysics: 20th Texas Symposium, Austin, TX, 10-15 December 2000 (Melville, N.Y.: American Institute of Physics, 2001), pp. 769-772, ISBN 0735400261, LCCN 2001-94694, which is AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 586 (October 15, 2001), doi:10.1063/1.1419654, Bibcode:2001AIPC..586.....W.
• Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology", International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, Issue 2 (April 2003), pp. 141-148, doi:10.1017/S1473550403001526, Bibcode:2003IJAsB...2..141T; also available here. Also at arXiv:0704.0058, March 31, 2007.

Again, all of the above deleted papers are peer-reviewed and published in mainstream scientific journals or proceedings, and thus deleting them is a complete violation of Wikipedia policy regarding reliable sources: [106].--Jamie Michelle (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent me, I made no such claims as you show in the first paragraph, please provide diffs. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You have repeatedly admitted that you have no knowledge whatsoever regarding the Omega Point cosmolgy. Look above in this thread: you repeatedly stated that the paper "Cosmological Limits on Computation" didn't belong in the article, because you said it was about universal Turing machines. On the Frank J. Tipler Talk page you admit that you were wrong about this paper.

The paper "Cosmological Limits on Computation" is the first paper published on the Omega Point cosmology (Tipler even explicitly names the Omega Point in this paper). The Omega Point cosmology *concerns* how a universal Turing machine is physically possible.

When Prof. Tipler states in that abstract "In particular, it is shown that it [i.e., a physical universal Turing machine] is possible only if the universe is closed and only if its future c-boundary consists of a single point", that is the Omega Point cosmology that he is speaking about. And again, Tipler explicitly names the Omega Point in this paper. The Omega Point is the is name that Tipler gives in this paper for this future single-point c-boundary: hence the name "Omega Point", meaning end-point at a literal geometric point of infinite sharpness.

So you have not the slightest clue in the world as to what you are talking about on this subject. It is therefore logically impossible that you could improve the article except for edits involving formatting, grammar, typos, and the like, which don't require any knowledge on the subject.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Jamiemichelle seems to be confusing 'doesn't accept everything about my pet cosmology' with 'knows nothing about'. We have fringe for a reason, people using actual sources instead of "religious science" claptrap to back up what we put in writing about the structure of the universe should be a common event, and fall under WP:FRINGE. Do a substantial majority of practicing cosmologists openly dismiss it? Then its use should be minimal and restricted to articles about the fringe theory. -- ۩ Mask 03:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)