Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive532

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jorge Ferreira (Portuguese singer)

Resolved

 – all deleted and user warned --Chris 03:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

After closing this as delete (and deleting several hundred pages), Robotixi (talk · contribs) re-created everything. Could somebody take a look? Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Re-deleting per G4. Nakon 03:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems like User:Chris G beat me to it Nakon 03:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Shuppiluliuma

Honestly, the new CU process vexes me for legacy cases. If anyone can take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shuppiluliuma for me, since it seems to have stalled instantly for lack of informed admins, I would greatly appreciate it as regards User:Shiham K and all underlying IPs. Hiberniantears (talk) 04:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

For further background see the post to WT:SPI at Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations#Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shuppiluliuma

The problem here is simply that the reporter of the case has gotten a tad confused on what to do to create a case. I have provided the reporter instructions on WT:SPI such that they simply need to click a link and fill in the details. (The new process is similar to RFCU, nothing new to reporters) As he has stated on WT:SPI this case is old and the checkusers that did the case before are not around anymore.

If possible further comments/issues can be dealt with at WT:SPI rather then here to avoid having multiple discussions on the same issue. —— nixeagle^{email me} 05:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack by IP

Resolved

 – blocked IP Dreadstar † 06:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

An IP has been disruptive by not providing sources for his claim that Vancouver does not belong in the Pacific Northwest. Several users have been reverting his edits and recently made a personal attack on me on my talk page. See here.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 04:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This user has also been quacking although the username was blocked due to it's inappropriate nature.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 05:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

IP blocked for 7 days. Dreadstar † 06:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Bulbasaur the pokemon, suspicious behavior

• Bulbasaur the pokemon (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Bulbasaur the pokemon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)(this second link is for ease of blocking)

This account is a new user, however, I have several questions for the community below:

• How does a new user with only three edits, at the time of this edit, know what checkuser is?

• How does a new user find an indefinitly blocked user's talk page?

• How does a new user know what the the criteria or Prod for deletion templates are?

• Same as question number two, also, how does a new user know of the{{indefblockeduser}} template.

Thank you for your time, in answering these questions.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be related to blocked user User:Toothy7465, blocked indef. Nakon 06:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I was about to say that they may have also exercised WP:RTV and come back, but socks are socks...(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 06:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Jokestress re homosexual transsexual etc.

Resolved

 – No admin action is needed and Hfarmer has chosen to go to ArbCom. AniMate^talk 07:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I have worked with as best I can user:Jokestress. I have done so inspite of her attacking me off wiki. Though sore over it I have mostly let it slide. I feel that Jokestress may have, in the case of the article Homosexual transsexual crossed some sort of threshold. She made this edit [1]. I then taking her at her word and acting in good faith made this edit to the talk page [2] and this edit to the article [3]. Then I made this edit to the talk page where I'll admit to calling Jokestress out on her repeated incivilities to me over this sort of thing.[4] Another user who did a bit of digging user:WhatamIdoing found this more complete quote of the source [5], which shows jokestress left out an important piece of information. Specifically the term homosexual transsexual, wich from the website I linked where she attacks me you can tell she really does not like, was at least for a time in the DSM-III-R. What does this look like to you all.

What can be done about someone who admits to having WP:COI and thus does not edit the article voluntarily, yet tries to pressure and influence those who don't have a COI into writing what they want? Stooping even to a blantant slective quoting, and omission of important matterial? There has to be some recourse. Right?--Hfarmer (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

My outside view: Apparently Jokestress called Hfarmer a "fake" transsexual on a non-Wikipedia site, and Hfarmer doesn't like that. I have no idea at all if this is true or not, and I don't care. Jokestress's claims about Hfarmer did not reference Wikipedia, and so far as I can see they have nothing to do with this site at all.

It's clear that Hfarmer holds a grudge against Jokestress, but he seems to have attempted to be (barely) civil nonetheless. Again, this shouldn't have anything to do with Wikipedia.

It looks to me like Jokestress gave a lengthy quote about the term "Homosexual transsexual" on the article's talk page, and Hfarmer used that information to update the article. Another user found a different quote from the same source which Hfarmer believes lessens the impact of the original quote (although that's debatable). I don't see any manipulative or dishonest "selective quoting" by Jokestress. Nor do I see her pressuring anyone to write anything specific.

In short, I don't see any reason Jokestress should be reprimanded for off-Wiki comments that don't refer to Wikipedia, or for quoting from a source on a talkpage. I'd simply advise all editors to stay cool and try not to take things personally. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 00:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not a different quote from the same article. Look closer. She actually omitted from the source a bit of information that did not suit her. As for calling me a fake, you can look at my youtube cite and see how not fake I am if you care. [6] Look at the citation from WhatmaIdoing and look at what Jokestress did, then go to that talk page and look at the link whatamIdoing gave... What jokestress did was like... Suppose I quoted you Quadell like so

My outside view: Apparently Jokestress called Hfarmer a "fake" transsexual.It looks to me like Jokestress gave a lengthy quote about the term "Homosexual transsexual" on the article's talk page, and Hfarmer used that information to update the article. Another user found a different quote from the same source which Hfarmer believes lessens the impact of the original quote (although that's debatable). I see any manipulative or dishonest "selective quoting" by Jokestress. Nor do I see her pressuring anyone to write anything specific.In short, Jokestress should be reprimanded for off-Wiki comments that don't refer to Wikipedia, or for quoting from a source on a talkpage. I'd simply advise all editors to stay cool and try not to take things personally. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 00:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thus totally changing the meaning of the words. And by the by calling a transsexual He is not civil either.--Hfarmer (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for calling you a "he". It wasn't intentional; I'd just made a dumb assumption. (7 out of 8 Wikipedian identify as male.) I wish English had common gender-neutral pronouns. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

See what I mean by selective quoting. Now take this seriously and look at the sitation for more than 1:30 sec.--Hfarmer (talk) 01:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be content dispute. Having spent more than 1:30 sec looking this over, I don't see anything actionable. AniMate^talk 01:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You also say that the website she links does not mention my wikipedia editing. Take a look at this ############# (I don't even want that to be a on a main page long enough for google to crawl it please check the edit history for the link. It basically makes it sound like any article I edith that has to do with transsxual/transgender issues is biased, and says much worse things than that.) Look at the list of articles they claim comprise that POV. Consider that according to these people pressure and blackmail are warranted to get their way. Screw having wikipedia be a neutral and reliable source, just so long as they get their way. Dosen't wikipedia have some sort of standard for the integrity of the people editing it. Can people with blatant COI's to the poin that they can't think straight do things like this, lie, game the system, lie, pressure people IRL, lie, and just keep on keeping on like that indefinitely?--Hfarmer (talk) 01:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, it isn't likely that an administrator will find it necessary to use admin privileges in this case. You may want to look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, which describes the steps to take when you have a disagreement on Wikipedia. These include requesting a third opinion, opening a request for comment, or seeking mediation. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 01:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I know of those, they deal with content issues, this is essentially a user conduct issue. I take it you looked at the websites I mentioned. What is it. I know 1st ammendment and all but what real life person can be expected to ignore such things. Take a look at that website and understand why I am now just barely civil to that person. How many would even manage that? I am looking for a way to go with this other than the arb com.--Hfarmer (talk) 02:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Users are given fairly wide latitude when it comes to off-Wiki behavior and posting. Would I be insulted by the site were I you? Yes. What does that mean on-Wiki? Not a whole lot. If you can present some sort of evidence that Jokestress has violated our standards of user conduct, I will look into willingly. As it stands, you've just presented off-wiki behavior and two different interpretations of a source. Again, there is nothing actionable. AniMate^talk 02:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Third opinions, RFC, and mediation all deal with user behavior as well as content disputes. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

What she just did on wiki is not a matter of interpretation it's like this, when you look at the totality of the case. She found a source with said "Stuff jokestress does not like was at least at one point considered valid psychological/psychiatric dogma and generally accepted. Stuff jokestress does not like is not considered valid psychological dogma in general which conforms to jokestresses view of the world." Then told me aboutthe source, which I did not know was on google books and had no access too as far as I know "Stuff jokestress does not like is not considered valid psychological dogma in general which conforms to jokestresses view of the world." leaving out the first part. That's like writing about anatomy and ignoreing everything from the waist down because you think it's vulgar, and presenting what you wrote as the whole story. It is a violation of the communities trust. A to our faces, bold face lie of omission and not in the interest of wikipedia. Instead in the interest of Jokestress's off wiki agenda.

I can see no way to deal with this matter onwiki in the open without giving her attack websites more currency and a better google rating. It cannot be acceptable to attack someone off wiki for what they do on wiki. Doing it in a way that "has a return address" is really something else. I am going to send email to functionaries-en and get the arb com etc's opinion on this. I hate to bother them but there really is no other way to handel this.--Hfarmer (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Neutralhomer abuse of rollback, again

Neutralhomer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

When responding to an OTRS ticket (Ticket:2009041510058851 for those with access) regarding the article titled WSLK I noticed that Neutralhomer is again, blatantly misusing the rollback feature, and citing a new users edits as vandalism, when they are clearly not. For example, see [7] [8] [9] [10], etc. I'm not here to discuss the content issue, as that is completely a different story and one that does not need further attention. I'd suggest removing this users rollback and twinkle privileges again. He is continuing to use it inappropriately, biting new users, and citing "vandalism" in a content dispute. It doesn't matter if the information he was reverting was correct or not, he should not have been using rollback nor citing the users edits as vandalism, as they clearly were not, and in fact, the information he was reverting was actually accurate, according to the information provided in the OTRS ticket (but again, this thread shouldn't be about the content issue - but about Neutralhomer's abuse of rollback).

See also, the most recent discussion which led to the removal of Neutralhomer's rollback/twinkle use ability on 2 November 2008. Also see the deleted revisions of his monobook.js as well as the existing revisions which show other removals.

It is also worth noting that when his twinkle/rollback use was restored back in December, I supported it on the condition (which he agreed to) that he would "not use Twinkle to revert anything except for blatant vandalism, as outlined here" - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on NeutralHomer's general use of Twinkle or rollback, and no, I don't have access to OTRS, but I don't think it's a terrible breach of rollback standards to use it to revert edits by a probable sock of someone who's been banned for making legal threats. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I cited the user, whose first account User:Joann5829 was blocked for this legal threat. I contacted the user by the phone number left on my talk page (via that first post) and I was told that the way that the user knew that his station could be heard in the area he claimed was from listening to it in his car. That is, as I stated in many posts, original research and not allowed. There was no talk with that user of an OTRS ticket and I would dispute any information in it as OR if it comes from listening to the station in his car.

After seeing this, this, and this all using the "car radio" excuse, I marked those as vandalism as I had already explained to the user about OR and any addition after, I felt and still do, would be vandalism...hence my templates.

The user made another account, User:Ternandes, and launched a weak personal attack and continued the vandalism. I had, by that time, requested page protection for the page, which was given by User:Nakon and the User:Ternandes blocked. The protection was taken away by User:Nakon for the discussion I had with User:Rjd0060 on his talk page and the OTRS ticket that was only brought up by User:Rjd0060 in that conversation. I was threatened then with my rollback being removed.

I stated to User:Rjd0060 that if the only information that the users can give is that they can hear it on their car radio, that is original research and not allowed. I appear to be overruled in that as the version by the owned of WSLK remains at this moment. I did not misuse my rollback or TWINKLE, I used it as I seen necessary. If they had cited their information or told me of the OTRS ticket, I would not have cited them for vandalism an —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutralhomer (talk • contribs)

OR != blatant vandalism. It appears NeutralHomer breached his word from several months ago and I'll de-rollbacker in an hour or so pending more discussion here. MBisanz ^talk 01:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think NH has failed to see the point, in that he agreed a few months ago to use twinkle only for "blatant vandalism as defined here". Original research or not, this is not vandalism, let alone blatant vandalism. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, let me make sure I understand. Removing it once and saying it is OR is OK, but removing it again and citing vandalism isn't? I don't want TWINKLE, I will remove the damned thing myself. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 23, 2009 @ 01:10

No, it isn't okay. You misused the tools that you said you weren't going to misuse. It is that simple — it was not vandalism (nor "blatant vandalism" and you used rollback/twinkle to remove it, several times). This is becoming a regular thing with you and it is highly inappropriate. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Since this is so clear and NH has already removed Twinkle, I've removed rollback. OR! ≠ vandalism is a distinction that matters because good faith contributors react differently to having their edits described as vandalism. Better to explain the OR policy to them a few times.--chaser - t 01:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you want to have an article completely composed of Original Research, allow users who have been blocked for legal threats to come back and continue editing as socks and punish the people who revert their edits as vandalism, then you can have my damned TWINKLE (which I already deleted). The rest of my monobook can't be used to revert, rollback or anything else. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 23, 2009 @ 01:17

There is nothing good faith about adding OR over and over and over and over after being told on the phone and online that it is not allowed. That is my opinion, but I don't think that matters much around here anymore either. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 23, 2009 @ 01:20

OR doesn't magically become vandalism because it is repeatedly re-added. In any case, you can still remove OR and do all the other good work you do without rollback.--chaser - t 01:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Except I can't do "good work" when I have to wonder "does this page have a secret unreadable OTRS ticket on it too" and I worry about another station owner being pissed at me because I write something that is cited and not OR. How can I work with that? My work on this page has been slammed and replaced with OR....what is stopping that from happening next time and the next and the next. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 23, 2009 @ 01:49

I would also point out that the user was blocked not banned (as Someguy1221 claims). A block for a legal threat does not give people a license to revert all their edits. This is a confused new user and we're treating him like a hardened sock-puppeting troll. Also, WP:DOLT; substitute "BLP subject" with "small company owner" and that essay describes pretty much exactly what happened here. Mr.Z-man 01:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, typo. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

@Chaser: AFAICT, the closest thing they every got to an explanation of the OR policy was this WP:BITE-y comment (though that was probably the only communication they got that wasn't a template warning for vandalism). Mr.Z-man 01:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

They were also told via phone what it meant too. I can't cite that (maybe cause it is OR), but they were told via phone about OR. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 23, 2009 @ 01:28

• Question for everyone....what does one do about this article in its current version that the owner has said is from listening to the station in his own car? Do I revert? Do I correct? Do I update? What do I do, since I can't claim OR anymore? - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 23, 2009 @ 02:45
  • You can make any edits you like, provided that you leave an informative edit summary. Please understand that it is inappropriate to use rollback do revert anything other than blatant vandalism. The fact that rollback can't be used to edit out or revert OR doesn't somehow mean that OR is a preferred state. I will attempt to AGF that you are just confused on that issue. Protonk (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • You can try discussing things on the talk page or try dispute resolution, but continuing to revert war is not at all productive. Mr.Z-man 05:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The now-blocked Ternandes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is either a sockpuppet or an impersonator of Joann5829 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who says its last name is Ernandes[11]), clearly does not understand the concept of original research, based on the rant on its talk page[12], where it makes accusations against NeutralHomer and cites its own expertise as presumably all else. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox animanga

Resolved

Bis senchi (talk · contribs) has been moving around {{Infobox animanga}} for some strange reason. The move went from {{Infobox animanga}} -> {{Japanime episode list - saiyuki}} -> {{Japanime episode list - saiyuki}} -> {{Episode list - saiyuki}} This needs to be undone to preserve the template's edit history is preserved. --Farix (Talk) 10:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Undone as the move was undiscussed and moved to a non-standard title. –xeno ^talk 13:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

He also made a host of fake, blank templates and tried to put them in Saiyuki (manga) and is making a mess among those articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Telling people how to abuse the abuse filter

I'd like a second opinion on this. Prom3th3an (talk · contribs) is providing specific instructions on how to exploit one of the abuse filter rules to create greater vandalism.

That the rule can be exploited is a fair point, and possible cause for revision (though no one ever has exploited it), but I don't feel it is appropriate to be publicly telling people how to do it. I removed his WP:BEANS comment twice. I won't do so again, though I continue to think such explanations are inappropriate (he could have raised the issue privately or alluded to the vulnerability without explaining it in detail). Dragons flight (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou so very much for notifying me of this thread (not), your setting a great example for an admin so far. My post, of which you altered was written to gain action, nothing more. It was not inteded to be malicious, but if you want to toy around with filter that infringe of peoples ability to edit a page you need to do it right and think it out before your implement it (did you ever learn the system development lifecycle?). I find it ammusing you would rathor censor my post and make a thread on ANI than fix your own filter or disable it untill you do. Prom3th3an (talk) 03:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) For the record, I've made the filter in question private while I consider what might be done to address his concern. (Though I don't think making it private does anything to mitigate the risk he created.) Dragons flight (talk) 03:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I would have notified you, but I hadn't gotten to it yet (you posted here only a few minutes after I did). Dragons flight (talk) 03:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If i wanted to be a jerk about this I would have posted it on Wikipedia Review for all the vandals to see, but that wasnt my intention. If you were on IRC i would have told you that way. Also it doesnt take 4 minutes to say "Ive made a thread that may interest you here" ~~~~ Prom3th3an (talk) 03:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't edit people's posts. --NE2 03:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If I were worried about WP:BEANS I think starting a thread on ANI is the last thing I would do. Landon1980 (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on the specific issue, but I also care about the principle here. I'd like some general support for the point of view that publicly declaring exploitable vulnerabilities is not the right way to go about it. Dragons flight (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Also I wish to note another flaw in DF's actions, whilst he may have made the filter private the request (of which consensus was somewhat unclear at best to disallow) is still easily viewed and contains the pages and images concerned thus negating making it private in the first place. Are you going to censor that too or fix or disable your filter? Looking at the page, so far this year only 1 user has removed the picutres concerned and was consequently blocked and never did it again. I dont think the issue is severe enough to warrent a disallow filter thus this filter should not even exist. I for one contest it on the pretence that it infinges on wikipedia's wiki nature. Prom3th3an (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Having a list of protected images is not at all the same is knowing that the specific implementation of the filter is vulnerable to the exploit you mentioned. Dragons flight (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Im not an einstien at regex like you but I can probably tell you exactly whats in that filter from just understanding what it does :). Prom3th3an (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I count 8 bouts of image deletion in the last about six weeks at Muhammad, so I'm not sure what you are looking at. Though I will happily disable it if the editors at the involved pages would prefer not to have it. Dragons flight (talk) 04:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

How is it helpful to toss out a 0day here? rootology (C)(T) 04:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Quite apart from the specific filter being discussed here, but people writing filters absolutely need to understand that many abuse filters can themselves be abused to cause problems (DOS attacks, unrevertable edits, other stuff). The evidence I've seen says that many people with filter privileges don't understand this at all. In my opinion, pointing out that a particular filter breaks something is fair game, if the intent is to get particular breakage fixed or to stop people from creating thoughtless filters. I don't think Prom3th3an was looking to enable vandalism here, any more than someone posting an exploitable bug to bugzilla is looking to enable vandalism - he was trying to point out that the filter as (seems to be) written had a giant ugly thoughtless evil hole in it that shouldn't have been there. I hope it's not there now, because if it is, being private doesn't make it less broken. If you're writing filters, please remember that they can have bad effects regardless of whether they have good ones. Added after edit conflict: it would be nice to have a procedure to report such problems without causing a zero-day exploit. We don't seem to have such a procedure now, so I don't see how he could have avoided it. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The developers will yell at you if you put major exploits openly into bugzilla. They also expect such things to be handled via private communication, as this could have been. Dragons flight (talk) 04:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The point of WP:BEANS is to prevent disrution. And the point of refactoring the comments would seem to be an attempt to prevent disruption. While in general I think editing others' comments is definitely something to be avoided, I think in this case, DF was attempting to reduce potential disruption. (Per WP:TALK.)

And incidentally, indicating that you (User:Prom3th3an) have no issue with making such statements, causes me to sincerely doubt your good faith in the discussion/process. - jc37 04:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)From my own personal experiance, you tend to have to sing things to people to make sure things get done. I note that WP:BEANS is one or more editors opinions, it is not policy nor guideline. I also note that WP:TALK mentions notihng about editing users comments to minimise ones own bruised ego. Which I could sincerely extrapulate is the pretence of this thread. Finally, once DF fixes the issue there will be no concern about what could or permanent damage done and we can move on, though to fix the issue would involve something like counting the occurances of the images which would increase the running time of that script drastically Prom3th3an (talk) 04:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Given further thought. If DF was to use the acutal image names and set the actions to trigger on add and remove then that would be an ideal fix (since theres already one copy on the page). Prom3th3an (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I've patched the rule so it isn't possible for a person to do something that they themselves (or someone will comparable privileges) couldn't undo. The patch is something of a hack. It isn't exploitable the way the previous code was, but it might create a rare false positive. Before trying to clean this up further I'm going to discuss the matter with the editors at the affected articles because it may require making some choices about preferred behavior. I don't expect to work on this further tonight however. Dragons flight (talk) 04:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Now that you've patched it shouldn't the filter be public now? Who knows, I might spot another exquisite mistake, However now that the WP:POINT has been made I will endevor to contact you privately. Prom3th3an (talk) 04:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the false positives are anything but rare. Can we undo the patch till this is figured out?--BirgitteSB 18:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Yashveer r blocked

• Yashveer r (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please see also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive524#Yashveer_r. I have blocked this user indef after continued disruption after his prior block expired. Other admins feel free to change it. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE keep him blocked! As soon as his 24-hour block expired he began vandalizing film articles again. He knows what he's doing is wrong because numerous people have left messages on his talk page. Since he never responds he obviously plans to continue doing things the way he wants. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This editor makes mass changes to infoboxes without consultation. He has never left a Talk comment or an edit summary as far as I can tell. Support block. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Cruise Control Guy

Please, please, please would someone with CU privileges look into this latest MascotGuy sock and possibly his last few creations over on WP:LTA/MG? As I've been screaming, it's time for some very broad rangeblocks and the investigation of legal action if it applies. This is gotten beyond the realm of an occasional kiddie-wiki vandal or some little boob with an axe to grind at ED. This is serious business from a very disturbed and obsessed individual, IMO. It needs to stop and it needs to stop now. Even on my break I find myself still patrolling the new user's log and I would love to stop having to worry about this clown once and for all. I'm sick and tired of it. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me if you've already thought of this, but the best way to get Checkuser attention would seem to be filing a report at WP:SPI. The User:Cruise Control Guy does not seem to have been discussed at that forum. Skomorokh 03:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I did, but it seems to take a month of Sundays to get anything done there. I'll request a rangeblock, though. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Block review - SchnitzelMannGreek

Resolved

In January of this year, User:SchnitzelMannGreek was blocked for disruptive editing (due to ridiculous death threats). Not too long after this, he started using sockpuppets (quite a large amount of them) to harass users, primarily myself. Since this, however, it would appear he has turned over a new leaf. Due to all his accounts being blocked without talk page access, he created a series of "Axis" accounts: User:Axis1, User:Axis2, User:Axis3, User:Axis4, User:Axis 555, User:Axis 666 and User:Axis Power of Schnitzel-Atens Greece in order to get a message out to me that he has a desire to stop all harassment entirely and that he is willing to contribute constructively. During a conversation with him at User_talk:Axis_666, his talk page was disabled. After a conversation at IRC, SMG was required to use email to make further unblock requests. Judging by the conversation at User_talk:Helfen_derVineal (which, unfortunately I was away while this was taking place), he cannot email unblock for technical reasons. Looking at User_talk:Helfen_derVineal and User_talk:TheDawnofRepentance, I would give a strong support for an unblock, on the condition that he agrees to a mentorship (which I would be willing to do myself), and that he only uses the original account, User:SchnitzelMannGreek. I think this would be a good time to assume good faith and give him a last chance. It only takes a few seconds to reblock if disruption starts again, and CheckUser would be able to root out any (which I doubt there are) sockpuppets being abused. Inferno, Lord of Penguins (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Also on a side note: I think he tried to start anew as well, as User:GreekLander Intelligence. Inferno, Lord of Penguins (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The point is, I see no harm in giving the user a last chance, and he is in a very difficult situation where, because he cannot email unblock, he must either create sockpuppets in order to request unblock, or attempt to come back as an uninvolved user under a different name. Please consider an unblock so we can put this behind us. Inferno, Lord of Penguins (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If anybody needs more information, I'm willing to go find it and post it here. Inferno, Lord of Penguins (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oh hell no. Abuse, harassment, socking, typical 'I won't do it again, honest!' begging... no wy. Come back six months after he's stopped socking. //roux   18:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Inferno, as I've told you countless times, he would stand a much higher chance of being unblocked if he would stop making these different accounts to "start anew". Right now, he is effectively community banned, by virtue of the fact nobody is willing to unblock him. Because of that, he is not entitled to edit Wikipedia under any name. He needs to stop editing Wikipedia entirely. Continually attempting to appeal this case on various forums isn't helping either - we call that forum shopping. If SMG wants to demonstrate how he can be useful to our project, he may want to consider working on . Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about the forum shopping...I don't want to be annoying, it's just that I'd feel...almost guilty in a way if somebody who has a desire to contribute constructively was barred from the project and I wasn't able to help...I'll stop (I wrote this without realizing how many times I had asked for this, sorry). The only problems I really have right now are that communicating with him is highly difficult due to socks being instantly blocked without talk page access, and the fact that it looks like his email is not working, so he feels like he has to sock to appeal. I think having him work on simple is a good idea (with mentorship, though). Do you think it would be possible to get a checkuser done on him so that on the off chance he's made another account we could tell him this (before it gets blocked so he actually looks at it)? To me it seems it would be borderline policy compliant, but I don't know if that is done in practice. Inferno, Lord of Penguins (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

He can still receive messages posted to his talk page. I highly doubt a checkuser request for that purpose would be considered - it sounds like "fishing" to me. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'm marking this as resolved. The problem is that it's not a talk page, it's many. I left a message on the original SMG talk page, so we'll see what happens. Inferno, Lord of Penguins (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Greek nationalist canvassing off-wiki

It's come to my attention that Greek nationalist blogs are apparently urging readers to come to Wikipedia and campaign about the recent move of the Republic of Macedonia article to Macedonia (see [13] and [14] for more). New single-purpose accounts like Nickanor (talk · contribs) and SQRT5P1D2 (talk · contribs) and various anonymous IPs are already appearing as a result and posting reams of material to Macedonia-related talk pages and an ongoing arbitration case. I've asked the arbitrators for a temporary injunction in the arbitration case to prevent it from being spammed to death (see [15]), but it would be helpful if people could watch Macedonia and related articles for disruption. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Please understand I am in no way necessarily disputing what you are saying. But could you provide us with an idea of what the two off-wiki links you added are saying? I'm sorry, but many of us can't read that, and I'm not sure an automatic translator would necessarily give us a good idea of their content. John Carter (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have added a translated link for your convenience - see [16]. Note that SQRT5P1D2 (talk · contribs) is the author of that blog post. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Not entirely sure what "not sarises, the arbitrator makes red" is supposed to mean (what are sarises?) but it does definitely seem likely that there will be other newbies coming in as well. Considering that this is about the ArbCom specifically though, it might be best to post a message on the Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee page and ask for semi-protection? I would support such protection, however. John Carter (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Never saw that one, but I'd guess no insults or you'll be blocked; or it could be tic for something else. Embarassingly I must look it up. Nonetheless, John's advice is excellent. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It means "avoid nationalist rhetoric, you'll be punished by the arbitrators", since sarissa is a Macedonian weapon and signifies nationalist pride. By the way this goes both ways: This is a news report from a news channel in the Republic of Macedonia [17]. Can it go more high profile than this? Anyway, I fully support the semi-protection. This is absolutely the last thing we want right now. --Avg (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I was close -- sort of. Never heard of sarissa, but then I couldn't bring up the Greek page. 19:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Good lord... the only thing missing from this is a mention on The Colbert Report. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) (Sarissas were the extra-long spears developed for the Macedonian phalanx and used so effectively by Philip and Alexander.) And these are the same voices that cry foul when we call this a "nationalist issue". I support the semi-protection or restriction to already named participants. (I note that someone added their name to the list of participants a couple of hours ago--someone who "did not exist" a week ago.) (Taivo (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

Classic wiki. Fyromian accuses 'Grreek nationalists' of trying to flood Wiki with spam/ Then we see a Fyromian News Channel advertising the debate to their own Fyrom nationalists! I have never seen a Wiki page, this time, the Macedonia page in question!! on a news channel site!!!!!!

http://www.kanal5.com.mk/ShowNews.aspx?ItemID=50816&mid=1500&tabId=1&tabindex=0 Stunning! Reaper7 (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you stop using "Fyromian" it has been noted that is considered offensive, it's also not English and you can be warned for this, I'm puzzled why that has not happened yet. man with one red shoe 19:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

As for this issue it's clear that the arbitrators should not accept comments from accounts created after the case has been opened. man with one red shoe 19:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Wiki can resolve a UN question. Probably not. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath. We can't even get a stable version of List of Roman consuls. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If it doesn't include Caligula's horse it's obviously inadequate! -- ChrisO (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO, I might be a newly registered user but over the years, I've made significant contributions to hundreds of Wikipedia articles, in three languages. AFAIK, Wikipedia doesn't prevent anonymity. I've created this account in order to be able to track what is a serious matter to many Wikipedians. You seem to try to justify your actions by labeling others as "nationalists", while you're the first to blame for promoting nationalism, even if you didn't want to. If fellow Wikipedians want to find out about my arguments for Macedonia's open case, they can go here. Let them be the judge. You're clearly not in a position to be one, since neutrality is a word that escaped from your lexicon. In any case, it is interesting to see that you follow "greek nationalist blogs"; they surely are beyond my aesthetics. Reading this, some could suggest that you had an agenda regarding Macedonia's move. But not me; I do not represent the thought police. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It is, of course, very safe to claim that you have "made significant contributions to hundreds of Wikipedia articles" as an anonymous IP since no one can prove or disprove the claim. But the arbitration was already populated with equal numbers of participants on both sides of the issue--participants who had an interest in the topic prior to the arbitration case and who have a demonstrable track record in Wikipedia as named editors and administrators. I support the proposal to semi-protect the arbitration from new accounts. (Taivo (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

If the arbitration pages are disrupted by a flood of new accounts, I'm sure the clerks and arbitrators can handle that. The advice to keep an eye on all pages related to Macedonia is well taken. Let's also not let this page turn into a battleground. Jonathunder (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Taivo, as I said previously, I do not represent the thought police. If other Wikipedians do, let me know. Certainly, my sixth sense is on the weak side. It seems that some try to change the rules in the middle of the game, because they don't like other people coming from the bench. Even if I don't have to, let me inform you that humans sometimes participate in those little mythical celebrations of life, so aptly named "holidays". Let this be clear: if you have any valid arguments, don't keep them secret. But be a sport and quit diving into the penalty area. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If I might make a suggestion. You do give me the impression of being someone who has been around a while, whether with an account or not. It is generally the case that Arbitration pages are used almost exclusively by those who are directly involved with the case, or who have been peripherally involved in some of the events which led up to the case, like talk page conversations, reversions, and whatever. So far as I can tell, I can't see that you have necessarily been involved in any of them. Any "newer" editors would be even less likely to have done anything earlier.

It might be possible that you could request that you be added to the list of parties to the arbitration. Or, if you prefer, you could ask me to do so, considering I already am a part of the case. If that doesn't work, you would be free to leave any relevant comments on the talk pages of the various mainspace pages. I've been involved in enough cases to know the arbitrators read that as well. John Carter (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to be added to the list. I might be an old Wikipedian, but there are many sides that I have yet to explore. If you could add me to the list, then I will do my best to present my arguments, trying to keep Wikipedia's standards to a high level. But I think that my talk page is more suitable for this discussion. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO, John Carter and others, as for the posts in blogs, you should know that someone took this newsgroup posting (check timestamp), informing others on the matter (as I too was informed by other Wikipedians) and asking future participants NOT TO use rhetoric based on nationalism (the "sarises" thing). I also made an analogy with football, roughly translating that nationalism takes a red card. How's that for "promoting nationalism"? I've clearly laid out my arguments here. Seeing what the move did, shifting nationalistic patterns to the other side, it's ridiculous to label people like me as "nationalists". The original newsgroup posting has the tongue in cheek title "Minority's nationalism is sweeter". Next time, before accusing someone, do your homework. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, actually, if you look higher in the thread, you'll see we already knew about that post. Please remember that not everyone can read Greek in the English wikipedia. While ChrisO did at my request provide a link to a translated version, that translation is rather garbled and I for one had at best a vague idea regarding what it was saying. In any event, the offer to, at your request, ask to have you added to the arbitration stands. John Carter (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I quit posting here to do something else, therefore I didn't see all the comments. That's why I was a late joiner to the party. I will provide an accurate translation of the newsgroup posting, which was taken and spammed all over the greek internets, even adding things that I didn't write! I will gladly accept your offer. Everybody else, check my talk page for a translation in a while. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

As promised, here is the translation of my original newgroup posting that was taken and spread around the greek internets, in whole or in part, altered or not. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Mbhiii sockpuppetry disruptive edits

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mbhiii. This guy and his socks continue to add and re-add unsourced and largely irrelevant and somewhat incorrect material to Reciprocity (photography). It's a tiny technical issue, but hard to work on with a guy who won't even acknowledge who he is. I told him I'd treat it as vandalism, but my block request was declined. Suggestions? Dicklyon (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop name-calling and address the substantive issues. -74.162.156.19 (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but would you care to point out where exactly was Dicklyon name-calling? Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 23:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I called him a sock. In response to the request to "address the substantive issue", I presume he means the technical issue and the policy issue, so I have provided an in-depth explanation for anyone who cares, here: Talk:Reciprocity (photography)#"The substative issue". Dicklyon (talk) 04:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

...and "vandal" for reverting his repeated blanking of substantial edits. -74.162.156.10 (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, thanks for reminding me; I did say I would treat your continued disruption as vandalism, which I then did. Dicklyon (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits at The Clone Republic by 74.162.156.10 and Rotwechsel (another conjectured sock) add confirmation to the pattern. Dicklyon (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Steven Shaman

He's created an article about himself that just survived speedy deletion, but the real issue at hand isn't WP:COI, it's verifying that he is who says he is, especially considering the fact that he seems to be notable. Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 23:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone could, you know, explain things to him instead of templating him. He can identify to OTRS. Thatcher 23:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sent article to AfD. Notability is marginal here. This person has a high profile on blogs, YouTube, podcasts, etc. but zero visibility in the Google News archive. Let the AfD sort it out. --John Nagle (talk) 04:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, 1) No one ever mentioned to that user that he had a thread on ANI (bad form on the thread poster, in my opinion), and 2) No one has mentioned to the user (on his talk page) that the article has been sent to AfD. Looks like we're starting off great with this new user. Killiondude (talk) 07:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Put a note on the user's talk page that he has an AfD pending. --John Nagle (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Does this breach civility?

Hello, I was just reporting User:Heracletus, for the offensive comments and racial slurs left on my talk page yesterday. Our dealings were initially "friendly" however soon the situation changed. I was prepared to let go the reference to Macedonia under the offensive term "Σκόπια" (Skopia) [18]. However what "broke the camels back", was not the offensive and the derogatory terms used in the essay long rants. But after declaring war on the part of his country [19], these comments "Go F*^K OFF!" [20] were particularly offensive. Followed half an hour later by, "I will repeat it, GO F*%K OFF!" [21]. Do these actions breach WP:CIVIL? Thank you. PMK1 (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I warned the user at their talk page [22]. Cirt (talk) 01:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to add a little extra background, the (unjustified) outburst came when User:PMK1 called User:Heracletus (or rather his village) Grecoman[23]. As you will see in the article, this is a very offensive pejorative term and it is taken very seriously by those offended. Also "Skopje" is not an offensive term, this is false. It is the capital of the state and the common name people in Greece use to refer to Macedonia, since they have their own Macedonia. Not that I agree with this breach of civility of course. Also note that User:PMK1 seems to be in the habit of filing AN/I cases this couple of days--Avg (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah okay thanks for the background info, I still think the comments merited, at the least, a warning. Cirt (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This Greece/Macedonia crap needs to be brought to a complete and utter end, immediately. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Avg, I in no way labelled User:Heracletus a Grecoman or anything of that nature. This is a false claim. I said that I was aware of a few Aromanian villages in who in the past had pro-Greek feelings, these feelings have long since disapeared. Please retract your statement, in no way did I call/label Heracletus, or his village (I do not know him nor where he is from), as a Grecoman. I was personally shocked by these claims.

To other users, "Skopia/Skopianika/Skopians" are deemed offensive terms by many people living in the Republic of Macedonia. Juts becuase they are frequently used elsewhere does not make it less offensive. Thank you. PMK1 (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh please PMK1, don't be so personally shocked. You have labelled even myself Grecoman a while ago[24], I just haven't replied the way I probably should. And not so surprisingly, User:Heracletus quotes "Grecoman" two times as the reason of his outburst, just above the swearing. Anyway.--Avg (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest seeing if we can get the arbitration committee to consider another version of the WP:ARBMAC solution and just put an end to this nonsense. I wish we would take more of a stronger attitude to incivil statements. PMK1, a suggestion. Try not to use terms that link to article that say that those terms are pejoratives. You'd be surprised to find that less people get annoyed when you do that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandal cluster, or sockfarm?

I've just temp-blocked Mkinge (talk · contribs) and Mon the hersch (talk · contribs). Googling for a name found in their previous edits found very similar vandalism by Chelseaharbour (talk · contribs). All these accounts look like slow-mo vandalism accounts: could they be part of a larger sockfarm? -- The Anome (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Banker123 (talk · contribs) appears to be another one. -- The Anome (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

 Deferred WP:SPI :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

What's up with this image?

Can an admin please look at this deletion log? The deletion log states that the image was restored shortly after it's deletion. But obviously, it's not really there. Note: I'm not asking for a deletion review, there might be reasons not to allow fair use of this image, but that's not the point of my enquiry. To me, this more looks like a technical problem. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It must have been a selective undeletion, restoring only the history of the description page, but not the files. There is a deleted version of the file still in the deletion history. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Restored the latest version, I think Protonk's undelete failed because the first version image was lost some way or an other: Error undeleting file: Could not find file "deleted/e/m/y/emybxddmey80zw6fjv6ou1cp0klgp24.jpg". -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --PaterMcFly (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Grant Alpaugh

Can someone remind Grant.Alpaugh (talk · contribs · block log) that he is not allowed to edit on Wikipedia. On April 20, he was blocked indefinitely by Nja247 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for abusively using multiple accounts, edit warring, and block evasion, but this morning he returned as 71.72.129.83 (talk · contribs) to rejoin the discussion on Template talk:2009 Major League Soccer season table that ultimately got him the indefinite block. He was rather nice in his edits to identify the IP address as being him in his discussion.[25]--Bobblehead ^(rants) 15:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

In case anyone thinks it may be a hoax, ip2location places the IP in Dayton, Ohio, home of Wright State University and Grant. Grsz¹¹ 16:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed, hardblocked the IP. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Severe vandalism by multiple IPs

In the Pages Middle Power and Great Power several IPs used by the same user have been removing large amounts of information. Specifically, ones that say that some academics consider United Kingdom and France middle powers instead of great powers. Because of his action, he has gotten the Great Power page protected atleast twice. Once the protection was gone, he went back to doing the same thing. In the page middle power, it's the exact same thing. And he also has gotten the page protected twice, and has refused to talk.

User:Ged_UK has done one of the page protections on Great Power while User:SoWhy has done the rest of the protections on Great and Middle power against this vandal.

Great Power revision history (first 2 pages when you have it showing 250 edits) Great Power revision history

Middle Power revision history (first page when you have it showing 250 edits) Middle power revision history

Each time, he has refused to discuss the problem at all, despite all the times the pages were locked. Here are all of the different IPs he has used. The earliest edit has been March 28th, the latest being today. The only times there were edits were when the IP was blocked, or the page was protected.

90.211.80.206

90.211.80.247 warned once.

90.211.80.194

90.211.80.245 warned once.

90.219.153.48 warned once and was asked to discuss the problem.

90.211.80.240 warned once.

90.211.80.252

90.219.153.45

90.212.93.32

90.219.254.27 warned once.

90.208.152.236 warned once

90.219.153.34 warned and blocked (might be unblocked now)

90.218.53.199 warned and blocked (might be unblocked now)

The worst part is, the IP knew it got the warnings. Several times if you look at the contributions, one of the IPs went to an old IP with a warning, and deleted it. Several times during the revision history and atleast on one of the talk pages, the IP was asked to discuss the problem. The IP has not done it at all. I think the only solution is a range block. Deavenger (talk) 00:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Moved from WP:AIV Malinaccier (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I am an occasional contributor to these articles and more frequent contributor to their talk pages. They are magnets for nationalist POV pushers. But in spite of previous differences, there is now general agreement among their regular editors. I cannot abide by editors who edit without giving edit summaries or discussing their case on talk pages. This seems to be a case of the same editor using multiple IPs, or some kind of concerted deletion by a pressure group of material which it does not happen to like. Viewfinder (talk) 06:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That's quite a range of IPs. Unless someone more IP-savvy than I decides to implement rangeblocks, I think further semi-protection may be the best solution. If they won't talk, we can't explain to them how Wikipedia works, and how content decisions are made. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Problem is, we have tried telling the user multiple times to discuss on the talk page, and left warnings on atleast 8 of the accounts. Multiple times, he used a similar IP to go and delete the warnings from the previous account, and had a user warn against doing that. I see the only solution as a rangeblock. Deavenger (talk) 02:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

90.212.93.22 Another one just happened -- Phoenix (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Buster7

Resolved

Buster7 has violated WP:NPA. [26] JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't look like a personal attack at all. Looie496 (talk) 01:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe JCDenton's talking about the edit summary? Pretty tame, though, if that's the case. Kcowolf (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

What is a provacator anyways? It seems like a video game, unless he means provacateur. -download | sign! 01:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You're thinking of vindicator as in the old video game Vindicators. MuZemike 01:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest we do something productive? - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to clear it up, this was a response to me mentioning his lack of neutrality on another page. This is not a personal attack. Soxwon (talk) 01:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive POV framing of dispute resolution processes by User:Off2riorob

Off2riorob (talk · contribs) started a Request for Comment at the talk page of a WP:GA-quality rated article, 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot, by inappropriately framing the name of the subsection of the RFC in a POV manner, as: this comment in the lede falsifies the facts. and portrays a biased pov. The WP:RFC process is meant to gather outside opinion in a neutral manner, and present the ongoing dispute in a matter-of-fact presentation. Clearly the subsection and presentation of the RFC initially by Off2riorob (talk · contribs) blatantly failed to present the matter in a WP:NPOV fashion. I reformatted the RFC in a neutral, matter-of-fact manner, with the subsection title of simply: RfC: High-ranking followers. After three other users commented in the RFC aside from myself and Off2riorob (talk · contribs), Off2riorob changed the RFC back to his POV framing of the dispute [27], and also incorrectly changed the RFC to be a Request for Comment on policy [28].

Off2riorob (talk · contribs) also has a history of POV framing of disputes and misuse of the Wikipedia:Third opinion process, examples include: comment in the lede protrays a biased pov and falsifies the facts. and the subject has more than one name so for clarity in the lede I feel it benefits the clarity of the article to also linking Rajneesh to the name used now and a little rewrite to improve the English.

Please also see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive521#Disruptive_behavior_and_incivility_by_User:Off2riorob, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive530#Disruption_from_two_users_at_a_GA-rated_article, and block log.

Other than myself and Off2riorob (talk · contribs), three users have commented:

• Jayen466 commented I can't honestly say I find the sentence misleading. The people involved were the most high-ranking followers of Rajneesh at the time.
• Peteforsyth commented I agree with Jayen and Cirt that I simply can't understand how the current phrasing gives any false impression
• Momoricks commented: The truth or falseness of the term "high-ranking followers" (or the rest of the article, for that matter) is irrelevant per the verifiability policy. The article exceeds the policy requirements by providing several reliable sources that use the term "high-ranking". As Peteforsyth stated above, a version of the article that includes the term met the good article criteria. I support keeping the wording as is.

Admin EncMstr commented on the talk page to Off2riorob (talk · contribs): Cirt's question is perfectly on point. Please answer it or quit arguing that synthesized words should be added. - in response Off2riorob (talk · contribs) assumes bad faith, does not respond to the substance of the comment by EncMstr, and instead calls him "tag teaming".

This user is a disruptive WP:SPA who has done nothing but complain and be disruptive at a WP:GA-rated quality article, and disruptively frames the dispute resolution process to suit his POV. The user has already been blocked twice for disruption on the same topic of Rajneesh (indeed, this same article), and I think further admin action is warranted here. I would appreciate it if another administrator could look into this. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked again YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable block. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I was considering a block based on edit-warring within the subject matter of the RFC. (for instance this one.) My perception is that the editor in question is enthusiastic, and is very quick to use dispute resolution tools that he doesn't clearly understand yet. It's becoming a bit of a tax on WP's resources (i.e. the time and patience of more experienced editors and administrators). -Pete (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

He's requested adoption and was adopted shortly before this block was implemented. Let's hope that sets things on track. Durova^Charge! 02:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

How to deal with editor merging articles without attribution to earlier article?

We have a new account, Trust Is All You Need (talk · contribs), who is doing copy and paste merges on a number of articles dealing with the Etruscans, eg the new article Hypotheses and theories for Etruscan origin (and note that it has "a suggestion offered thirty years ago" whereas the book in questin was written in 1841) - the edit history gives no clue as to which articles (I know of at least two) the material was moved from [29]. Another example is the article Etruscan civilization, edit history here: [30]. I've raised the content issues elsewhere [31] but given his lack of response on his talk page to various requests (although he's now protested on my talk page about my reverting him), I'm not sure what to do about the fact he doesn't seem to understand or care that he's losing the history of the material he's moving around. Is this something I should just ignore, or if not, can anyone else suggest a way of getting him to stop? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If he won't play the game, then he needs to be blocked. Cut-and-paste moves aren't allowed and he shouldn't be doing them. I think that reverting, or if that's not technically possible, then WP:SPLICEing would be best. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm merging articles because all of them "lack sources" and are "badly written" even by my standards and i'm merging information to other articles. On the other hand, i'm modling the article after Ancient Rome. To merge it back is wrong because your version lacks sources / references which i'm fixing. I've added new citations to un-referenced sentences. If i'm doing something wrong you "unagree" with tell me. But merging articles that are in "bad shape," "un-referenced," "small" and needs "serious clean up" is not wrong. If you want to fix this re-write the articles and "expand" them. But don't revert it back to a states were it has "wrong" information which you would all agree wouldn't help the wikipedia "at all, would it?" --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Will copy on your talk page to make this clear, but...

We are not saying that you should not improve the articles. What we're saying is that you can't do that by cutting and pasting.

That's not a style issue. It's a legal issue. When you cut and paste like that, you copy text from one article without attribution to the new article. The GFDL license which Wikipedia operates under requires that Wikipedia maintain attribution for all editors' contributions.

We do and will block you if you continue to violate our licensing terms.

Improving articles is encouraged. Please keep doing that. But don't violate the license.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a question, if an article "is not up to shape" independently, what should you do about it. The article is to short and to find a "quick sollution" you can merge it and later "re-establish" the page and re-write it and make the encyclopaedia better place. Many of these articles aren't so popular, take a look at the Etruscan history page, its history page counts a little more then 20 edits May, 2007. People havn't worked on this article since Botteville created the article and it doesn't seem any of you are trying to "expand or help it either!" That article is enough for a reasonable section in the Etruscan main page, take a look for yourself. That page is to "short" and "no one seems to be working on it! NB!"

Talking of copy and past, take a look at the Ancient Roman society, its entirely copy-pasted, why havn't you done anything with that article? --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That article was not a copy paste, it was a split that was reversed and the newer page simply neglected to be removed. You need to be very careful what you accuse others of just because you are in the hot seat.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

If the article should be merged, propose a merge, and then have someone who's done merges and knows how to merge article histories properly do it. That avoids losing track of who wrote what.

We're not disagreeing that articles need improvement. As long as the improvement doesn't break the license, please do so!

Regarding Ancient Roman society - a 25k article springing up out of nowhere is a little suspicious, yes. Where do you believe it came from? What was it copy-pasted from? I'm not familiar with the topic well enough to know the other related articles. Or do you think it came from an off-wiki source? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It came from Ancient Rome --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

See [32] - someone needs to have a word with the editor, who is still active. I've fixed the Etruscan origins article, not without a struggle. :-) I'm getting some resources for it also. Dougweller (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yeah. It looks like nobody who understands the copyright issues saw it at the time, on first impression. Good spot there, Trust. Thanks for letting us know. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I am a little confused and very concerned that my membername and a suggestion from last July that was settled long ago is coming back here as a discussion somehow linking me to another member. I do not know what the problem is with the above talk discussion but I have not edited on that page (Ancient Rome) in some time. I don't think I have ever edited on the Etruscan Origins article.

My main area of edits has been on the Theatre of Pompey article, as well as Rostra and a few others. Recently I became aware of a number of Copyright issues involving images. I have asked for speedy deletion of a number of images with improper lisence and one that was improperly released into the public domain. As for copy and paste, I look very closly for this and spotted one on the Pantheon article, which I brought to the attention of editors there who chnaged the wording that was lifted exactly from an off site article. Please explain what exactly do I have to do with this subject?--Amadscientist (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I now understand what is going on. Last July I made a bold change on the Ancient Rome article. I split the article by removing the society section and creating the new Roman Society article as part of that split. It was reversed and then i began that talk section. It was decided that the article can be as long as it needs to be without splitting it. The only problem is....the Roman Society article was never deleted.

I do not understand the accusations of copyright or mention of off site stuff. This was simpoly a split that was reversed and noone thought to get rid orf the other page.

Instead of making mountains out of mole hills just request the article be speedily deleted. Hell, I'll do that. I am still confused as to exactly why "someone needs to have a word" with me. What exactly was wrong with what I did? I made a bold edit. It was reversed and discussed. The only mistake that I can see is forgetting to have the article deleted. Does this clear anything up for you guys. GEEEESH!--Amadscientist (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't worry about this too much. The way we uncovered it raised a lot of questions, but we assume good faith and there was a perfectly reasonable explanation here. No harm, no foul. Thanks for helping clear it up. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I will admit I was upset by the direction this was beginning to take. I value my membership here and I dislike copyright violations.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

And I have no doubt about that myself. You've been doing a good job. Thanks for the quick action on the redundant article. Dougweller (talk) 05:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Badagnani

Edit warring, if anyone cares

Hi. It's been brought to my attention that User:Badagnani and User:GraYoshi2x are reverting each other on multiple articles and leaving (and reverting) unpleasant messages on talk pages. User:Ronz can tell you more. I've dealt with Badagnani in the past, and I'd recommend blocking him; he's intractable and doesn't care about consensus. I don't know much about the other guy.

I'm posting here because I won't get involved. Badagnani wouldn't listen to anything I say anyway. I tried to help him once, and he rudely threw it back in my face, so... yeah. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

User:GraYoshi2x has subjected me to the worst WP:STALK I have ever experienced during my time at WP, over the past 4 or so weeks following me to nearly every article I have edited, on all subjects, always to revert or remove my contributions. The discussion page postings and edit summaries were similarly over-the-top--the most threatening I have ever encountered. As WP:STALK is against WP policy, I had asked an admin (in fact, the admin just above) to please ask that the WP:STALK editor please stop doing this, and he informed me that he would not, and that in fact he does not take either WP policies or guidelines into account when carrying out his admin duties. If no admin will ask that WP:STALK be stopped, our fundamentally positive, collaborative, and collegial project can easily be undermined in a manner very damaging to the above ideals. The admin just above did state, twice, privately to other editors, that he hoped I would eventually be blocked, and it seems that the above comment is an effort to get that to happen. As one of the most sincere and productive contributors here--one who loves and cares about this project and its collaborative ethos--the above request that I no longer be permitted to contribute here comes as a huge blow. Badagnani (talk) 03:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Badagnani for details on many, similar situations.

I'm not sure what else to add. The edit-warring over Rice noodles vs List of rice noodles should stop given that lack of dispute resolution attempts on the matter. The issue over Wiktionary linking should be discussed and resolved before trying to apply it to multiple articles. --Ronz (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yer shittin' us. They're edit warring over rice noodles? HalfShadow 03:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Badagnani and GraYoshi2x: please stop edit warring. Badagnani, you've started 1288 articles. Please do something constructive. You may get blocked if you continue edit warring. I won't be happy to see a productive editor like you getting blocked. AdjustShift (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Kindly read the above; this is not primarily about any particular article per se; it is about an editor who has elected to follow me to nearly every page I have edited, on whatever subject, always in an effort to undo or blank my contributions--the worst WP:STALK I have ever experienced during my tenure at WP. I don't know why this is and have asked an admin to please ask that this stop (in fact, the very admin who initiated this discussion, and who earlier commented to three other editors that he had hoped I would be eventually removed from Wikipedia), but nothing has been done. WP:STALK is a policy, not a guideline, and am I to infer that the above admin also chooses not to uphold this policy? Further, I do not understand why I was specifically addressed in the above comment, while the WP:STALK editor actively removing content again and again on any and every page I edit was not? Badagnani (talk) 03:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a complex issue. I've not been involved with this issue. So, admins who are familiar with this issue should resolve this issue. My advice for both parties: don't edit war, please solve the issue by taking with each other. And please keep your head cool. AdjustShift (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as an admin who has been involved with one of these editors, I'm way too burned from my interactions with Badagnani to be any use resolving the issue. That's why I posted here. I don't know if anyone else is really waiting in the wings... What do you do with an editor who insists that he's entitled to never an edits reverted without his prior consent, and that anyone who finds his behavior at all problematic is a bullying stalker, who's forbidden on his talk page? -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to repeatedly talk with Badagnani and try to engage in some peaceful discussion; however, he simply removes my comments from his talk page and threatens me to "not post here again", and sometimes even attacks me. Although I do realize that I got myself into an edit war and I apologize for any trouble that it may have caused. Perhaps my frustration got the better of me. GraYoshi2x►^talk 03:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments; the discussion page postings from User:GraYoshi2x, from the very first I received, have been the most extreme, threatening, and aggressive postings I have ever received from any editor, ever, during my four years contributing at WP. Examples include [33] and [34] This was followed by a straight month (nearly 30 straight days) of any and every article I edited, on any subject, of the above editor choosing to follow me as per WP:STALK (which is against WP policy), always in an effort to undo or remove content I contributed. This creates difficulty in discussing in a thoughtful and collegial manner, when it was thoughtful, collegial, and considered discussion I requested from the outset, and all along. Badagnani (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The first example was a bit rude and I did apologize for that. However, I made a valid point on the second as you chose not to cooperate with me; in the end I decided to assume a bit more good faith and never reported you at all. Also please stop with the stalking accusations. It isn't really helping this incident in any way, and it's clear that I'm trying to fix up the articles and not purposely disrupt it (which you did do to me several times). GraYoshi2x►^talk 03:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You see what I mean? Intractable. I thought I posted the most extreme, threatening and aggressive postings he'd ever received, when I was trying (thanklessly) to help him. I kinda feel bad being upstaged. This guy likes superlative adjectives way too much. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have believed it until I saw it for myself. Badagnani is edit-warring over the formatting of my comments: [35] [36] --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Badagnani's block log. Representative interactions. Badagnani's RfC. I have no idea whether GraYoshi2x is "stalking" Badagnani. I do know that anyone who insists as Badagnani does on escalating and personalizing every editing dispute, no matter how minor, will inevitably leave a trail of frustrated editors. I see that Badagnani is on best noticeboard behavior: all he ever wanted was civil, collaborative editing and discussion. But that doesn't jibe with his record. I mean, this is someone who's exhausted the patience of GTBacchus, which may be a first. This is someone who has never seen an issue too minor to edit-war over. GraYoshi2x should disengage and leave Badagnani alone. Badagnani should stop being a chronic headache for everyone who crosses his path on Wikipedia. Sound fair? MastCell ^Talk 18:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Mentoring?

• Comment: I do agree that Badagnani seems to be being stalked by a few users from WP:EL who leave pointers to the RfC everywhere, and who prefer to revert his edits - rather than offer advice and assistance and encouragement. I agree that Badagnani's style of replying to talkpage threads is not the usual anglo-western one. I would guess that perhaps he is a foreign (possibly Hungarian) and/or older individual, who is simply perplexed by the youngsters involved above who are badgering him and mocking/dissecting his language. If that were the case with me, I might use "superlative adjectives way too much" too. He needs a mentor, not a block. (If I had time I would volunteer). Some of the people badgering him could really use civility and friendliness lessons. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Mentoring an editor with long-term problems is a major commitment of time and effort, and results have been extremely disappointing in the long run. You're volunteering someone else to take on this thankless role. Let's assume we all value our time as highly as you do, and don't wish to spend it mentoring Badagnani. How do you propose we proceed? You also suggest that Badagnani's difficulties are reactive and caused by "youngsters" badgering him. I don't see that; it seems that he's quite often the aggressor, or at least an aggressor, in many of the disputes in which he's involved. MastCell ^Talk 21:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

    (after ec w/ MastCell) Quiddity, thanks for this. I like the angle you're taking here. Anyone attempting this might want to learn from my errors. I tried to mentor Badagnani, and it failed rather spectacularly. I tried to convince him to let me edit with him, and by working through content disputes, get to the bottom of the troublesome behavior. He basically shouted at me how to do my job. There was nothing acceptable to him short of having his "assailants" punished and his edits protected, and the fact that I wouldn't jump at his command meant I didn't care about our policies.

    I accept that I must have bungled our interaction from the start, but he really is among the most combative and difficult editors I've ever worked with here, and I tend to work with combative and difficult editors. If anyone can get through to this editor, I'll be delighted, and I'll study how they did it, but... I couldn't get past the refusal to allow any contribution of his to be changed without his prior approval. We can't work like that here. What are we supposed to do, change everything because he's coming from a different cultural perspective?

    My very first direct interaction with Badagnani preceded all of this by a month or so, and related to cultural differences. He was edit warring at Dog meat, over a probable copyvio YouTube link. He was attacking other editors as biased "Korean nationalists". Here:

    • [37] I leave what I think is a reasonably worded message, including an offer to help work out the policy question, and giving a somewhat stern warning that we don't talk about each others' ethnicities.
    • [38] He replies by thanking me for the message, telling me I'm simply wrong to question the permissibility of a YouTube link that's a pretty clear copyvio, and reaffirming that we need to stop the "Korean nationalists".
    • [39] I reply more sternly that, no, we really don't talk about people this way, and doing so will earn a block.
    • [40] He removes my post as "highly threatening", and asks me in the edit summary if I'm new, don't I know that we make racist generalizations all the time?
    • [41] I tell him I'm not new; I've been an admin for three years, and personal attacks are not on.

    Then he gets really quiet, and that's the end of the interaction. In what culture is that cool? Never mind that; what could I have done better? Do I tolerate racism, edit warring and disregard for copyright, because he might be old and Hungarian? How do you mentor this guy? It's very easy for you to say that "someone should" do it, that you would "if you had time". Anyone willing and able to take this guy on as a project, you have my highest esteem. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - GTB, reading over this mess, I commend you for the patience that you've had interacting with this user. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Badagnani needs to learn when to stop replying to certain talkpage threads, and to just edit articles, and he needs to reread a few core guidelines and use less adjectives (less emotional language) and to write politically-correctly when in public. But when he's being pursued by nigh relentless and adversarial editors, it's hard to step in and give advice without seeming similarly dictatorial. I haven't formally mentored anyone before, and wouldn't claim to be a good mediator - I wouldn't know where to begin. In the end it's a partly just difference of wikiphilosophy, with a few problematic habits thrown in. It's a dispute between 4 or 5 immediatists who know how to wikilawyer, and a lone (I'd say curmudgeonly (some of my best friends in RL are curmudgeons)) eventualist. Eventualism got Wikipedia to where it is today, so I'm inclined to try to assist him, and at least attempt to see things from (what I imagine is) his point of view. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems that your suggestion is that some unidentified person, with inexhaustible patience and cultural sensitivity, should help this guy out. In my experience, these editors who are "relentless and adversarial" are people I've found to be at least somewhat receptive to communication. Badagnani is by far the most unapproachable person involved.

Unless you can say where this amazing mentor is going to come from, I don't see that you're suggesting anything practical. Do you expect someone to punish those who have been, in good faith, cleaning up after Badagnani, when he inserts sources that are obviously spammy, if not downright illegal? Or do you expect someone to come in with such clear vision that they see him as innocent, and his tormentors as guilty, and are able to defend this view? Where is this mediator, and why is it only clear to two or three people that Badagnani is the victim? How could I, for example, have given him more of a chance?

Speaking as someone who regularly puts his money where his mouth is, I'm extremely unimpressed with your suggestions. Back it up, or... why should we listen? What of value are you contributing? I don't mean to sound insulting, but... what are you realistically suggesting?

If you're his friend, convince him to change his style. Otherwise, I don't believe that this hero who will do so really exists. Nobody is as lost as he who will not accept directions. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, Quiddity... how can you call someone an eventualist when they officiously insist that their edits must be left in the article as a precondition to even discussing them? Do you know what "eventualism" is? What's "eventualist" about insisting that a copyvio link stay in an article now, for fear that our readers might not know today how barbaric the Koreans are, for example? Who are you even talking about? Badagnani is the opposite of an eventualist if I've ever seen one. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm possibly being a devil's advocate for the wrong horse. I've glanced through a few of the disputes and archives and the RfC and he has made some definite blunders. I wouldnt want to defend his actions one by one. You, GTBacchus, definitely made a good attempt to mentor/guide him, and I'm sorry it didn't work.

I'm not his friend, and he might be irredeemable. I'm just tired of seeing small handfuls of people bring massive amounts of coordinated grief onto a variety of editors (usually academics or foreigners) who don't know how to handle their immediatist attitudes, or their stubborn bad faith regarding almost any external links. I've seen links to university archives removed, just because "the wrong person" added them!

Regarding Eventualism: "In stark contrast to an exclusionist, an eventualist has no objection to large chunks of unwikified text and trusts that, eventually, someone will fix this, where an immediatist or exclusionist would be concerned that they will reduce the perceived professionalism of Wikipedia." -- Quiddity (talk) 06:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, the only two situations I've been following closely are at the following threads, where Badagnani seems to be acting completely appropriately, but the other editors are making things painfully difficult for myself and the two admins trying to slowly rescue the lists: List of gamelan ensembles in the United States (and its associated: talk, AFD, RS/N) and List of liqueurs (talk, WT:RS, RS/N). -- Quiddity (talk) 08:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

List of liqueurs? Really? This discussion is from over almost a year ago and demonstrates the exact same inability to work with others that is documented in Badagnani's RfC/U. He continues the same exact behavior once again in List of liqueurs when I confront him for the very same problems identified in the Redlinks discussion. He continues the same exact behavior in List of gamelan ensembles in the United States. This is not "acting completely appropriately." This is tendentious editing with disregard for most Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

1) June 2008 is not "over a year ago". 10 months admittedly, but exaggerating doesn't help. 2) You and GraYoshi2x erase all links and demand someone else check them for you, whereas we request that you collaborate on checking and verifying links. I think he has been quite polite given your dictatorial/angry-cop attitude. Each time he requests that you collaborate, you ignore him or point out the RfC: [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]. But again, I'm only familiar with these 2 situations. I'll try to look through some other page histories when I have time tonight. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Ronz, the note at my talkpage is much appreciated. I have replied at length there, with some thoughts that are relevant to this whole thread (hence a pointer from here). -- Quiddity (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(<-- Outdenting) Ok, Quiddity, here's the most generous reading I think I can give you. (What I'm about to say is not necessarily what I believe.)

Badagnani is an eventualist, with cultural differences and a generation gap working against him; fine. He has been unfairly harangued, harassed, stalked and mocked, by a group of bad-faith editors who won't let him be; fine. He's become so frustrated with this campaign of torment that he's closed off to trusting or accepting help from anyone else around here; clearly. So.... what do we do? We need a practical solution that we can actually implement.

One option is to tell Badagnani that he's right, warn and block his opponents, and give him a barnstar and a cookie. Another option is to put Badagnani on some kind of behavior parole, get Clark Kent or Job or someone to mentor him (if he'll accept it), and then block him if he can't respect our community norms.

The problem with the first option is that I don't think it can last. If we bump off Ronz, and Caspianblue, and Wikidemon (and who else?), unless we can also effect a profound change in the way Badagnani interacts, then more Wikipedians will just fill the shoes of these unreasonable tormentors. We could go 12 rounds like this, and eventually, we might realize that if 40 people are unreasonable and 1 person is reasonable... then it's actually the other way around. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget harried! There's a lot of hyperbole there, which I'm happy to read between the lines of, and mostly agree with. If Badagnani has stopped adding things like flickr as sources, then it's mostly a personality conflict, and we cannot change people' character, but we should be making more of an effort to be adaptive and diplomatic and patient with foreigners and academics and oldsters. He's started ~1300 articles in the 4 years he's been editing, and from random clicking through the list on his userpage, most of them are damned good stubs, or better.

More later, offline commitments call... -- Quiddity (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... I agree that we should be more diplomatic and patient when dealing with foreigners and academics and oldsters. In this particular case, I don't know what that would look like. Maybe it's just a matter of stopping the... "harriers"? While we have clear documentation of Badagnani's problematic behavior, I haven't seen nearly as much about these "ruffians," "rakes," and/or "rude-boys".

I have advised Ronz, since before this current round of business began, that his leaving warnings on Badagnani's talk page is foolhardy. He disagrees. He says (ignoring a fairly stong consensus) that DTTR is wrong, and that we should deal with problem behavior consistently and officially, by using warnings to document problems. He's wrong about this, and his warnings do lead directly and predictably to escalation, and help undermine attempts at dispute resolution. He should stop templating the regulars, unless his goal is to create unnecessary heat; problems document themselves, without warnings that tend to aggravate things.

That's the worst I've seen though, which isn't much compared with the worst I've seen from Mr. B. I have previously asked another editor who defended Badagnani to post positive comments at the RfC, but he has so far declined to do so. If those who support Badagnani really want to help, the best thing you can do is to document situations where non-spammy, not-illegal contributions of Badagnani's are being lost through the actions of others. This would be good for the community to see. Show us. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

A couple of examples from the last few days: [48] (gratuitous rudeness), [49] (the superscript photo-links are bad, but the wiktionary links are useful), and the senseless antagonism over an embedded-list of mostly blue links at Rice noodles.

Badagnani has some occasionally odd sourcing habits (although a few of these get into the gray area of "whether an imperfect source is better than no source, or not"), and he seems to like adding hidden comments for future reference (which irk some people but are mostly harmless). He strongly reminds me of a few of our older, prolific editors (eg fabartus), who are offended by the people who "make a waste of their time spent editing" by simply deleting or reverting edits.

I'd have to dig back months to find a time before he was being harassed. He certainly is vilified though, eh! Most of the disputes I've run across so far have been fairly normal Wikipedia activity, eg. the page history of Gurney Norman - each participant has a point of view on what should be included and how, and eventually they work out a compromise.

He might be doing far worse things that I haven't seen yet. What is the worst he has been doing, aside from inarticulately pointing out that someone might have a patriotic-bias in regards to dog meat? -- Quiddity (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's ignoring copyright law, in that particular case. The suggestion that a necessity for permission might outweigh the need to have the link in the article was, I think, quite reasonably presented. He rejected it out of hand, and refused to consider that he might be wrong. He ridiculed the idea that we should care about copyright, and emphasized the absolute necessity of using that particular link, citing our responsibility to our readers to provide the best information, regardless of legality. That's worse than inarticulateness. It's not an "odd sourcing habit"; it's a crime.

That's also the general pattern: there's an utter refusal to acknowledge that there might possibly be a reading of policy other than his. I tried to ask him in so many ways, "how can we tell whether X or Y is more important?," and he utterly refused to engage in any discussion, other than to tell me that I'm mistaken, and then to personally attack me for failing to block the other guys. That's worse than inarticulateness.

If you can show me a situation where Badagnani has accepted any kind of criticism as anything other than a personal attack, I'll give you $10. Where do you draw the line between "cantankerous" and "intractable"? Refusing to accept than one can possibly be wrong is worse than "inarticulateness". In a collaborative environment, it's utterly unacceptable. Do you disagree? How do we work with this?

Oh, another thing. If you're willing to write in his defense here, why aren't you willing to go to his RfC and leave a positive comment? You're not the only person who supports him here and there, by complaining that others should somehow improve, but that you're "too busy". Each of these people has failed to support him there. Why? It wouldn't cost you anything, and it would probably mean a lot to him. Maybe those things would look less like witch-hunts if people would go ahead and bring some positivity to the table. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

He was advocating linking to a korean television news clip [50], that an anon had uploaded to youtube. He seemed to be claiming that no other available source provided the insight of that clip(?). I don't think he said it specifically, but I believe he was thinking that such use constitutes "fair use" (an intrinsically subjective set of criteria, that I think this instance is neither close nor far from passing). I searched a few archives for this yesterday, and saw that there is generally a lack of consensus, though some people advocate more self-protective paranoia than others (or are more opposed to external links, or more opposed to skirting potential legal boundaries): Wikipedia_talk:External_links/YouTube and Wikipedia_talk:External_links/YouTube_2. However, I don't think that could be characterized as advocating a "crime" at all (which is a fairly heavy accusation). The clip is not particularly useful (imho) because it is not in English, but pictures do speak a thousand internationally-understood words...

As for whether or not he accepts criticism, I haven't met many people here who were particularly good at giving constructive criticism - lot's of people who think they are, and the majority of people in the world think they are good drivers... I don't claim to be good at either one of those.

I will ask him if he can find any instances. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The point is that it at least ought to be possible to have the conversation about whether the link is appropriate. Badagnani's position is that it is obviously so, and that any objection to that is obviously based on a mistaken reading. If we can't even have a conversation about it, how can we collaborate? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - The accusation that I am a criminal is outrageous and I ask that it be withdrawn immediately. Such an accusation of one of our project's most productive and sincere editors is simply not something befitting the status of administrator, as our administrators must adhere to a higher standard than that (as well as uphold our policies, which the above admin has stated that he categorically will not do). The use of File:Brain freeze-01.jpg is not illegal, and, as I mentioned at the discussion page of Ice-cream headache, I have been in correspondence with the photographer, who had no problem with its use as an illustration of an ice-cream headache at the Ice-cream headache article. Badagnani (talk) 07:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

  Not the item at issue, see my reply above. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

  Badagnani, I don't think you commit any crime intentionally. I think you fail to appreciate that other editors' legal concerns are legitimate. I think that adding that link is illegal, because of copyright, and I think that you, acting in 100% complete good faith, fail to appreciate that. I did not call you a criminal, and I never will call you that. You are not defined by one good-faith but misguided action. You are a human being, not a criminal. There is a very big difference between "that action was a crime" and "you are a criminal". If you don't understand that difference, I can explain it in more detail.

  I certainly never claimed that the "brain-freeze" picture was illegal - I haven't mentioned it at all. There's the YouTube video clip for which we do not have permission, and you refused to acknowledge that other editors' good-faith concerns about the legality of that clip were even worth discussing.

  As for the claim that I've stated categorically that I will not uphold our policies, that is simply not true. I have offered Badagnani so many times to let me uphold our policies in the manner that I am comfortable doing, and he turns that into a complete falsehood that I refuse to uphold policies. I simply won't do it the counter-productive, escalatory, unencyclopedic way he wants me to do it. He wanted me to play cop, rudely demanded that I play cop, and he refuses to understand that admins are not cops. He refuses to consider that I might possibly have a different approach.

  I continue to offer to uphold our policies in the only way I know how, and Badagnani continues to throw this offer back in my face, bundled with a falsehood about my refusal to act. With everyone here as my witness, I will help you, Badagnani, if you let me do it my way.

  You are not a criminal in my mind — hear that, carefully... "You are not a criminal, Badagnani". Get it? I have never called you that; you mistakenly advocated something that has a very good chance of being illegal. I have never said I wished for you to be blocked (you've falsely accused me of that repeatedly - probably a misunderstanding), and I have never refused to uphold our policies. I just won't do it the wrong way that you want me to. If you want me to help you, don't tell me how to do my job. What's so complicated about that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Here is the "not true" comment in which the above editor states, very clearly, that he does not take either policies or guidelines into account when carrying out his duties. Why would one state something so clearly, then later say he did not? Badagnani (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, wow. :) Yeah, I said to Viriditas that I don't read policies. The edit summary said, "if you have to read it, you've already missed the point." I mean that. If you go to the page Wikipedia:Civility to decide whether or not you're being civil, then you've already missed the point, which is to actually respect each other. The point is not to follow some rule in every detail, but to recognizing other humans as being worthy of our respect.
    I expressed this idea to Viriditas in a way that I took to be humorous, and which I believe he also understood in that way. My intention was certainly not to give the impression that I disregard our policies. My intention to was say that I regard them very seriously, and in terms of the "spirit of the law", not the "letter of the law".
    That my lighthearted remark was mistaken for disdain for our policies surprises me — I didn't anticipate that. I should learn from this not to assume that every reader here will understand and appreciate my sense of humor, especially in contexts that concern them personally.
    Badagnani, I assure you that I hold Wikipedia policy in the highest regard, and that my comment to Viriditas was a statement against Wikipedia:Wikilawyering, and not against the project's fundamental values. I was giving him a good-natured ribbing over approaching me with policy links, rather than with straighter talk about the situation. I apologize for the misunderstanding. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - Actually, the failure to even spend a single word asking that the editors engaging in WP:STALK cease such activity, which has been going on for nearly 40 days now without stop (over 50 instances this very day), does illustrate the lack of adherence or even reading of our own very important policies, of which WP:STALK is one. (The actual quote is very clear: "I don't read guidelines...Policies are doubly avoided.") It is crucially important that our admins uphold such policies in order to preserve our founders' ethos, and collaborative, positive spirit. In 40 days there has been not one word or action taken by the above admin in this regard, which does not speak well for the current curating of our project, which I care for and about deeply. Badagnani (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

  First of all, I have defended you repeatedly, and asked other editors to stop leaving warnings on your talk page, for example. Once, I repeatedly reverted another editor who was leaving aggressive messages on your talk page. I'm sorry you never noticed this. Even today, I have been commenting that the editors with whom you have conflict are contributing to the problem, and not behaving in an appropriate, de-escalatory manner. I'm sorry you haven't noticed any of this.

  As for enforcing WP:STALK, my offer remains open, despite your insults, to help you deal with this behavior. I simply refuse to do it in a way other than the only way I am capable of. I am not a policeman. I only have one kind of help to offer. Take it, or get help from someone better - there must be many!

  I have asked you repeatedly, and I ask you again: If my help to you is so unsatisfactory, then why can you not get one of the THOUSAND AND FIVE HUNDRED OTHER ADMINS to help you? Why do you complain about me, rather than finding someone more reasonable? If I'm so terrible, they must be easy to find, right? Why not get help from them? Are you going to continue to attack me for being more solicitous and willing to help you than any other admin on the project? Do you think that I don't have feelings? You keep hurting them. Stop, please!!! -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

  Badagnani, according to your definition of WP:STALK, today, you're the one who WP:STALK GraYoshi2x (talk · contribs) over multiple Chinese food articles ; Buddha jumps over the wall, Buddha's delight, Cha tang, Suanmeitang, and Baiye. Given the accessible information on his talk page, GraYoshi2x is a native speaker of Chinese and has been working on Chinese/Asian cuisine article. Moreover the articles are not created by you nor edited by you for recent months and you have a long history of inserting false Chinese characters to articles. You have a serious issue with WP:OWN (how could cuisine articles be all yours? In the same sense, you also WP:Hound me two days ago to an article that I created regardless of my previous saying that do no not follow my edit. You've also wikihounded me for more than one year including articles beyond your intersts, but you never admit your wrongdoings. You don't care about the project, but about only your ego.--Caspian blue 02:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

  This is unhelpful Caspian. We are trying to de-escalate, not to escalate. Do you understand the difference? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

  GTBacchus, I appreciate your patience, but unfortunately I'm no saint able to feel okay with his contradictory behaviors and absurd victim card. Didn't you suggest to block him because of his endless edit warring and blatant disregard to consensus?--Caspian blue 03:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

  Not if we can find a solution that doesn't involve blocking him, no, I don't. If he can agree to work with others, respectfully... that's the ideal solution. The extent to which you're trying to help us get there is appreciated. If he has to be blocked, that's a loss for everyone. The goal is that we work together, not that we identify and remove "bad guys".

  I suggest that we block him if nothing better than that can be brought about, but I wouldn't keep contributing to this conversation if I didn't think something better were possible. I envision a Wikipedia where we get better and better at this, and learn how to accept contributions from a greater variety of people. This situation is an opportunity to learn, and it's worth as much as we let it be.

  Yes, I'm frightfully idealistic. I'm a teacher; I'd better be. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

  Then, you have to carry the burden of "mentoring him" as long as he gets it. His edits need to get "attention" for obvious reasons given so far. He does not realize that he is so lucky. --Caspian blue 03:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

  Well, you're certainly in a position to help... :) I don't know if Badagnani wants to have anything to do with me. If not, and if no one else is willing to take his case in a more substantial way than by lamenting that "someone" should help him, then I reckon he'll be gone before long. (Badagnani, "reckon" means "predict" in this context. It does not mean "hope" I do not hope for you to be blocked.) -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment – I must say, having observed only a fraction of Badagnani's edits, that the behaviour of GraYoshi2x and Ronz is extremely provocative. The article List of gamelan ensembles in the United States was a haven of quiet and cooperative editing for 3 years until 24 Feb 2009 when Ronz followed Badagnani (a long-time contributor) to it; since then Ronz, aided and abetted by GraYoshi2x, has turned the list into a battleground, imposing an extreme version of WP:Lists under which very few lists would survive. The collateral damage from this unseemly squabble is considerable and my own view is that GraYoshi2x and Ronz should agree to stop following Badagnani around (and vice versa, of course). Occuli (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Block request

• "one of our project's most productive and sincere editors"... nice. Having seen this guy in action personally, I'd recommend a block; I agree with GTB et al. Verbal chat 07:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how to tactfully say it, but I, and most people I know, regard a statement with greater and greater suspicion the more times it's repeated. Tell me once, and I'll believe you; tell me one hundred times, and I wonder what you're trying to hide from me. This is a lesson I learned over three continents and a lot of conversations with a lot of people, and I agree it's not science, but I believe it. I know I'm not the only person who thinks this way, either.

  I will continue to assume good faith, because if I'm going to stop I might as well jump off a bridge, but I will probably be much more irritable, dealing with an editor who continually advertises how great he is in his own estimation. I don't think I'm alone in this regard. Someone should write a wiki-essay about it...

  This is of course purely an aesthetic consideration, and anyone not finding value in this way of thinking, please do ignore us. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with GTB and Verbal. As soon as reading the ANI, I was very surprised to know that GTBacchus who had volunteered to mentor Badagnani, proposes to block him alone. Indeed, Badagnani has exhausted not only GTBacchus, but also many editors who have to deal with his disruptive editing (you name it) and attitude in Asian history and cuisine articles. The guy seems to consider Wikipedia "a place to satisfy his endless curiosity over esoteric subjects." He has made good contributions, but much of them have to be cleaned up. (I've done so for many occasions) However his stubborn resistance against removing his original research/synthesis/unreliable sources like commercial spams, blogs, promotional sources, flickr or YouTube links, is hard to work with him as opposed to his self-claim. If anyone cleans such uncyclopedic materials, then s/he has to bear accusations like "highly disruptive and damaging blanking of important information and note. That is harmful to our encyclopedia". He has requested to block AfDs nominators for the same reason. He, extreme inclusionist, never regards "consensus" and "reliable sources". Mentorship is already failed, and RFC/U on him is failing because he never responds to the raised concerns. I wonder who could guide him. --Caspian blue 13:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
• I sincerely don't think there's the slightest hope that Badagnani will ever be willing and able to reasonably discuss and reconcile a conflict. I had my own run-in with Badagnani at Talk:Musette last fall in which he behaved EXACTLY the same way as in the discussion at Talk:List of liqueurs and, apparently, in many other instances. Now he's behaving just as unreasonably in regard to Spare ribs; check out the recent edit history, where he repeatedly undoes three edits because one of them removed a paragraph (he says on the Talk page that the other two are fine) and demands that an explanation be provided for removing information--even though a perfectly clear explanation has been offered, and repeated, and utterly ignored. This is not the behavior of anyone who just needs to learn how to cooperate with other editors; it's the behavior of someone who has no interest in ever cooperating, despite the dozens of warnings that he should do so. He should either be blocked long-term or someone should be tasked to follow all his edits, to step in and make a ruling whenever he enters a disagreement. If he's going to forever escape any real retribution because he's contributed so much otherwise to the wiki, please give him some official label so the rest of us will know he can do whatever he wants in perpetuity, regardless of policy, courtesy or consensus, and won't bother trying to reason with him. Propaniac (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
• Badagnani is a complete time sink. Why waste more time? David D. (Talk) 18:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
• I am one of the admins that Quiddity spoke of, and I totally agree with his take on this issue. It is the behavior of Ronz, GraYoshi2x and others that have been bothering me. They have been inflexible in their zeal to apply guidelines with a strict orthodoxy that it is unwavering. They are wearing me out, and I've only recently come under their microscope because they followed Badagnani to List of gamelan ensembles in the United States. If their stalking and harassment are to be condoned, it will drive productive reliable editors away from Wikipedia. Sure, Badagnani may have his faults, and probably has overacted to the abuse that has come his way. But it seems far more understandable than the lack of good faith and rigidity I have seen from his accusers. If I were a newbie, I would have been gone a long time ago. My suggestion is that Ronz, GraYoshi2x and the rest be asked to refrain from policing topics they know nothing about and stop stalking and harassing Badagnani. The alternative, allowing them to continue unchecked, will drive eventualists out of Wikipedia, which to me is analogous to shooting yourself in the head. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 20:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• • I don't buy any of these black and white pictures. Badagnani is more intractable than "may have his faults", "a bit cantankerous". He's misunderstood, but he also treats others extremely disrespectfully at the first sign of disagreement - that I've seen. Those with whom he conflicts are neither saints nor thugs, either. Their interpretations of policy are good-faith, and they don't simply need to be warned away from "topics they know nothing about." That's a terrible solution. The best solution is to get Badagnani and the others to treat each other with respect and dignity, then focus on the articles, seek consensus on the policy questions, and get back to work already.
    Identifying good guys and bad guys is about as helpful as drama ever is, which is to say, it's the opposite of helpful. Nobody here is a "bad guy," nor is anyone an "innocent". These polarized descriptions do no one any service. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Without taking sides, is it possible to ask these editors to avoid each other? Is it reasonable to suggest that if one of the parties to the conflict is working on or creates an article that the other parties to the conflict haven't worked on that they avoid it and vice versa? Would this at least stop the spread of the feuding to new areas?ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, is it clear who "the parties" are, exactly? Who specifically would have to agree to what? I don't mean to try and pin you down except insofar as we have to, in order to figure out what we might be able to arrange... -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is clear who the parties are. I think it's up to them if they're willing to avoid each other. If that type of arrangement is acceptable it would be a great start and then only the existing battlegrounds would need to be resolved. If there is a determination to follow each other to an ever expanding circle of articles then it's an ever expanding problem. In that case I suppose Arbcom would be the next step, but that will be a long and ugly slog I think. It seems like there is enough work to be done that going their separate ways would be best. So that would be my preference. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that if an editor is behaving in a damaging way--not simply making decisions that others don't agree with, but making edits that even he can't or won't defend--the problem is not solved by telling those who keep confronting him about it to steer clear of pages that he's working on. Badagnani's conflicts are not limited to differences of opinion with a few specific editors. I stepped in on Spare ribs because I saw that Badagnani had removed a perfectly good contribution from a new editor, for no reason, and I was concerned about that new editor being turned off from Wikipedia. Propaniac (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• At this point, it seems nothing else will work. He contributes loads of information to Wikipedia (albeit with a few quirks), but he absolutely refuses and does not want to engage in proper discussion. Badagnani just ignores every statement other than his own and posts the same thing again and again, ad hominem. Coaxing, gentle encouragement, and admonishment all aren't working. To make matters worse, some editors were actually encouraging his behavior in the past and attacked some of us for what we were trying to do. GraYoshi2x►^talk 05:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

  I disagree that "nothing else will work". If you're willing to let me work with you... or are you as intractable as Badagnani, that other people's approaches aren't worth trying? There are absolutely strategies that you can employ that will improve the situation considerably. Are you willing to be someone who does that? It doesn't cost a penny to try, but you might have to swallow a little bit of pride. If I can do it, so can you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

So edit wars and vendetta going on

Just check edit history of Badagnani and GraYoshi2x today. Now Badagnani is chasing every edit made by GraYoshi2x yesterday and today. Generosity and admonishment do not work so far.--Caspian blue 04:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. It's incredibly frustrating when an editor who goes on complaining about this so-called violation of WP:STALK is actually blatantly violating it himself. I would just like this to stop. GraYoshi2x►^talk 05:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I think he would like it to stop, too. Anyone can keep a dispute going; doing something to stop it is harder. "Documenting the problem," giving warnings, making accusations... none of these are de-escalatory behaviors, and I'm not impressed with anyone who isn't actively trying to de-escalate. If you want the unpleasantness to stop, let's think about how we can make that happen. You can't change other people, but you can change the way you react to them. GraYoshi2x, Caspianblue, others... there are ways in which you could react to Badagnani that would be very helpful. I'd like to see more of that, and less of the stagnant conflict that all of us are so tired of.

Be pro-active as a peacemaker, and things will start getting a lot better. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bugs on this; you should've blocked both Badagnani and GraYoshi2x yesterday to prevent further disruptions when another edit wars and bickering began. And please don't drag me into the current dispute between Badagnani and GraYoshi2x or Ronz. However, it is obvious that his repeated disruption compelled you to report him at ANI. If Badagnani keeps coming with the same old problems and shenanigans to Korean cuisine/subjects, he has to face heavy criticism from editors working on the subjects such as me or other editors and admins". Badagnani is the main reason why I reduce to contribute to Korean cuisine. Badagnani has clashed with many many other editors for the difference between "copyediting vs blanking" when he even edits music articles. His accusation of "WP:Stalk" is really laughable. Why has he been Wikihounding and harassing of me, Jeremy, or Chris-Tanner, and Melonbarmonstar2? He has never answered to my questions on the subject. Now he revenges GraYoshi2x. --Caspian blue 17:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You're going to tell me what I "should have" done when I was offline working on a graduate complex analysis exam? Do you know how much I get paid to be an admin here. That's right.

I'll ask you the same question I keep asking Badagnani... why not get another admin? If I'm so bad about doing what I "should" do, then surely one of the fifteen hundred others is better, right? If you cannot answer this question, then you are in no position to tell me what I "should" do.

Even when I am online, I follow a policy of not blocking people with whom I'm involved in a dispute. Otherwise, I would be a bad administrator. I will never block Badagnani, because we've had personal issues between us.

You seem to think I'm a policeman. I am 100% not a policeman. I try and resolve disputes, and I try to bring disputes to a place where we can work together. Want an enforcer? There are hundreds and hundreds of other admins. Why not get one? Just do it, already. If you can't, then admit that I might be worth listening to. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Because you're well aware of the ongoing disruption around Badagnani. Nobody here get paid and nobody get much appreciated compared to spent time and energy. You've been heard many times, generosity and mentorship do not work. Instead of wasting our time to mentor or educate Badagnani, the community may get compromised fruits (peace, perhaps) by instructing GraYoshi2x like whatever article Badagnani disrupts, just ignore him because he is condoned to do so. (but do you really think that letting Badaganani whatever he wants to do is good for developing the encyclopedia?)--Caspian blue 17:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have a number of incorrect impressions of what I'm doing. When on Earth have I suggested, for example, "letting Badagnani do whatever he wants?" What planet were you on when you heard me say that? I don't expect to mentor Badagnani at all, but I continue to offer last chances, because that's what I do. If you don't like me doing it, convince the community to make me stop. I know what I believe in. If you want to tell me how to do my job the please, please, please, please, please... get another admin.

Why does anyone criticize me when it would be soooo easy to replace me. If I'm so wrong, then it's easy to find someone better. DO IT. If you won't, then stop telling me how to do my job. Isn't that fair? Either accept what I offer, or find a better offer. If you can't find a better one, then accept that you're stuck with me.

If you ignore this, then you are precisely the same as Badagnani. Why do you guys keep asking me for things you know I won't do. One thousand admins.... get busy and find the ones who will do what you want. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I have never said that you've condoned Badagnani to do whatever he wants nor you're a bad admin. I've thought the opposite and respect your patience. However, your stance as "let's everyone be happy together!" is not working as long as he refuses to acknowledge of the "core content policies", not "guideline" (how conveniently he claims this passage to advocate himself as a victim.) He first considers any copy-editing as blanking and gets hostile. For example, when "I" newly created some article" and relocated information for better readability, he absurdly accused me of blanking information (ha!) I have asked him nicely, do not insert his hidden remarks on articles, but he has completely ignored and taunted the request. His next step was attacking my English and background. His edit-warring over to keeping his snide hidden comments on the Korean cuisine article and attacks against Chris-Tanner got him blocked. People easily get fooled by the long list of his achievement (I did). However, that means an A-list of major cleaning. Why do we have to take the job on behalf of him? Wikipedia is not his repository to remind his forgotten memories. Civility is mutual, not for one side.--Caspian blue 18:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah. So you think I advocate "let's everyone be happy together." Thank you for making it clear that you have no idea what I'm talking about. I'm challenging people to work hard. I'm not saying, "let's all be happy". I'm saying let's all be better than what we've allowed ourselves to be. Why don't you.... keep misrepresenting my position!? That sounds great! Do you even know what I advocate? Have a guess. Have three guesses; the first two don't have to count. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Be specific and don't complain. I don't read your mind. Don't forget that you reported Badagnani to block him.--Caspian blue 11:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Mr Badaganani is a good editor but somewhat conservative. Through working with him, I guess that he doesn't like to change status quo but he will listen if someone could discuss with him patiently. So I suggest that you people could do anything but don't ban him from Wikipedia.--Amore Mio (talk) 06:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

My patience on him is dried out due to his constant harassment and wikistalking and disruptive editing over one year.--Caspian blue 11:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Sanction Proposal

Unless you want to spend a huge amount of time at ArbCom to determine which claims of harassment are legitimate and which are not, I propose the following community restriction(s) for consideration to deal with the edit-warring as much as possible:

1. GraYoshi2x and Badagnani are prohibited from reverting content more than once, per page, per day. Both editors are required to discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page.
2. GraYoshi2x and Badagnani are prohibited from reverting content more than once, per page, per day. Both editors are required to discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page. Should GraYoshi2x revert any edit made by Badagnani, such a revert must be made separately from any "bold edits" they wish to make. Should Badagnani revert any edit made by GraYoshi2x, such a revert must be made separately from any "bold edits" they wish to make. Failure to comply with this restriction will result in a ban from the affected page, set of pages, or topic. Bans will take effect once the administrator has posted a notice to the affected user's talk page and logged it at /Community_sanction.
3. GraYoshi2x and Badagnani are subject to an editing restriction (probation). Should either or both editors make any edits which are judged by an uninvolved administrator to be disruptive, either or both editors may be accordingly banned from any affected page, set of pages, or topic. Bans will take effect once the administrator has posted a notice to the affected user's talk page and logged it at /Community_sanction.
4. GraYoshi2x is prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, Badagnani in any way (directly or indirectly). Badagnani is prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, GraYoshi2x in any way (directly or indirectly).

Please specify your support or oppose for each restriction (and preference). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support all. 2 - first choice, 1 - second choice, 3 - third choice, 4 - fourth choice. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

  Why just GraYoshi2x? Isn't he just one of four or five editors that Badagnani has been complaining about? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

  That's how you began the thread? They are the principal players (involved users) who are complaining here or being complained about (depending on who it is); they're using "wp:stalk" and the like in their edit summaries during edit-wars between each other; a glance through the contribution history of both editors seems to show that the problem needs to be settled with both users; other users don't appear to be such an immediate problem as far as I could tell. Correct me if I'm wrong. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

  Good answer. :) I see the problem in a larger context than the events that led to this thread. I'd forgotten that we're not all speaking to that larger context. I see the real dispute as being one between Badagnani and a loosely defined group of five or six other editors, who are the people Badagnani claims are harassing and stalking him. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Number 4, Strong support with the prohibition being on direct contact. I think indirect discussion has to be allowed as both should be able to seek out help from neutral parties. I would also add an additional caveat that they should avoid moving their conflict to any new articles created or heavily edited previously by one of the two editors. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

  The reason I avoided indirect discussion was in case the restrictions are gamed (eg; asking another editor to do what you would've done if you hadn't been restricted, and then that editor doing so stating that he would've done it anyway etc. etc.) But I agree with your caveat; incidentally, administrators have generally made that assumption during enforcement. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

  A general comment, I'm not sure that Wikipedia works by preferential voting... ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

  Wikipedia works in a multitude of ways. If preferential voting works, which it sometimes does, then we use it. In other contexts, we do other things. Gauging consensus can be done in a multitude of ways. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Statesboropow

I propose a topic ban, broadly encompassing all Judaism and Holocaust articles, for Statesboropow (talk · contribs). He is a Holocaust denier who has made few useful contributions to Wikipedia, and none in the area I'm suggesting banning him from (he only has 20 mainspace edits among his 150 or so edits.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

My rather swift review indicates that a topic ban, broadly construed, would in effect be a ban from editing Wikipedia. I am not adverse to that, but I think it a misnomer to call it "topic" when they are the only apparent areas of interest to this editor. Support, either way. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

He has a few edits outside of Holocaust and Judaism related articles. Very few, but they're present. I fully support a topic ban or a community ban. We don't need this kind of contributor here. AniMate^talk 20:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Normally I'd be wary of topic-banning an editor who hasn't been blocked yet. However, given that most of his edits have been ridiculous trolling on talk page articles, I support this proposal. Blueboy96 21:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that is quite the noise-to-signal ratio coming from this editor. I was tempted to block for general abuse of editing privileges, but I will happily settle for a consensus here that (a) it's disruptive (b) a topic ban is appropriate. I support any of the sanctions proposed above, needless to say. ETA the more I see of the contribs, the less I like. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support a brief topic ban (1-3 months?) if it's accompanied with mentorship, if not, indef topic ban with option to review behavior at 6 months. This statement pretty much sums up what the problem here is. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • It appears that no mentor has offered services, much less been accepted. Durova^Charge! 00:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't look like they're interested in collegiality. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

i asked a few simple questions and i get nailed to the cross for it? why did women get a haircut before being gassed? no haircuts for the men? why did "especially pregnant women" who were not yet dead from the gas start to revive after being exposed to fresh air? the women who were not pregnant died quicker? there is no such thing as "denial" when you are talking about history some people have different views about everything in the world. from the existance of God to Big Foot. but you cant ask simple questions about the Holocaust? i am not a denier, you people are just closed-minded bigots. Statesboropow (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Block, circumcise and salt the resultant wound. --WebHamster 00:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)This is not the place to argue those issues; let the historians do that elsewhere; meanwhile, you do seem to be promoting a view contrary to the vast majority of that community, and per this and this, support for and our coverage of, these alternative viewpoints here would have to be both intellectually valid and given appropriate weight. Thus far, nobody appears to have achieved amendments to our existing coverage of the relevant topics. I doubt calling us "closet-minded bigots" is likely to help your case, but I'd be happy to block you indefinitely for persistent POV-pushing, edit-warring and disruption if your attitude doesn't mollify. Rodhullandemu 00:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

do what you want. Statesboropow (talk) 01:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This sounds a lot like a bunch of quacking from Raquel Baranow—the usernames sound similar. MuZemike 06:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that's possible, but didn't Raquel Baranow have a really insufferable way of spelling. She called it h-denial if I remember correctly and used internet jargon like "U" for "you". I think don't think this user is the same person, but we certainly don't need them around. AniMate^talk 07:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Support block unless adoption or mentoring is offered and accepted. The "I'll do what I want" comment, as well as the tone of the editor's own comments on this page, cause me to regetfully think that this editor's interests conflict with those of wikipedia itself. John Carter (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked

In view of the discussion above and in particular his replies in this thread, I have blocked Statesboropow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely for being a WP:SPA dedicated to disruptive holocaust denial and anti-semitic soapboxing and making little if any useful contributions. Review of this block is welcome.  Sandstein  17:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I had little, if any, confidence that mentoring or adoption would have been successful, given the attitude displayed both here and elsewhere. Whilst I was waiting for him to step over the line once more, I think "sooner rather than later" is ultimately better for the encyclopedia and its community. Rodhullandemu 17:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I'm not an admin, but a normal user. I realize that wikipedia is not a soapbox, unlike this user here who would not listen to reason.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Just a regular user's viewpoint: Good block. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support - But I really don't think it should be indef, about a month at the least.<small>'''''RandomGuy666'''''</small> (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC).
• Support - Indef block, as issued. I would suggest that the block could be shortened or lifted only if the user makes a conciliatory response on his Talk page, explaining what he would do differently in the future. He could voluntarily accept an editing restriction that keeps him away from the areas where his edits have been criticized. EdJohnston (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support indef. Ironholds (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Persoanl attacks from anonymous IP

An anonymous editor has lashed out with a vicious personal attack against me here. This is the IP's only edit ever to WP, which makes me think it is likely a sockpuppet, as well. NoCal100 (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Reverted and blocked. Cirt (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

User:B9 hummingbird hovering‎ using IP while blocked

Resolved

 – ip blocked, puppeteer's block extended. Toddst1 (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

B9 hummingbird hovering‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was recently blocked following a 3RR report by User:Mitsube. Since then the user has continued editing using IP 124.19.38.153 (talk · contribs) to:

• Complain about the block at WP:AN3 (this is perhaps understandable/excusable)
• Complain at User_talk:Mitsube, including this troubling postscript: [51], [52]
• Complain (with minor incivility thrown in) at the blocking editors talk-page: [53]
• Continue edit-warring in mainspace: [54]

Note that an unblock request by the user was reviewed and rejected by User:Toddst1. Abecedare (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked 124.19.38.153 (talk · contribs) for block evasion. Blocking followed by evasion to complain about the block/admin instead of using the {{unblock}} template seems to be a growing trend. :I've extended the block on B9 hummingbird hovering (talk · contribs) for continued edit warring through a block-evading sockpuppet. Toddst1 (talk) 18:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

To any administrator considering shortening or removing the 3RR/sockpuppet block on B9 please see [55]. While I realize the incident that resulted in the block was not content-related, I think it has revealed that there is a long-running problem with this editor. Maybe this isn't the right forum for such a discussion and maybe the block isn't the right sanction, but I think Abecedare quite succinctly captured the essence of (what I at least) feel the problem with B9 and why it's been difficult if not impossible to remedy. I wouldn't want to see that overlooked. Thanks. Zero sharp (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric West (2nd nomination)

Resolved

 – Subject AfD was closed as Delete, making this thread moot.

I think this was brought up some time ago, but I didn't see the thread for it here or in the archives. Could an admin take a look at that mess of an AfD and try to clear out some of the socks that have contributed to this article? Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Although I agree with you that it's a mess of an AFD, I personally don't think there needs to be any cleaning up. It's pretty obvious to me on how I'd close the AFD... and it's not in favor of the socks. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • It's going to get ugly. One of the SPAS (maybe they're all the same guy, not sure) is edit warring to have a screen capture from myspace in their, generally making the format of the page unreadable (i guess a screencap might be a copyvio, but i don't care about that. It's just rude and makes the AFD very difficult to follow).Bali ultimate (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I've semiprotected the page, blocked the following obvious socks:
      1. Commotion777 (talk · contribs)
      2. ItsRTime (talk · contribs)
      3. Hollowinsideandout (talk · contribs)
      4. Mangie80 (talk · contribs)
      5. TheGrooveGuru (talk · contribs)
    • and left a note on the AFD page. Toddst1 (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Tied to this - can anyone find any evidence that The Reign is a) real and b) went down as described in that article. Looking at the timings and the version history it looks like it was created solely to support the article discussed here. --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
    • If The Reign is a hoax, it's one that Christina Milian is included in perpetrating, since she asserts that she attended the event, and was surprised to find that she wasn't hosting it, as she had been led to believe.
      • Robbie Daw (2006-07-01). "One in a Milian". Instinct. Instinct Publishing, Inc.
      • "Christina Milian and Eric West CO-host "The Reign" Fundraiser, an Event to Raise Funds to Fight HIV/AIDS Around the World" (Press release). The Reign. 2005-08-05.
    • But she apparently doesn't (or didn't) know anything about this Eric West.
      • Jawn Murray (2006-09-18). "BV Buzz: Sept. 18, 2006". AOL Black Voices. AOL.
    • Uncle G (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe this was brought up at WP:AN and not here. MuZemike 02:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• The discussion is a mess and is very difficult to follow. I !voted to Delete based on the notability merits, but I think the discussion has been poisoned by the rather obvious external campaign to influence it. — Becksguy (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've closed the discussion as "Delete"--agree that there was some pretty serious sockpuppetry going on, but there was a pretty clear consensus to delete once you got past it. Blueboy96 15:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • And I've deleted The Reign as a copyright infringement of this. Rodhullandemu 16:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

For the benefit of the OP, the original thread on this is now archived here, although there's not a great deal on it. – iridescent 16:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring campaign

Resolved

Though thechnically within the limits set by 3RR, this has been going for weeks now. Please watch the situation and the discussion on the talk page. A couple of editors eradicate a lot of sourced material, get reverted, yet continue to revert instead of trying to reach a consensus, effectively saying that they don't like the stuff. Beatle Fab Four (talk · contribs) is particularly unhelpful, regularly jumping in from nowhere to help the other editor "win" edit wars across a wide range of articles (edit summaries: I support Offliner, Rv to Offliner version. Agree with him, Offliner rules). Most of BFF's contributions there and elsewhere in the mainspace (possibly even all of them) have been reverts to his favorite versions. I think that is not exactly constructive behavior, but he doesn't seem to listen to others. Colchicum (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I've protected the page for now. Nakon 23:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that BFF is unhelpful. He is after all the editor who uncovered the original research done by Martintg on the Treptower war memorial article - original research which was edit warred over, and reinserted, even by Colchicum. The reason for the removal is CLEAR. Biophys has taken it upon himself to create multiple POV-forks with the same content. You will argue to keep such rubbish, you will realise that this WILL have consequences for articles; in this case, duplicated material which has been forked has been reduced and removed from the main article. This is entirely inline with forking of content. And Colchicum, you know, people in glass houses, and all that. All I have seen you doing lately is calling editors Nazis (with no apology forthcoming), referring to editors as trolls, and calling other editors pigs. --Russavia ^Dialogue 08:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised? How is this rant relevant here? How is this related to the edit-warring campaign? For the record, sure, I am not going to apologize for what I have never done. I have never called any Wikipedia editor Nazi. I understand what pun from a distant past you may be referring to, but the rest is only your wishful interpretation, now bordering on obsession. The case is resolved for now, thanks, Nakon (though it will hardly work in the long run), so what is the point? The question is rhetorical, of course. And trolls are trolls, QED. Colchicum (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Wikifan12345

Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs) has been extremely uncivil and consistently making ad hominem arguments in a number of discussions. His behavior in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James G. Lindsay‎‎ has made the AfD almost impossible to follow. Consistently questioning the motives of those who disagree with him and posting long soliloquies as to why those opposed to his position should be reprimanded for disruption (if you expand the collapsed sections in the AfD you can see. Also, see if you can keep count of how many times he write my username or a variation of it instead of actually responding to the issues). He has also engaged in the same behavior at the BLP noticeboard and at Talk:James G. Lindsay#Source concern. Another instance is Talk:Judaization_of_Jerusalem#content_forking.3F where makes vague insinuations that antisemitic editors are the cause of a piece of 'referenced propaganda'. Having had this user accuse me personally of being an antisemite multiple times (see here), I am asking that somebody tell Wikifan12345 to stop questioning the motives of everyone he runs into. And if possible to stop disrupting the AfD. Nableezy (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Nableezy has been threatening me for awhile now. While I don't plan on spending a long time defending myself, this whole issue stemmed from a feud at Charities accused of terrorism talk and article. He posted a dubious warning threatening a block if I continued edit warring. You see, Nab has a lengthy history of non-AGF editing, reverting material "to the line" and then reporting the competing editor to 3rr. I've been blocked 2 or 3 times. He's been blocked once but I didn't report him. Following our feud, he decided to throw my article I created up for AFD: Good faith? Sure. A user suggested I consider filing a report for harassment. I considered it, but decided no because those things rarely turn out well and plus it would probably exacerbate our feud even more. I certainly regret that.. In terms of my "behavior," I don't see anything particularly wrong with it. We were "fighting", I didn't get blocked as what usually happens, and 20 mins later he posts an AFD. I call him on it, and he writes that off. I spent a couple hours explaining the context of the article and why it should remain the best I could. I also pointed out the continous use of logical fallacies by the administrator involved. Is that disruption?

For Nableezy to cite prior action is kind of funny. Maybe we should link all of Nableezy's reports? I'm sure there are some on the servers. If you check the history, I questioned Nableezy's motives on my first reply at AFD. I can't say I'm sorry but perhaps I wasn't clear enough: Nableezy, you moved a typical I/P feud into unprecedented territory. It was vindictive, malicious, and creepy. I am truly tired of your hounding, stalking, spamming my userpage, whatever you call it, so next time I will file a report. Also, If I'm going to be blocked can we wait for the AFD to finish? I don't think it would be fair if I couldn't respond. Cheers :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it just possible for you to respond to anything without an ad hominem attack? It was clear you couldn't do that in the AFD, on the [talk page and you seem incapable even here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I encourage you to fully read through the talk discussion to avoid misinterpretation of what occurred.? Notice my polite, cordial response to Falastine in talk, and his response: I know you are not for one to check and doublecheck sources, but I think this time you should. Maybe this time you will realize that you are wrong earlier rather than later. Falastine/Nableezy have a tag-teaming history in these sorts of articles, and Falastine and I have rarely co-existed in peace though I do my best to AGF if the situation merits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs)

This relates to a feud between two editors from a contentious subject (Israel/Palestine), but it seems the problem is more broadly with Wikifan's combative attitude; he too often and too easily questions the good faith of other editors when they fail to agree with him. Frankly I don't see this changing without some form of escalation. See block log and eg Talk:Mohamed ElBaradei#Third Opinion, in addition to the AFD in question (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_G._Lindsay). Disclosure: I've been in fairly heated discussion with Wikifan on that AFD. Rd232 ^talk 12:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

After a brief review of the AfD at issue, as well as the recent contributions and block log of Wikifan12345, I agree that he seems to mistake Wikipedia for a battleground. Accordingly, I think I would support appropriate discretionary sanctions against him per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. This should not be construed as an endorsement of any actual misconduct by Nableezy.  Sandstein  12:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

A "brief review?" Such an enormous conflict that goes far beyond the "afd issue" should warrant more than a "brief review." The whole AFD was not in good faith. I've been blocked in the past for Nableezy's editing approach and POV-pushing. This is not so much a complaint as it is natural for these sorts of articles. Here, I'll give you a "brief" review: Nableezy stonewalls one article, fails to get my blocked through revert warring, files a report an article I created 20 mines later, and I'm supposed to "assume good faith" and be nice? Can you affirm that? I honestly I have no issue with an AFD of an article I created. I don't really care. But to say I wasn't being punished or this wasn't yet another Wikipedia:Gaming the system violation, is rather odd. In Pal/Israel articles controversy hostile editing is a given, but if we want to make this a he said she said debate I will gladly enumerate x "crime" committed by x criminal. Sandstein, I think we've been in prior disputes though I cannot remember. Is that a COI? Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No, WP:COI does not apply in this context, but I would be forbidden from taking administrative actions (such as imposing blocks or other sanctions) against you as long as we two are in an ongoing dispute. I know of no such dispute, though. Disagreeing with you on conduct issues or having previously taken administrative action (if any) against you does not constitute an ongoing dispute.  Sandstein  16:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think what does apply is WP:BAIT. Wikifan12345 may be dealing a little badly with some baiting, but doing that is not always easy. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit, considering Nableezy's history of rather "unique" editing, is it not fair to say this noticeboard is simply another transfer of hostility from one page to the next? Has this not become a pattern? Perhaps I should have sent everything off to the courts instead of spending my time to defending an AFD, that as far as I'm concerned was not in good faith. Not the least bit. Wikifan12345 (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Going WP:LEGAL, are we? pedrito - talk - 23.04.2009 15:17

Ok obviously my message isn't being sent or it isn't wanted. I've provided all that I can. Any further questions will be responded to, just hopefully they are questions. ;D Feel free to block me, though again can we wait for the AFD to finish? Wikifan12345 (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit: I read the WP:Legal. Did I make a legal threat? My use of the term "courtroom" was a reference to how users use wikipedia as a courtroom rather than a place for collaboration and (hopefully) neutral editing. Apologies for the confusion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a contentious AfD over a minor subject. Reminds me of deletion debates over marginally notable garage bands. The subject of the AfD doesn't seem very notable; I looked him up in Google News archives and found nothing. --John Nagle (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, I once had a disruptive user- an obvious vandal- refer an article I'd written for speedy deletion. I didn't even think of disputing the deletion on the grounds that the referring editor was a vandal with a grudge. I just looked at the article, recognized that it really was pretty weakly sourced, and found the sources I needed to show that the subject really did meet the notability criteria. I'll tell you a secret- there's one article I created that I'm not 100% sure would survive an AfD. I'm really fond of the article, too. If someone wanted to really do something mean to me, they could refer it to AfD, and I'd have to just take a deep calm breath, make a single comment in the discussion about why I think it should be kept, and hope it made it through the discussion. (No, I won't tell which one. I'm not crazy.) That's because it wouldn't do much good to protest that the other editor had impure motives, and I know it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by FisherQueen (talk • contribs)

Ha! Oh! I think I know! May I? Can I? Oh, FisherQueen, do something evil to me and I'm spilling the beans! I love power... Left unsigned since I am incognito, bwuhahaha! Drmies (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Oops!

Arguments over AfDs often get heated. I have seen worse than this one, and no one got blocked. As for the article, it seems pretty well sourced in a way that establishes notability. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I have too. I remember Israel and the Apartheid analogy (allegation, conspiracy, propaganda...pick your favorite). That AFD was a doozy. And there were 7 of them....LOL. I believe arguments for deletion/keep should be directed at the AFD and not posted here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

continuing with ad hom in the AfD, here. Nableezy (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Not an Adhom. I didn't use it as argument. Epstein did accuse me of promoting blood purity (among other things) and we've been separated since. I'm not questing his motivates, I was simply bringing to light a past, notable occurrence that may reflect his POV. His points were generally the same. This isn't similar to a user creating an AFD to attack and punish another for whatever personal disputes said user might have. ;D Cheers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Here's a suggestion: you two stay the hell away from each other and away from I-P articles and deletion discussions. All of a sudden there will be no dispute. //roux   23:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Nab was never involved in the article prior to the AFD. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Which is why the 'you two stay the hell away from each other' bit was there. How about it.. stay the hell away from each other and from I-P articles. Looks like the end of the disputes would be in about three minutes. Or you could keep fighting with each other. Hmmm... //roux   23:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually dont think I have done anything wrong, and if somebody could point out what I have done wrong (somebody besides WF) I would gladly correct my behavior. And I have gotten along well with a number of users on the opposite side of the spectrum from me, this isnt an issue of my editing in I/P articles, this is an issue with the behavior of a certain user over a large number of articles, attacking and harassing a large number of other users. Nableezy (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Nableezy may be strong minded and indeed hails from a certain perspective in the Israeli-Arab dispute but it's best to avoid making allegations to someone's perceived motives. If there's a real issue of failure to adhere to NPOV or Harassment, then this should be noted on a relevant forum rather than the editors picking a fight. That said, Arab-Israeli articles often get heated up and just a couple minutes ago, Nableezy's companion on perspective on 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict suggested I'm using drugs "to get a point across". I'd suggest Wikifan12345 make note that he'll make an effort to avoid assuming bad faith and Nableezy will note that he'll make an effort to avoid the appearance of following Wikifan12345's contributions history page and we'll end this at that.
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That is not my 'companion' and when that user made a particularly vicious personal attack on WF I was the one who called him out on it. And I haven't followed WF, I can show that exactly how I found the article and when I wanted to delete it (shortly after it was created, but I gave him time to bring it up to standards) Nableezy (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

To be frank Nableezy,

You've just added a pointy provocation on that talk page which, in my perspective, doesn't help your case here.[56] I'd suggest you (a) take the above note not to use wikipedia as a battleground, and (b) that you make an effort to avoid even the appearance of following Wikifan12345 or provoking him. Wikifan12345 should, in all fairness, make a sincere attempt at avoiding allegations of bad faith as well.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Context is everything, considering what you have been arguing on that page that isnt exactly a provocation. But that is neither here nor there. Nableezy (talk) 00:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If I threw up one of Nableezy's articles up for deletion moments after a dispute failed to block one of us, I'm sure he'd be crying too. Probably demand admins ban me 4 liiiife. He wouldn't be the first. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Above is an attempt at humor. Try not to construe it as actual argument/personal attacks/trolling/teh wikifan111!!! Cheers Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

GF isn't a right. I assume whenever possible, but Nableezy lost that days ago. Plus, let's be real...the kind of articles we edit, butting heads is part of the process. But what happened here was ridiculously frustrating. I do not believe this noticeboard post, or any of his involvement in the AFD/article can be characterized as sincere. I just don't want to get to a point where someone expects me to apologize outside of perceived unorthodox (euphemism) attitude. Though its manifestations can be found easily. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Wikifan12345.

You don't have to apologize for losing your good faith momentarily but you do have to make an effort to avoid bad faith and butting heads; especially with Nableezy as you two have built up a "situation". Let me know if you need advice on working through this issue.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: context aside, Wikifan12345 seems to be taking the bad faith allegations issue with a bit too much humor to my liking and "context" which Nableezy is using as an excuse to making pointy provocations and following a user's contribution history page was also used by the fellow who was suggesting I'm doing drugs (context is the excuse for everything I guess). If neither editor is willing to accept my suggestion or at least present a note which shows they understand what the problem this discussion was started for is, I'd be suggesting a short term topic ban to get the point across. Basically, I'm currently in a content dispute with Nableezy so I'd suggest that he'd still be allowed to argue that one if end result is them being topic banned for a short period of time. Anyways, this suggestion is more of a nudge to make the parties understand the issue and address it than an actual topic ban proposal. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to say I am following a user's contribution history provide some justification for it. I havent made any excuses for anything. All I have asked for here is that somebody tell WF to stop with the questioning of others motives and to stop disrupting the AfD. Nableezy (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

What is the agreement? I wont' follow Nableezy around? Sure. I've made a consistent effort in avoiding him whenever possible. It is my personal opinion he is the one who tends to get involved when I'm editing: my first edit April 11 2009 The dispute originated from this article., Nableezy's first edit, April 13 2009.  : first edit at Lindsay was the AFD.

Now whether this is a sinister plot to annoy wikifan and reveal his true identity can be argued indefinitely. I am not saying this is a trend, that Nableezy deliberately checks each and every one of my edits to look for possible holes and exploit them. No, that's retarded. But to say we just happen to "cross-paths" is naive.

I don't want anyone banned, certainly not topic banned. I would however like to see a close to this dispute or some sort of mutual agreement where we try to avoid each other whenever possible. Perhaps relay disagreements to 3rd parties or disengage altogether. Tryin to problem solve... Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a step in the right direction and I would advise that you assume good faith in general if you don't want a similar thread opened a second time. While it's not mandatory for the closure of this thread, I'm hoping Nableezy will follow suit with a comment that acknowledges the issue as well so that we know both parties will make an effort.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Have had that page in my watchlist since reading Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development and discovering the category. Did I revert your edit? No, I thought it was fine. I started editing that article after a few users tried to remove completely well sourced statements. You have this idea that I care about what you do, I dont, much less why you do it. My whole concern here is your behavior at the various forums in which we have met, the BLP noticeboard, the AfD, the various talk pages where I have had to deal with you. I didn't even bring you here for attacking me, nor did I you when made accusations of being an antisemite against me. I brought this up because you consistently question the motives of everybody who disagrees with you. An admin says that a piece of text is a copyvio, you question her motives and reasons for saying so. Nableezy (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Read the talk again. Fal misrepresented the article and my claim was COI. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I admit that I haven't read too much into the talk pages and articles where Nableezy and Wikifan have interacted, but it seems Wikifan has been uncivil on a number of occasions. I agree with him that no one should be blocked or topic-banned (if this problem ceases that is), but he has to realize that before this dispute could be closed, he must always try to assume good faith (I know sometimes it's hard), act in a civil manner when interacting with other editors, and not accuse other editors of perceived personal POVs. I also do agree with Wikifan that both Nableezy and him should avoid each other whenever possible, although you guys edit articles within the same scope, so it might be difficult. Just try to keep conflict to a minimum or you could be blocked for a long period of time since you've already been blocked twice before. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment to everyone who sees it just as an issue between these two editors, a look at the AFD shows Wikifan comments like Rd232 wants "this article deleted for ulterior reasons outside protocol", pointless comments like this that do nothing other than inflame others and regardless of whether or not he's right, this comment isn't going to help matters at all. Look, I know this area is bad, but I've been working in the Macadonia headache for long enough to just say that users who just attack everybody they disagree with aren't helpful here. If Nableezy is stalking, he needs to stop right now, but Wikifan isn't a complete victim in this stuff. He's exacerbating the situation and needs to not do that. And this is humor of some bizarre type, the fact that so many people aren't finding it funny should tell him to cut it out right now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not, but to put your mind at ease for any future article that I want to edit for the first time, I will check the history and if Wikifan12345 shows up in the last 50 edits I will stay away from the article. Nableezy (talk) 06:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

nableezy - i dont think that is necessary. you have done nothing wrong - nominating an article for deletion is not harassment. if the article meets notability guidelines, it will be kept. wikifan should not be able to bully you into agreeing not to edit any article he edits. everyone who works in this area has had editors from the other pov "show up" on pages they haven't been to before, sometimes because the article was posted on a project board, sometimes because they (possibly) looked at another editor's contribs. i think it needs to be made clear that hounding and harassment are only valid complaints when the accused editor is disruptive, vandalizing, or editing against policy. "i think he might have looked at my contribs and followed me there and opposed me" shouldn't be a valid complaint. i think everyone who edits in the i/p area could claim harassment if that were the case. untwirl(talk) 18:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

← Honestly, if the ArbCom discretionary sanctions on Israeli-Palestinian articles mean anything - anything at all - then Wikifan12345 should be topic-banned at the very least. The behavior on this thread alone and on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James G. Lindsay is sufficiently poor. Combine it with this editor's history, block log, unconstructive style of interaction, and the fact that virtually all of his contributions to the encyclopedia appear agenda-driven, and you have someone who has "repeatedly or seriously failed to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, expected standards of behavior, and normal editorial process."

That said, I'm not going to take action. I'm feeling too old and tired at the moment to put up with the inevitable round of accusations of bias, closet racism, and "he did something even worse!" that tend to crop up whenever any administrative action is proposed or taken against editors in this particular arena of combat. Someone Else's Problem. MastCell ^Talk 17:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan12345 has not been editing all that long, and -- because warnings come more often than helpful advice when editing disputed articles -- what may be needed is not more warnings and blocks, but some helpful advice. Any editor, so focused on editing disputed articles, will be at risk of burnout. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's part of the process. If editors started reporting users on the opposite POV fence more often, probably half of everyone involved would be topic-banned. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, I never implied users were antisemitic at Judaization of Jerusalem. I said the article was a content fork, biased, and propaganda. I also said many of the users involved typically belong to certain group editors (who often edit together, almost collectively) that tend to not be particularly objective towards Jews/Israeli's. I was just being honest. The editing approach was far from neutral or balanced, and its survival of an AFD was entirely dependent on the sheer amount of POV division (both sides) rather than actual quality. Apologies if there was any misinterpretations. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed topicban for Wikifan12345

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.

---

Even though the WP:ARBMAC discussions often take place here, I'll close as improper. If anyone is interested, they can discuss at AE. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think we need it so I want to propose that, under WP:ARBPIA, User:Wikifan12345 be topicbanned from the entire Palestine-Israel area of conflict, as defined broadly by the arbitration committee. If he actually feels that simply listing an article for AFD is grounds for ad hominem attacks, I think he needs to work with other editors. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. Is it normal to post an AFD of an article by a feuding editor 20 mins following the dispute (and no resolution occurred)? Is it just a coincidence? Was Nableezy's post sincere or not? Those questions don't matter much anymore, but you're assuming this is all a coincidence which I have to disagree with. cheers. Further rationale is provided above. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly support you in the thought that Wikifan12345 needs to work better with other editors (esp. avoid making bad faith allegations) but he seemed to make a comment that he'll work on the raised issue. As such, I'd suggest giving him a chance to stand behind his words and see if he can make progress there prior to taking action. The point, I believe, is to try and help users understand where they are doing wrong rather than just punish them for punishment's sake.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, since so many of the articles related to Israeli/Palestinian conflicts are in bad shape because of POV disputes, these topics should only be edited by experts invited by wikipedia. So, everyone should be banned. Count Iblis (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I like it. ^^^^^^^. Textbites are easy, so I'll provide a brief brief (and selected) background: Editing approach was not a one-way-street. I was not trolling everyone in the AFD. And at the same time, the circumstances of the AFD and conditions were not fair or appropriate. I apologize for any "inappropriate" behavior but a topic-ban for what clearly is a bizarre dispute and bad faith on all sides is confusing, to say the least. ;D I've agreed to a mutual "contract" where Nableezy and I would avoid each other. I rarely edited articles he was involved in before the incident, continuing that shouldn't be too difficult. Removing myself from articles he feels like editing shouldn't be that hard either, as long as he's not posting one of mine for AFD. And for those who don't know, this isn't a first Nableezy/ Wikifan issue. If anyone has suggestions outside of epic ban I'm listening. : ) Cheers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the issue. The issue is your repeated insistence in arguing about the motives of others, you continually make ad hominem attacks, and you continually see nothing wrong with that. I put up an article that I felt did not meet the notability standards for AfD. Instead of showing notability you persist in questioning the motives of everyone who felt the same, Rd232, David Eppstein, Falastine fee Qalby, and others. That is the problem here. Nableezy (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You mean arguing about your motives? I did respond to every one of your claims in the AFD. I also expressed how I believe you were punishing me for problems outside of the AFD, which occurred in the charity article. You posting "edit warring" signs on my talk, which you initiated, was also bothersome. And considering our history, where you've reported me for mutual disputes, I've voiced my concerns to admins, and all the other stuff, assuming good faith off the bat is extremely difficult and I can't imagine another user doing the same. I simply provided background on Eppstein, he accused me of "promoting blood purity," among other things in prior disputes. Fal, Ep, you especially have all been involved with many disputes with myself. We've rarely come to agreement in the past, and I did not want an admin to get the impression that all of you are uninvolved or simply random but interested editors. Falastine was also involved in a heavy dispute at another article where he eventually notified an admin who later wrote it off. It seems the reporting comes from one side, I do my best to collaborate and resolve issues but what occurred was far from the picture you are painting. I'm willing to compromise but if you're pushing for a ban I will respond in kind. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

He questioned the motives of user:Moonriddengirl too, with the nepotism claim, and that I buttered her up with a barnstar to get her to agree that there is a copyvio and all that nonsense.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I did. This is not the place to couch in disputes, but since you mentioned: You left this message at Moon 7 days ago: As you know already, I have had problems with user Wikifan, one of which is that he quoted copyrighted material extensively in a article he and I edited. Anyone can read through that. You used this discussion to justify the deletion of quotes. I said it was bad faith for you go to a friendly admin without notifying a disputing editor, which you responded with AGF with you? Ha. The line isn't in the report. You deleted entire quotes simply because it said "Quoted in the report." Then you denied he didn't even write it, which admin R2 disagreed: R2. My "buttering up comment" was partially in jest, though I believe an accurate observation since you did commend Moon with an award prior to your question (which was used as evidence to influence the article) and Moon has been a mediator between you and I where she sided with you. I wasn't attacking Moon or yourself, but I wasn't supporting what had occurred either.

Now, to ban or not to ban...that is the question. Cheers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly the problem, you believe that anyone who disagrees you has a bias against you or some sneaky motive and not because they just think you are wrong. Most regulars on this board know Moonriddengirl, and know that she has been dealing with copyright violations for years and will call out a copyvio when she sees one. The reason why "she sided with" me in the first issue is because you wanted to copy seven sentences of copyrighted material from a single New York Times article! Despite our history, I actually attempted to handle the situation with civility but you were the one to mar that with ad hominem attacks.[57]

The fact that you bring up my edits on the Lindsay article shows exactly that you don't have a clue about what's going on. Rd232 is the one you accused of wanting to delete this quote dump article for ulterior reasons. Correct me if I am wrong, but he has been frustrated by your attempts to misrepresent his position? He agreed with me that the quote is not in the report, (despite that, you kept insisting that the quote is in the report and that you caught me). My disagreement with rd232 about who wrote the page that appears to be a book store review/abstract is simply a disagreement, and I stand by my position (though I don't care, since the article will be deleted).

You asked that I AGF when all I said is that you should check the sources which you tend not to (instead you constantly revert my edits). You do have a problem with not verifying like the time you told admins that I said you should be shot and kept pushing the lie[58]. I told you to present a link and as expected you did not, just kept repeating the claim [59]. An admin stepped in and asked for a diff, your response was "good call..."[60]

Wikifan is not apologetic for the things that he puts people through, I see no sign of improvement. Not that I am advocating his ban (though I should), I do feel that there should be something done to prevent him from antagonizing other users. He should at least try to curtail his disruptive behavior (he promised to but he is continuing this behavior). We can't always have these reports on wikifan with no solution. Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Mal said this doesn't belong here. But I will correct an inaccuracy: I collaborate with plenty of people who disagree with me in a typical and expected manner. Thanks for thorough response. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

NB: This discussion does not belong here, and Nableezy certainly knows that the area of dispute if covered by WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. So take it there if you think you really have a case, but to me it seems that this is in large part just some editors trying to settle an editorial dispute on AN/I. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies. I'm not 100% familiar with the noticeboard system and its rules. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ricky81682, who seems to have decided to back up one side in an editing dispute, should understand that this dispute area is covered by WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the dispute there. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Yet another MS sock

Resolved

Striking this, as there is still an unblocked sock.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Following the previous report, another sockpuppet Duh Elk At War (talk · contribs) was created; see comment. Can someone look into this? —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Now blocked by YellowMonkey. DGG (talk) 02:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's likely another Orbro (talk · contribs). His fourth edit is to the userfied version of one of MS's articles talking about the sources "he" had added long ago; [61]. This one isn't doing anything disruptive yet, though. Bali ultimate (talk) 11:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I don't like blocking him until he gets disruptive, always hoping he'll someday learn how to get along here. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm.... community banned. He lies, makes up sources, inserts false information into articles, attacks the sanity of those who disagree with him, and has done so with going on 100 new socks in the past four months (his entire wikipedia career involved many other socks to avoid scrutiny going back years -- no one ever noticed). Banned is banned, and he had about 10 "last chances."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs)

Yes, I do see it that way. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Please report these as a sockpuppet investigation so we can keep tracks of his socks. Can't find anything though, you might want to poke Nishkid64 about it. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that MS means Manhattan Samurai, shouldn't someone be opening up a new report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Manhattan Samurai? This is the logical place to file any new socks. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No. As you'll see the last one was declined per DUCK. Why spend all that time filing a report that isn't going to be looked into? Just RBI and move on.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Even a trivial sock freshens up the data that can be used by checkuser. I suggest starting a list on the *Talk* page of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Manhattan Samurai to keep the info from being lost. EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not a sock puppet. Orbro (talk) 06:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

And yet not a single person told you of this thread, and you found it anyway. Gwen, Jeremy, Bali, please block this blatant sock and we can get this over with.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I have filed an SPI, found here. Please add any new socks you come across.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Please ban this user

Resolved

 – Blocked indef. BTW, try WP:AIV next time. Thanks. Wknight94 ^talk 19:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Chinabluemultipack is clearly a vandalism-only account and I recommend that it is closed immediately. Please see the contributions history for verification. Thanks. --Orrelly Man (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

User:JBSupreme's continued inappropriateness

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

Though I would acknowledge that JBSupreme has made several key improvements to articles, at other times, he is obscene and a borderline vandal...and many people have called him on his talk page for this. At numerous times, he has deleted long-standing, accurate and cited portions of articles for virtually no reason at all. When he does so, his edit summaries have either been blank, leaving little or no reason for the deletions, or obscene, laced with profanity and call-outs. Numerous user complaints can be found at his talk page. I would note that this is not the first time an incedent has been lodged against him. Thank you, Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Purplebackpack89, in my humble opinion your complaint is more suited to dispute resolution. In particular, I suggest you have a look at Wikiquette alerts and Request for Comment on user conduct. PhilKnight (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Purplebackpack89 ... just a few days ago the issue of his rude edit summaries was discussed in this very forum right here. You will also note on his talkpage, he was advised that it was better to leave no edit summary than to be rude. Have there been additional rude incidents in the last 2 days? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

He trashed one section of an article I added, then when I used another as precedent, he trashed that too. I put them back, and again and again he trashed them and hurled baseless accusations at me. See his talk page for more info Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have accused him of being rude in edit summaries above - my point was that we have already dealt with that issue, and he has not been uncivil in summaries since that time (unlike yourself "slapping on protection in light of penis hack and elimination of my subheadings"). You are currently involved in a content dispute. Content disputes need to be solved by WP:CONSENSUS on the article talkpage, and not here in WP:ANI. I will also warn you about WP:3RR on the same article (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI: penis hack was when somebody deleted a section of an article and replaced it with "penis" a bunch of times. I still maintain that JBsupreme is too trigger-happy and heavy-handed in addition to his edit summaries, and should be banned Purplebackpack89 (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Concur with User:PhilKnight, this is more suited for WP:RFC/U. Stifle (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

DeepNet Explorer

Resolved

I noticed that User:Ironholds was having difficulty merging Deepnet Explorer into the Web Browsers article as this account believes that the software is not notable enough to have an article on its own. I'm just requesting an expert opinion as to whether it should be merged to Web Browsers or a similar article or allowed its own article. Either way, I don't think it should be removed from Wikipedia. --Sky Attacker (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

What administrative action are you requesting? shoy (reactions) 23:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm requesting urgent action before the article gets bamboozled by the speedy-delete machine. --Sky Attacker (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand what action is called for. Deepnet Explorer was quite rightly tagged for deletion as lacking any reliable sources or claim of notability; if you think that the subject is indeed notable, you should add the necessary reliable sources that would prevent deletion. No administrative action is required for that. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No, no, no! I'm asking would it be better to merge it into a bigger article, so that the content won't be deleted. --Sky Attacker (talk) 01:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Even merged, it would still require reliable sources to establish its credentials for being worthy of mention. If it's deleted, it can be emailed to you so you can work on it in your own userspace; but unsourced, it's not going to hang around for long anywhere. Rodhullandemu 01:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

User:George Zinkhan

Resolved

 – Going to proper venue LadyofShalott 04:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ummm... is it valid to hardblock a new user name created to be the same as George Zinkhan alleged to have committed the University of Georgia shooting today? (I have concerns about those new articles as well, but am here about the username.) LadyofShalott 04:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Report to WP:UAA, maybe? -download | sign! 04:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's the place! Forgot about that one. Thanks! LadyofShalott 04:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked this account, as I believe it does not meet the username policy. TNXMan 04:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Spamming on article talk pages

My attention was first drawn to the editing of Ved036 (talk · contribs) when I saw this edit he made to Talk:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. The comment criticized the article as being something like a newspaper article. It contained no suggestions for improvement or how to overcome the problems, but it seemed to me as a cover for a link he provided. The link was to a forum which contained a kind of an opinion piece, written apparently by himself. I reverted this edit since it seemed to me as being in violation of WP:TALK and WP:SPAM. I then checked his contributions and saw that almost all his recent edits were to article talk pages. Most of them were of similar nature to to the comment I have given above; they show some fault with the article and then provide a link to one of his opinion pieces, inviting readers to follow the link. I left him a note on his talk page about this, but received no response. But he did post this comment on Talk:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, accusing its editors of "inserting their own opinions and claiming them to be of superior academic standards" which seems to me to be exactly what he's trying to do with these talk page comments. Check out these links, some examples on his comments made to article talk pages:

• Talk:Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
• Talk:Malayalam language - He makes no attempt to even conceal his true purpose here.
• Talk:Parapsychology - Nor here
• Talk:Vandana
• Talk:Barack Obama - This, again is clear spamming

He seems to have got into quite a conflict regarding his postings at Talk:Ezhava as well. Anyway, if you click on any of the edits to article talk pages in his contribs, you'll see what I mean; they are all of the same nature. Wikichecker and Soxred93's edit counter both show that he has only 3 edits in the mainspace and 109 on article talk pages. Clearly the account is now being used only for these postings he makes on the article pages. It also appears to me that he has a bit of bias against India and other countries of that region [62][63][64], but I guess that is neither here nor there. But those links are clearly against WP:SPAM. I'm not seeking a ban or block here, but can an admin at least discuss with him and explain to him about what he'd doing? Chamal ^talk 06:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

My Reply

I had not seen this page till now. Let me explain that there are many Wikipedia articles that are mere propaganda material. If it is about LTTE, then all I asked was for a more balanced writing. As to the links given to my writings, naturally in all websites that I take a membership, in my profile page there are links to my writings.

As to the various antipathy that I received in the Ezhava page also it is natural. For I strove to correct a deliberate misinformation. However, a lot of vandalism was done on my writings. An Administrator came into the picture and she also admonished me for inserting words like Toddy Tapper etc. I discussed with her what had really happened and gave links to my writings as against what was purported to be my writings. After studying the same, she ultimately came to the conclusion that I was not in the wrong.

I quote from her last reply:

Quote: Okay, I see. I didn't realize that the toddy tappers person was editing your posts, so I did remove your vandalised posts, but it was not my intention to delete your words. Sorry about that. I have the page watchlisted, and will revert any vandalism of anyone's talk page postings. You are free to do the same. Natalie 15:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It is true that in the earlier days, I may have posted links to my writings directly from the edited talk page. When I understood that this was in violation of some rules, generally I desisted. As to the post on South Africa, I really wanted to input an idea that could be included in the article, for it is something that has never before been considered. As to the link given, there is no personal benefit in it, other than the information in it. As to it being anti-India, is just a figment of imagination. For the given link is a thing that is being considered by the Kerala High Court with regard to the use of pejoratives by the police and other official class towards the common man in Kerala, India. In no way it is anti-Indian, other than if being pro-Indian people is being anti-India. Moreover the context of the link had no link to the legal proceedings in Kerala.

A lot of one sided writings are there on my User Talk Page, but then all of them are one-sided. I took time to correct only one person's accusations. All the others I did not care to reply.

Now, looking at accusations, I am sure all my insertions will have reap the same accusations:

Let me give links to some of Talk Page insertions. See if anyone can accuse me of promoting my writings, or just suggesting a more scholarly input:

[[65]]

[[66]]

[Movement]

[Chandra Chattopadyaya]

Now look at this insertion: [K Nayanar] I am sure that this can bring up demands to have me removed from membership. For, it is about a communist party leader, idolized by the party members. I do not belong to any particular party. Yet, a feeling that I am from some opposite party may arise.

I do not search article to post ideas. When I am searching for some content I come across articles which are of questionable correctness or not balanced. There is no aim of advertising my ideas through the Wikipedia.

While in many cases my writings are not objected by the immediate persons concerned with the main article, there was one single incident that brought an immediate negative response. It was when I wrote in Prophet Muhammed's Talk Page. Yet, I have seen many acrimonious words in many other articles that are not objected to. The spontaneousness of the response was more in regard to the fact that it was in a page connected to a religion which is viewed as a sort of terrorist organisation in many places. Actually my words were sort of opposite to that feeling.

Before concluding let me say that certain editors have blatantly gone around deleting my writings in many places in a sort of prejudiced manner. I would say it was not fair. If at all they need to be fair, let them go through the talk I had with [[67]] I cant find the conversation now, but it can be searched out I suppose. Without going through the whole conversation, it is not correct to summerise that it was I who did the mischief in the Ezhava page. The administrator understood that later told me to stick to my stand as seen from the quote above. --Ved from Victoria Institutions (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Centpacrr and World Series

From time to time we get users insisting that the World Series has no right to call itself a "world championship" and they post editorializing comments to that effect. Usually one reversion and a warning are enough. Sometimes a block is needed. This is a little different, as Centpacrr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to insist on this point, despite being opposed by other editors so far, even with one editor posting some (additional) explanatory material on the matter. Can something be done to stop that guy's editorializing? He won't listen. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for one day for disruptive editing. Cirt (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Is that like how p'd I am that the Miss Universe pageant doesn't have contestants from Pluto, or even from outside of the System of Sol? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? I have the distinct impression that some of the contestants are from some species based upon silicone derived lifeforms... (the need to breathe methane, as opposed to the carbon/oxygen relationship in the known lifeform systems contributes, I am certain, to the "air headedness" of some of the comments) while others simply appear to be from another planet/reality. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

While I agree the editing was disruptive, why block without a warning? Is there something more at play here? Blueboy96 14:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well he was obviously past 3RR and editing disruptively, as he is an established user he should know about edit-warring. Cirt (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Also it should be noted at this point the block has expired. Cirt (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Left notes for both users [68], [69]. Looking into this I could certainly have left a warning for Centpacrr (talk · contribs) first and I should have done that, but also I think the block was appropriate. I also admit that Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs)'s behavior in this instance could have been looked into further as well. Cirt (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

A warning perhaps should've been given, but the block and explanation seems satisfactory to me. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah okay thanks, agreed. Cirt (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Along with this ANI report, I reported the situation to the Baseball Project page so that those who actually know something about the subject could weigh into the discussion. Which they did. At that point I backed off from editing the article, and other editors arrived at a compromise solution that addresses Centpac's complaints while leaving out his editorializing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, glad that's all been resolved. Cirt (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

What I was doing was not, in fact, making blanket "reversions" of anything (and not disturbing anything contributed by anybody other than myself), but was instead attempting (with explanations posted in the talk page each time) to continually rewrite my single sentence contribution in such a way that would satisfy the complainant. His response, however, was to keep unilaterally reverting every such attempt (which he did a minimum of four times in less than 24 hours and five times altogether) charging me only with "editorializing." (A review of the complainant's recent unsuccessful RfA [[70]] indicates that he has a long history of doing this with little or no explanation provided in his edit summary, and frequently claiming that "consensus" had been reached to support his position when it clearly had not.) He then filed his "complaint" (above) for which I was blocked (according to the time stamps) within five minutes without ever being contacted or warned by the administrator (User:Cirt) that I had been accused of something and apparently without conducting even the most cursory investigation of the situation.

I have been editing actively on Wikipedia since September, 2006, without ever having a complaint of any kind filed against me, and had followed the rules re: using talk to discuss my reasoning and support it with sourcing. When I requested the complainant to support his contention that I was incorrect in my contribution re: the differences between a "World Series" championship and being the internationally recodnized and snactioned "world champions of baseball" the only responses I got from him were A) "Bud Silig says it's so."; B) "That's where the money is." and C) "It is what it is." After many further requests in this and other talk pages he or she has still not provided a single source supporting his contention that these two titles are officially recognized by any international governing body of the sport as being the same. (The complainant also represents himself in his user page as being "thirteen and a half" and as a student in Jr. High School which is apparently false and is supposed to be a "joke.")

It is my firm belief that I was acting in good faith and only attempting to resolve this dispute with through discussing it in talk when the complainant (after making four reversions himself) brought it here, after which I was tried, convicted, and sentenced in less than five minutes after it was filed without even being advised that I had been formally accused of any transgression. I was not engaged in either vandalism, nor in making personal attacks, only attempting to improve the World Series article by clarifying that MLB's use of its longtime PR/marketing slogan "World Champions of Baseball" should not be confused with their "World Series" champions also holding the sport's internationally recognized and sanctioned "world" championship. (Such titles can only be competed for and won by national teams sponsored by each country's national federation that have done so by participating in a sanctioned international tournament for which national teams from competing countries must first qualify.) A unilateral claim to the "world" title by private organization (i.e. MLB) does not meet any of those criteria.

My objection here, therefore, is that I was accused, tried, convicted, and sentenced for "disruptive editing" without ever being formally or timely advised that such a charge had even been made, without the administrator contacting me for my side of the story, and for a transgression that I do not believe I had committed. (Centpacrr (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC))

Disturbing comments by IP

There is an IP making dozens of disruptive edits to the Ayn Rand page. Some of the comments are disturbing. While (as many here will know) I am appreciative of an abrupt and robust approach, these comments go beyond what even I find acceptable. The admixture of capitalized words is also scary. Is there anything that can be done? Thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 07:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. MBisanz ^talk 08:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Huang_Sir

This user keeps removing reliable sources from Republic of China and replaces them with a link to the Chinese Wikipedia. He has already been told numerous times in the talk page and in the revert comments that self published sources are not acceptable, but yet keep inserting his Wikipedia link. Here are some examples: [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] and there are many more (Actually, I think every single one of his edits are about his Wikipedia source). Laurent (talk) 10:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I just can't make him understand that Wikis and emails are not acceptable sources, and now he is posting crazy stuff on my talk page: [77]. Laurent (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've just left him an {{ANI-notice}} --Rodhullandemu 13:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Not only is it an email, but a file,a respond, from the government which you can send to some Chinese to confirm it.Huang Sir (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It may be worth looking at zh:Talk:中華民國#关于国土问题 and zh:Talk:中華民國#關於條目中華民囯首都問題 (need someone with a better grasp of Chinese than I have). There seems to be the Chinese Wikipedia equivalent of an RfC open on this exact issue- one in which Huang Sir is a principal participant. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it could be helpful, however a decision that affects Wikipedia China doesn't necessarily affects the English Wikipedia. We also have a mediation request going on here for the Republic of China article. Laurent (talk) 16:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like this to me; from what I can understand, the issue at Chinese Wikipedia is as yet unresolved. But, Huang Sir is trying to say that we should accept such a reference per a decision made at the Chinese Wikipedia. What that indicates I'll leave it up to you to decide- I hope it's just that my Chinese has suffered that much. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Also dropped a note at Huang Sir's user talk trying to explain why WP:V specifically forbids the use of such unpublished emails as sources. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Megan1976

Megan1976 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) impersonated Megan1967 (talk · contribs), a confirmed sock of JamesBurns (talk · contribs). The account was mainly used for discussing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spyde, identified as a sock there, but never blocked AFAIK. Is there a reason for not blocking it? Would an admin mind doing so? I know it's a very (c)old case, but atm all AfDs where JB or one of his socks contributed to are being revisited. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 17:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hi HexaChord, according to the block list the account is blocked, but not according to the block log, which is weird. PhilKnight (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok, thanks. I wasn't clever enough to look at the block list. Maybe it's missing in the block log because it's very old? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 19:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
    • The account shows as blocked shame on whoever tried to make like they were Megan. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Two other socks from above Afd, Spyde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Zoombini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) seem not to be blocked at all, right? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 19:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
        • So very old, thanks for bringing them up but otherwise there seems aught for an admin to do, Gwen Gale (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
          • One of them edited again two years after the AfD and could be used again as soon as needed for whatever. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 20:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leanne. It appears that the impersonated account was itself an impersonation. So your comment applies twice over. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
        • What do you think about blocking the socks? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 21:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

User:I-10, again

[78], [79], posting to my talk page about his block. Blocked for block evasion, socking on 16 April 2009, after this discussion thread at ANI. I blocked both of the IPs for the block evasion/socking as well. Other administrators feel free to look into above and change something if needed, but at this point probably not much else to do. Cirt (talk) 06:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, here is some other material on this Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/I-210 and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of I-210. Also more at [80]. Cirt (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... the only way to get him to be entirely blocked is to block the entire 75.47.0.0/16 range. However, we can't just block the range indefinitely... --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LOTRrules

Can someone look at this SPI? It seems to have stalled after being noted as being borderline, meanwhile the editor in question is continuing to act in a disruptive fashion and making comments and personal attacks that seem to clearly indicate he is not as new as he purports to be. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hard to see why this is borderline. At 20:36 on April 16, AncientUni (talk · contribs) is blocked for being a blatant sock, after working on Dragon Ball Z: The History of Trunks earlier that day. At 10:15 on April 17 (i.e., first thing the next day), SonGoku786 (talk · contribs) is created and immediately begins rapid and sophisticated editing on Dragon Ball Z: The History of Trunks, taking up where AncientUni left off. Perhaps this is a case where too much evidence was presented in the SPI, obscuring the obvious pattern. Looie496 (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I have Dragon Ball Z: The History of Trunks on my watchlist and ask myself for several weeks now why there is so much activity, even edit warring when there was far less last year. What exactly is going on there? Isn't there a WikiProject about DBZ? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 17:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a Dragon Ball task force under the Anime/manga project, but it has only one or two active editors that I can think of, and there is no current task based effort to do anything with that article. Seems a bit odd to me...-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Collectonian, you'll just have to put up with it until it is processed.--Otterathome (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No prob, just wanted to make sure it hadn't gotten lost :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears they are on the same ISP which makes it pretty conclusive. You'll just have to wait for an admin to make a decision. You can post a link to here and case at WP:AN if you want it done as soon as possible.--Otterathome (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Wikademia

Wikademia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), currently blocked for spamming, made a number of unexplained edits adding __NOTOC__ and/or __NOEDITSECTION__ to seemingly random articles. I have undone several of the edits but, as it is quite tedious to do manually, would appreciate it if an experienced AWB user or someone with an appropriate script could take a look at it. Thanks! —Travis^talk 18:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, since the user is blocked, I have advised the user to comment -->there. —Travis^talk 18:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and undid his edits after taking a look at the talk page. I do believe this user was acting in good faith, but perhaps we should work it into the Manual of Style for when to use the __NOTOC__ and/or __NOEDITSECTION__ tags. Wikiademia, if you read this: Don't let this experience chase you off from Wikipedia; we could always use another helpful editor. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia review discussion of interest: [81] 66.31.40.74 (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Entertaining? Maybe. Irrelevant, though. —Travis^talk 01:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Disruption to prove a point

Resolved

 – Not an ANI issue, see the appropriate xFD discussion(s). –xeno ^talk 01:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia:Article Deletion Squadron a fit and proper use of project space? The text is pretty clear it's a parody of the Article Rescue Squadron and while I think that should be shot like a dog, I don't think point moves like this are the way to go... --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I do however confess to liking this --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Tagged with Template:Humor for drama-prevention. :) --Conti|✉ 23:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This may be the Greatest Template Of All Time. rootology (C)(T) 23:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

And it even comes with a smiley face. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Man, I've really needed that craparticle template today... --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If it only didn't have this redlink in it... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 23:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah well you say that, but add it to a page which has a live AfD and magically... Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

...magically the drama boards are still not up for deletion. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 23:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Some may think that a shame. I couldn't possibly comment. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

As with some satires, there seems to be some question about whether it is directed against the ARS, or against deletionists. I read it as the latter. I suggest non-contentiously moving it back to user space. Just as funny there. DGG (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I just read it as someone stirring up trouble, I'm afraid. - Pointillist (talk) 00:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

DGG, I think you've got to send your humor detector back to the shop if you didn't see this as a poke at ARS.  :) Protonk (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Damn, missed the show. What lulz. That would be {{CrapArticle}} above? Mebbe merge w/{{Smile}}? Off to read the naught bits. Cheers. Jack Merridew 06:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Userfied. No prejudice to MFD for the page or RFD for the leftover redirects. –xeno ^talk 01:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete Delete Delete as pure ANI-cruft ;-) MuZemike 01:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait, do the inclusionists want to delete the template? Durova^Charge! 01:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I just added the rescue tag, and voted strong keep. I love the template, as long as it is not actually used (kinda negative). Ikip (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Awwww. I thought it was ANI that was tagged for deletion :D MuZemike 01:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this was just an attempt to stir up trouble during a period of friction between different points of view. There's no need to turn the other cheek, and it wouldn't create a helpful precedent. - Pointillist (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've now also speedily closed the TFD and userfied. MFD would be the next step. –xeno ^talk 02:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for shits and giggles and all that, but I'm not sure folks above thought this thing through before lavishing praise on the above template. Less than an hour after it was created, a registered user slapped the template at the top of what is perhaps our most widely read article (a featured one at that). It only sat there for five minutes, but in that time readers were treated to an official looking Wiki-box that said one our featured articles was going to be obliterated. After reverting that and blocking the user in question I put the template up for TfD—not because I have a terrible sense of humor (in real life I'm gd hilarious!)—but because it did not seem good to me to have a template that enables a snazzier form of article vandalism. I'm sure that template would be (mis)used that way again in the future, and because it has a semi-official look to it even experienced editors might not really notice it if it wasn't caught right away (particularly on articles with light traffic). I'm hard pressed to understand why we would have a template that can be so easily misused, but then again I don't know much of anything about the "Article Rescue Squadron" and therefore have no idea why it's so important that we make fun of it in the first place. Sincerely, John Q. Killjoy. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I glanced over your comments in the Template for deletion, and didn't catch this. Good points. If I would have read more carefully I would have voted delete. I like the template, but not if it is used for abuse. Ikip (talk) 02:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just to clarify, I've no issue with your actions. I speedily closd the TFD because userfy'ing it was the fastest way to prevent it from being re-used as an "official" looking template. Code can be written to nullify its use in articlespace (which I'll do presently). –xeno ^talk 02:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries xeno, I fully understood what you were doing and your actions were aces in my book. Aces I say! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Cromulent! –xeno ^talk 02:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

User:24.57.75.186

Resolved

 – IP blocked 3 months. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

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

I would like for someone smarter than me (that would be most of you) to tell me whether it's appropriate for an IP address to be blanking warnings off its user page. Registered users can do that, in general, but as IP addresses are often shared, my understanding is that it's not appropriate for an IP to blank its user page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Although I don't think that it should be allowed for IPs, it's my understanding that this is allowed. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Check out WP:Blanking. It says that IPs can remove warnings but can't remove IP identifier tags (Ya know, the ones that say this IP belongs to such and such ISP), unblock requests (while block is active), and sockpuppet tags (also while blocks are active). Also, don't be harsh on yourself, I'm sure you're intelligent. :) Icestorm815 • Talk 00:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like he's headed for a block anyway. He also gave me another funny comment for my "wall of fame". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's important for all the previous warnings to be visible, so with that character on ice for 3 months, I think it is safe to do so now. Any objections? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Turns out it wasn't safe. Never mind. :( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it safe? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Global warming

Resolved

 – No admin action necessary, discussion on the article should go to the articles talk page.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hello. I added three reputable references in the article on global warming. They dispute the theories presented in the article, and I placed them at the bottom. I don't think their inclusion is controversial per se. However, user Atmoz is reverting my changes and tagging them as "crap". I don't want a war of changes. Can someone help in this matter? Thank you. Jaksap (talk) 02:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I've posted a block warning on his talk page. However I'd like other admins to weigh in on his use of twinkle. I think it was a misuse of it and wanted to know if anyone else would support a warning or a removal of twinkle. Icestorm815 • Talk 02:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Jaksap is doing the bull-in-a-china-shop act in an article that gets a lot of grief. Warn Atmoz if you like, but please make sure to warn Jaksap to get consensus on the talk page before making these sorts of edits. Looie496 (talk) 03:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I gave Jaksap a 3rr warning before seeing this page. While Atmoz might need a civility reminder, I think the revert itself was keeping with the talk page consensus and within the penumbra of reasonable twinkle uses. I don't think it is helpful to jump down the throat of Atmoz based on a single stressed reaction. --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) On further examination, Atmoz deserves at the very most a mild chiding. The changes that Jaksap was trying to make (to a featured article) were poorly sourced and poorly written, and Atmoz did not call them crap until Jaksap began to edit-war over them. Note that Atmoz has contributed extensively to maintaining this article, while Jaksap is a newcomer whose only aim is to push the point of view that the topic of the article is itself crap. Looie496 (talk) 03:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] It looks to me like Jaksap is picking a fight. This user showed up after two years of inactivity and attacked Global warming in this diff and this diff, using provocative wording like "dictatorships, not for free societies," "like a birth of 1984-like society," and "all based upon speculation." Then Jaksap proceeded to add a series of three anti-global-warming opinions (essentially unrelated to each other and out of context with the structure of the article) to the article, which is a featured article (but would not remain a featured article for long if this kind of "contribution" were tolerated). Atmoz was impolitic for neither providing an explanation nor initiating discussion when he reverted the first edit and for calling the material "obvious crap" the second time he reverted it, but his was a predictable response to provocation. It appears to me that much effort has gone into developing a balanced set of related articles, including not only Global warming, but also Global warming controversy, Politics of global warming, Economics of global warming, Scientific opinion on climate change, and Climate change denial, and that content such as Jaksap's additions may be more appropriate for some of the other articles. If Jaksap wants to have an influence on these articles, this should start with a good-faith talk-page discussion, not a pre-emptive attack on one article. Meanwhile, Atmoz needs to bite his tongue in the future -- and make an attempt to communicate diplomatically, even when provoked. --Orlady (talk) 04:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

If so, how come Global warming controversy is not even mentioned in the Global warming article? Someone who runs into Global warming article may think that it is an undisputed theory (=fact). I provided references from The Times and Science magazine, i.e. quality references from relevant scientists. I didn't destroy any structure, I added these on the very bottom. The fact is that their content disagrees with the theory that this article heavilly tries to promote ("balanced set of related articles" as you call it). There are numerous instances where alternative views on topics are given due attention in wikipedia articles. Why is this sacred cow protected? Jaksap (talk) 04:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

As I've pointed out to you on talk:global warming, Global warming controversy is mentioned in global warming, and is indeed linked to at least twice. Your additions border from irrelevant to fringe to original research. They also violate the long-standing consensus to avoid popular press references for scientific points in the article. As for your "sacred cow" comment: We've worked long and hard to create an article that is in line with the scientific opinion on climate change - which is supported by all major national academies of science, at least 97% of actively publishing climate scientists, and the the scientific literature on the topic. In contrast to your claim, dissenting views are discussed with the appropriate weight. We aim to keep the article at this high level of quality. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Global warming controversy is referenced twice, once under Global_warming#Economic_and_political_debate and another time as public debate. However, it would be better if this reference was under a section on the scientific debate (which is close to what Jaksap was trying to add). Characterizing his edits as "irrelevant to fringe to original research" seems excessive. Also, the comments on Jaksap's edits were way out of line. When Jaksap tried to discuss the problem with Atmoz, Atmoz simply deleted the question. Q Science (talk) 08:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I have a couple of differing opinions on this. However, this debate is out of scope here. Is there anyone who thinks that we need an admin intervention here? If not, I'd suggest to close this. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've always been in the frame of mind that twinkle is similar to rollback, for blatant cases of vandalism. A courtesy edit summary to why he removed it would have been appropriate, as opposed to just reverting and then reverting again and calling it crap. The reason that I warned Atmoz was strictly about the name calling. Atmoz seems to have held an account long enough to know better than to resort to name calling and then continuing upon being warned about it. [82] I can see how jaksap may have being a provoking force in this situation so I'm content with leaving this at just a warning to both users. Icestorm815 • Talk 04:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

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

WP:POINT violation by User:Kbdank71 in moving user page to mainspace

I have been having some longstanding problems with User:Kbdank71, that seem to be reaching a boil on his part. In response to a questionable close of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 6#Knuckleball pitchers, I created a user subpage at User:Alansohn/Knuckleball pitchers to be used as documentation for what appeared to be a likely DRV. After providing information indicating that his close was problematic, he relisted the category for discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 17#Knuckleball pitchers. I raised issues with User:Jc37 about his close on his talk page, only to find that Kbdank71 was stalking me there, letting me know that my user page had been moved to mainspace. In his edit here, Kbdank71 insisted that my user sub page was created in violation of WP:POINT and was being moved to mainspace despite the fact that I had clearly indicated that it was not ready to be moved, that the page is written describing other Wikipedia pages and is in unencyclopedic form, in addition to the fact that the user subpage was created in full compliance with Wikipedia:User page. In violating WP:POINT, Kbdank71 moved a nonencyclopedic user page into mainspace, requiring that the damage he created be repaired by undoing the move and restoring content he had deleted. Kbdank71 then proceeded to make an improper cut-and-paste move here, which violates the same GFDL he cited as his excuse for making the move in the first place. While I am unsure as to what justifies this persistent harassment from User:Kbdank71, an admin who clearly knows what policy is and as with all admins is expected to uphold these policies, but any help in dealing with this abuse of process on his part will be appreciated. Alansohn (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

So, wait, are you asking for a cross-space redirect like here? Not having looked at the history too much, ok, this discussion says to listify to your space. I do find it strange from someone to move someone else's userspace page into article space for some reason, but I'll wait to see what Kbdank has say because this isn't exactly explanatory. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was indeed "listify and delete", which I am reluctantly forced to challenge given the problems with the close. What User:Jc37 incorrectly calls a complete list, ready to serve as a substitute for the deleted category, was created by me as evidence to overturn the close as deletion, first by Kbdank71 and then by Jc37. My user subpage was written in a rather unencyclopedic manner, quoting how their Wikipedia articles refer to them. While it could well become an article in mainspace in the future, it will require significant revisions to meet Wikipedia standards. Until then, Kbdank71's decision to move the article to mainspace without reading the subpage or making any consultation on the matter appears to have been done exclusively to make the WP:POINT that the list now existed. The cut and paste move only violates the GFDL he claimed as justification for the move in the first place. Alansohn (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Kbdank71 has acknowledged here that he received the notification regarding this incident both from me and from another user, but has neither responded nor made any other edits over the past day and a half. While we would certainly benefit from hearing Kbdank71's explanation for his actions, there appears to be no reason not to take appropriate actions to deal with the policy violations by this admin. Alansohn (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

IP needs a long block

Resolved

 – 6 month block. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

72.39.173.71 (talk · contribs) is an IP that's been stable for more than a year and a half, during which time the person behind it has done little other than vandalize articles (particularly Chatham-Kent and Cuckoo (disambiguation)), as well as the user pages of editors who warn him about his behavior. Today, for example, when I reverted his refactoring of an editor's message on his talk page, he left this on my user page (the possible validity of which statement hardly excuses it :-)). His last block was for a month; I think something a good deal longer is warranted now in the light of his continuing disruption. This seems a little complicated for AIV, so I'm bringing it here. Deor (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a known issue coming from my end. Someone is piggy backing off my modem and has "hijacked" my IP. It's a known problem in my area, and I'm at a loss at to what to do about it other than switch service providers. Be advised that I have NOTHING to do with these edits... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.173.71 (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If you really have no idea what to do about it, editing Wikipedia with an account would solve the problem. Then the IP could be blocked anon-only and you'd still be able to log in. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Am I going to get any action here (or at least a statement explaining why action is unwarranted), or is everyone too interested in perpetuating the Nobody–Merridew trainwreck elsewhere on this board? Does anyone really believe the anon's "I didn't do it" above, posted only 33 minutes after his last vandalism and 4 minutes after I notified him of this thread? Deor (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for six months. If there is a legit account editing from this IP, they can still sign in and edit. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. Deor (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Justicefornobody

Resolved

 – R'd, B'd, & Goodbye'd Rodhullandemu 16:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Justicefornobody (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indef blocked for replacing Jimbo's userpage and ANI with partisan screeds, now he's posting the same type of crap on his talk page. Could someone take a look at his block settings? - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 16:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

They also hit this page with a redirect this morning (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Dribblingscribe

Resolved

 – User has acknowledged & discussed warning. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, I am here to notify about Dribblingscribe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). The user was today involved football club and player profiles from Soccerway.com as external links, a move that, in my point of view, is just unnecessary according to what WP:EL says, also considering I know such profiles are often full of erroneous information. So, I reverted these edits and politely advised the user about the issue. The answer was a plain insult against me, which I am not ready to ignore, also considering the user does not seem to be particularly friendly when interacting with other users [83]. Thanks in advance, --Angelo (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Warned for presonal attacks. Will review other contributions. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we can call this resolved for now. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable description about "Portuguese People"

Resolved

 – Blocked indef for threats of violence. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Tweaked section title to make use of edit summaries with section links possible. Original title was "Absolutely UNACCEPTABLE description about "Portuguese People" keeps on being imposed by a sick user called "OGRE", no doubt a SICK Spaniard with a serious hangup about their Arabic past." —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

They have had my account systematically blocked claiming "vandalism". Their continuous virtual "censorship", the deleting my edits and putting theirs back in Portuguese People and Spanish People (where Portugal is mentioned when it shouldn't), is most hurtful and offensive. More importantly they are LIES, blatant and disgusting. Please STOP this user from removing my edits- failing to do so will only mean I might keep deleting their offensive material until someone in Wikipedia has the decency to listen to me.

This is historical, cultural, racial, linguistic manipulation and fabrication by a Spaniard who has NO business or entitlement whatsoever to write about a nation allien to them. How can Wikipedia Admisnistratos allow such manipulation?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by LusoCelt (talk • contribs) 18:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Notifying User:The Ogre... —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This does to my mind, does seem a trifle incivil, is it the Ogre who is most at fault, of course I am not an admin and no judge of these mattersGiano (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Time for another block of this user, methinks? He's been making 'minor' edits such as this one [84] and this one [85], and several more. The only question is how long? Dougweller (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely by AuburnPilot. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Spammer

Resolved

 – Indeffed. — neuro^(talk) 01:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've spent enough time tonight reverting the wholesale insertion of what is essentially an advert for serialkillersink.net. This is the third time in the last 8 hours that User:Ericgein has inserted the link into Richard Ramirez, and he has done the same to over a dozen articles. He's been warned 7 times [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] as well as once before in February [93], and still returned to add it again. Can someone please block this spammer? Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Use WP:AIV for persistent spammers. Cheers - Kingpin13 (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done I've indefblocked the account. -- The Anome (talk) 10:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Admins: Please watchlist 2009 swine flu outbreak

Guys, please watchlist 2009 swine flu outbreak. The level of activity, editing, and news has been astonishing, and tomorrow as the week begins anew in the west will be even more insane. Given that we're at the top of the searches for Swine flu, which correctly links back to the outbreak article, which is on our main page, it's only a countdown now till our outbreak article is the #1 hit in general for searches. We need all hands on board for this one.

Please click here to watchlist it. rootology (C)(T) 18:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

That article has been renamed (with consensus) to 2009 swine flu outbreak, so watchers should now click here. Eubulides (talk) 05:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Reposting at the bottom. Our most-watched article at the moment by visitors for obvious reasons, we need as many admins patrolling it as possible. rootology (C)(T) 16:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Added. --GedUK  20:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Could people also add Influenza to their watchlists? I have semi-protected swine flu and 2009 swine flu outbreak, but the top-level article doesn't have enough activity to justify that at present. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and influenza pandemic as well, although I really hope that doesn't become so relevant. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Jm131284

Resolved

 – User:Jm131284 blocked for 24h for personal attacks Terrillja _talk

I'm not one to make a big deal about it when someone insults me. I generally just ignore it. But this message left on my talk page is really just too much. As one would guess, it comes from an editor that is already particularly problematic (tendentious editing, edit-warring, etc.) --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

These 2 editors are in an edit war on CNN. I have sent them both warnings. TomCat4680 (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ummmm, in what world is that talk message acceptable, edit war or no? Warning both users is not the right answer here. JM should be blocked for clear incivility. Eusebeus (talk) 01:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking at JM's other edits, he appears to have a problem with civility [94] [95]. Ouch. Dayewalker (talk) 01:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add WP:3RR violation on the Tea Party protests article, and also stalking (see this edit) to the growing list of actionable behavior by Jm. (...and Tomcat, I've returned your misplaced warning template to you. Please use them with a little more care.) Xenophrenic (talk) 01:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

now they're both vandalizing my talk page. Block them both. GROW UP! TomCat4680 (talk) 01:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

TomCat, what are you talking about? Loonymonkey left this [96], which isn't even close to vandalism, and the other editor hasn't been on your page. Please explain. Dayewalker (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked Jm for 24 hours; what he wrote was completely uncalled-for. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

user:Xenophrenic did the above my mistake with "You appear to have lost this on my page. I'm returning it to you in case you need it later.)" no need to be sarcastic. though TomCat4680 (talk) 01:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Explain how two reverts (by me) is an edit war. And while you're at it, please explain how my note on your talk page saying as much is "vandalism" as you claim above. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

you had 2 reverts in 24 hours. 3 is the threshold. i was just advising you of policy. TomCat4680 (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Your mistake is forgiven, TomCat. I kind of figured it was a mistake when you put that warning on my user-page, since I've only made 1 revert on that article...EVER. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

it looks like an edit war to me. I guess it was a just a vandalism war? sorry i jumped the gun my mistake. TomCat4680 (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Please be careful with accusations of edit-warring and vandalism, particularly here on AN/I. As I was not edit-warring (and have never vandalized a page, ever) I took particular offense at that. Next time, make sure someone is actually a vandal before you hurl the accusation, okay? --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

well u did have 2 reverts but they were against a vandal. sorry. you have all received kittens. TomCat4680 (talk) 02:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Everybody, calm down. Mistakes were made on all sides. Can we move on? There are articles that need writing. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:RM Backlog

Resolved

 – Wrong place... --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested moves is in a pretty good backlog. If an admin or two could take a look, it would be appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 22, 2009 @ 02:11

This is for AN, not ANI. fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 16:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Gimmebot removing transclusions of GA reviews

Resolved

 – Time to move on. Gimmetrow has agreed not to remove the transclusions (with the caveat that he is no longer processing GAs at all). --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Gimmebot is removing transclusions of GA reviews from pages. There is no consensus to do so. Having the reviews on talk pages allows one to easily see the information related to the state of the article. I have contacted the bot operator, but he refuses to rectify the situation. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The review is link in the article history. Why does it need to be transcluded as well? Grsz¹¹ 20:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This way, people can easily check to see why the GA was passed (if it was a drive-by review, or if it was legitimate). Also, the bot operator should not have done this without the consensus of the Wikipedia community at BRFA. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The link is still available in the {{articlehistory}} template; if there's a problem locating the GA info, that is an artefact of the GA process, not the bot. If you can't find that info, that problem needs to be rectified within the GA process, or the GA process should simply no longer be part of articlehistory. Articlehistory was originally built to handle FAs, and it works perfectly for them; blocking the bot will stall the FA process. Rather than stop the bot, the options should be to correct the underlying problems at GA, or remove GAs from articlehistory, which will create a whole lot of talk page clutter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, once the review is done and over with I don't see what the advantage of transcluding it as well is. The review is still easily reachable. henrik•talk 20:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think many GA reviewers remove the transclusion once the review is over. I know that I do anyway; it's in the article history for anyone who's interested. The motivation behind transclusion is to involve as many editors as possible in the review, without depending on them becoming aware of a separate page. Once the review is over there's no point. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with the removal, though there may be procedural questions to be raised with regard to WP:BRFA/WP:WGA. Skomorokh 21:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not understanding Rschen7754's request. The link to the review is in the bottom center of the ArticleHistory template at the very top of the talk page - isn't that usually how it's done once the actual review is over? I've only been through few, a couple Norton reviews, and a Tim Richmond BLP review, but that's the way it was once everything was said and done. — Ched :  ?  21:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that job in any of the bot's requests for approval. I would also object to removing the transcluded reviews automatically, but I can see how someone could easily reach the conclusion that removing those reviews was uncontroversial. Hopefully the bot operator will stop the bot from doing that particular task until it gets approved. Give him/her some time to respond to your request and to this thread. Protonk (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with bots to be perfectly honest, but I did want to mention something that came to mind here. I remember a conversation about WP:SIG somewhere - in that conversation it was mentioned that transclusion does play a factor in server performance. I realize that 1 GA transclusion on a talk page does not equate to 50 or 100 sigs that do that, but I did want to mention it. I don't know if that has any bearing on this conversation, but I thought it may be something to consider. — Ched :  ?  22:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The operator has refused to do so - see the above link. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It might be better to bring this up at the Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard instead, where bot-operators and bot-approvers are more likely to see it, and it will be more clear what consensus is about it. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with above that once the GA Review is over there is no need to keep the transclusion - it is linked in {{ArticleHistory}} prominently at the very top of the talk page and can be easily found there. Cirt (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/GimmeBot 2 seems to be the task that allows the bot to work on the article review top business, in non-specific terms. I left a note at WT:GA. –xeno ^talk 02:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I might be too parsimonious, but I read that and didn't come away with the impression that removing transclusions was authorized in that request. TBH I didn't look at the first contributions to see what the authorization may have been based on. Protonk (talk) 03:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

yea, it's a liberal interpretation of the task. –xeno ^talk 13:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing the transclusion after a review is largely a matter of taste and there is no prescription - as long as the review is linked e.g. from ArticleHistory. However, keeping the review transclusion on the talk page after a review maintains high visibility for article editors wishing to improve an article in response to the review. I don't see any benefit for the encyclopedia in automatically removing the review when article editors may wish otherwise. This should be left to individual editors and reviewers, not a bot. Geometry guy 08:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The question is, what is to be done? The bot operator does not seem interested in rectifying the situation. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The rub

We have two issues here which are getting clouded. One issue is whether or not it is kosher to remove review transclusions. I'm going to go out on a limb (not much of one) and suggest that it is kosher to do so, just given the responses here. The other is whether or not a bot is allowed to do so without an authorization. We aren't a bureaucracy and we shouldn't let admittedly minor quibbles stymie editor participation, but we look rather a lot like a bureaucracy when bot-ops are concerned. We have policy and practice which reflects a community consensus to restrain bot edits prior to authorization rather than to bless those not reverted as good (in english, BOLD is for people, not bots). So I'm prepared to say that we should just open up another BRFA for the explicit task of removing transclusions. It will probably be a quick up and down approval.

In the absence of such an approval I'm going to ask that the bot operator stop removing GA review transclusions from pages. If they don't stop in 24 hours or start the process of getting approval in 24 hours I'll block the bot. Protonk (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

GimmeBot has been processing all FA process tranclusions into articlehistory for well over two years, and GAs almost all long. The transclusions are not removed; they are linked in to articlehistory. If this isn't working correctly at GA, that is an artefact of the GA process, not the bot. In the FA process, it's clear; perhaps the GA process needs to address the root problems, whatever they may be. But blocking a bot based on inaccurate information about the problem will not help the FA process, which depends on the bot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Geometry guy has it about right. Whether or not to remove the transcluded review is a decision for the reviewer and/or interested editors, not one that a bot ought to be making. So I agree with your blocking proposal. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"BOLD is for people, not bots.". That's a good line to remember when discussing 'bot behavior. --John Nagle (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like there's an issue at GA, that it's not clear when a review is finished. In the FA process, it is clear; this is an artefact of the GA process that needs to be addressed, and not by blaming the bot operator. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's very clear when a review has finished. If it were not, then Gimmetrow's bot wouldn't be able to delete the transcluded review. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• When did the bot start removing the GA review transclusions from talk pages? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • • The bot does not remove GA reviews; it adds them to articlehistory. GimmeBot has been building articlehistories for several years. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
      • The bot has recently begun to remove the GA review which is transcluded on the talk page; it removes the transclusion, which there has been no agreement that it should do. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • It was pretty recent - unfortunately, the only way to definitely know may be looking through the diffs. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I am not sure if this is what you are talking about. When the bot puts the GA review in article history, it is no longer is clickable. That is, clicking on GA reiew and date in the article history no longer brings up the GA review. This is confusing, as in the past a click would bring up the GA review just as it does the FAC review. Also, it this problem related to the fact that the GAN backlog report is no longer being updated? —Mattisse (Talk) 14:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

      The latter issue is completely independent (a different bot and bot operator). Geometry guy 21:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

      It is not true that reviews are no longer clickable; the link is in articlehistory. If links become unclickable, that is an arteface of the GA process, not the botification into articlehistory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Based on the additional comments above, I agree that the bot should not resume editing until these concerns are addressed. (I do note that neither the bot nor its op have edited recently, so a block may be unnecessary.) –xeno ^talk 21:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetrow runs the bot a couple of times a week, I believe. It does a lot of work for FAC, as well as doing article history and GA updates. Geometry guy 21:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

If the bot isn't editing, then I have to consult with others as to whether they are available to help with the manual work so that I can promote/archive FAC today as planned. This is another example of the unfortunate effects of illformed opinions at AN/I from editors who aren't familiar with the processes. I don't look forward to closing and botifying all of today's FA promotions and archivals myself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The way I understand it, bot runs can continue for FAC, as long as Gimmetrow is willing. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well this is a wonderful waste of time and effort. If you really think it necessary to fill out the brfa forms in triplicate for this task, you could have done so yourselves. I do not agree that bot policy requires it, but if you do, you might want to do something about certain editors doing controversial jobs in article space. (However, I would suggest that some of the admins who've commented above should read the bot policy again before they consider enforcing it.) I've been removing these transclusions for about a year as part of tidying up banners and talk pages. At some point, months ago (at least before January 2009), I added it to the code to avoid making two edits. I've been for the last two years now maintaining various parts of the GA process, including fixing all sorts of problems these transclusions cause. Commonly, they are not linked properly in the {{GA}} template, and when an article is moved, the transclusions sometimes become redlinks. Given the unending problems that nobody else seems interested in fixing, and the nothing-but-grief I get for doing this, the solution here is obvious. I'll keep doing FAC, and everyone can thank Rschen7754 for volunteering to do all other talk page template and related work from now on. Gimmetrow 00:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Stupendous: your attention is needed to continuing to build articlehistories (as you've been doing for well over two years now) and is appreciated at FAC and FAR. Of course it's troubling that few people commenting on the issue seem to have clue about everything the bot does, and the need for it, in terms of building templates into articlehistory to eliminate talk page clutter, without losing anything. Does this mean that when a FAC is botified into articlehistory, GA will no longer be included in articlehistory? Or that articlehistory errors will increase when non-bot editors now go back to try to retroactively add them? Unfortunate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't keep doing this forever. Good a time as any to stop. Gimmetrow 04:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably about time for you to stop, as you appear unwilling to listen to reason. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for contributing to a hostile environment. It is in part because of comments like these. which you have been making for months, that I have no incentive to help you. Some might even construe your comments as personal attacks, perhaps? I wonder how ethical it was for you to support a block based on a faulty argument, and without disclosing past history? Gimmetrow 10:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This entire thread highlights the insidious damage caused by AN and AN/I forums: editors commenting who have no background or understanding of the issues, costing Wikipedia a valuable resource, partly because of ignorance and misinformation about the process. If the solution is that GAs are no longer considered part of {{Articlehistory}} because there is no one to do the task, then that could work, except that I suspect that what will happen is that now other editors will try to add GAs to articlehistory, causing the error category to go bonkers and rendering *all* articlehistories a mess, after more than two years of work has gone in to building them correctly (thanks to Gimmetrow). It would be helpful to hear some voices of reason and moderation in here, from people who understand the issues, because this destruction of articlehistories will also affect FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with Gimmetrow (talk · contribs) and SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) on this one and quite frankly don't know why others are making such a big deal about it. When a GA Review finishes on an article I am working on, I generally remove the transclusion myself, and change it to a subsection on the talk page that has a link to the GA Review subpage with a note like "This article recently had a GA Review, which resulted in blah. You can read the GA Review at [link]." It really is not that hard. For all of the tremendous work that Gimmetrow (talk · contribs) does for this project and the {{ArticleHistory}} process, editors should cut him some slack, and more than that, be grateful for his help. Cirt (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

There's an ill-defined problem here which seems to be related to the way the GA process is handled. In FAs, it's clear when a review is finished, and a human being tells GimmeBot when to botify it into articlehistory. If the process isn't well defined at GA, that should be cleared up within the GA process, not by shooting the bot operator. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I asked the bot operator if there was any consensus for this. He indicated there wasn't any. I asked him to stop. He refused. ... --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Holy mother of pearl. An AN/I discussion about removing transcluded GA reviews from talk pages. Seriously? Was this such a big deal that it needed to be brought up? I think that everyone's time here could be better spent on reviewing FACs. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This didn't have to go to ANI. Gimmetrow could have simply fixed his bot. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Surely this thread is an example of moaning for the sake of moaning? The bot is doing a perfectly acceptable task, so why create issues when there are none? Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You miss the point - the GA transclusions are being removed from the talk pages. This was never agreed upon by anybody. This was never approved by BAG or the community. I do not oppose GimmeBot's work on FAC or even the rest of the things it does for GA - I just requested that the transclusions of the review pages be left in place. The operator refused to do so, and I thus brought it to ANI. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No, Jenuk is not the one missing the point. The transclusions are being linked in Articlehistory. If there's a problem with the links, that should be solved at the GA level-- this process works perfectly with FAs. This is a most unfortunate assault on a much useful bot and hard-working bot owner, who isn't thanked often enough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

However, that makes it more difficult for somebody to look at the reasons why the article was passed. As for "most unfortunate assault" - you seem to miss the point that I asked him to stop doing this. The only reason this is at ANI is because of his refusal. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

In other words, this is at ANI because an editor did not cave to your demands.... Gimmetrow 01:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't you think that's rather inflammatory language Gimmetrow? This is at ANI because you modified your bot without discussion, consensus, or authorisation, to remove transcluded GA reviews from article talk pages. In other words you have brought this on yourself, and the resolution is clear. Stop doing it. Simple. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• What bothers me is that the GA link in article history is no longer clickable. It is not possible to access the review the way it was before. If there is any way to fix this, let us do it. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:New York State Route 293 is a typical page (and a page this thread is nominally about). What is no longer clickable? Gimmetrow 02:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

What a mess

If I could go back in time, I would change some things about this thread's development. Since I can't, I'll try to salvage what is left (the issue is probably resolved so barring some new flare up another editor can archive this after a little while).

This is, as people have noted, a pretty minor issue. One whose core may not have been too contentious to many of us. The path that it took was unfortunate. Gimmie and Rschenn could have agreed to disagree, resolved their differences personally, or called in someone from the bot noticeboard to attempt to figure a low scale solution. They didn't. We can't change that. For whatever reason, when faced with a resounding "no", Rschenn chose to come here. Those of us who lurk on these boards (or make it known quite publicly that they do not lurk here) tend to see that move as a rash escalation or a declaration of war. We have to remember that for 90% of the folks on wikipedia, this is the place you come to when there is a dispute which needs to be resolved. Never mind that it is labeled "not dispute resolution" and has a litany of signs and a small fellow with semaphores waving editors off to RS/N, WQA and what-not. People find themselves in a seemingly intractable situation and they come here for some help. Outcomes may allow us to judge that a poor choice but it doesn't seem to feed back that way.

TL;DR for the last paragraph: the issue is here now, so we had two options. Punt it or deal with it. I had hoped that my decision to push off the actual decision on transclusion (which seems to the narrowly in favor) and focus on the issue of bot approval would give us an easy out (just get a BRFA for the job) and not send the complainant packing. Evidently that's not how it was interpreted.

What I don't like is paragraph after paragraph of invective and bile directed at any editor who either frequents these pages or who doesn't display sufficient deference to featured content work. SG, you and gimmie and ED and all you folks who promote, watch over and copy edit FAs have contributed more to this place than I ever will. But that doesn't give any of you the right to belittle editors and it certainly doesn't give you a whole lot of ammunition to claim that Rschenn is damaging content by staking out a position. So please don't. Protonk (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

User mass-changing categories

Uranepu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is changing categories on dinosaur articles, despite my requests on his/her talk page to seek consensus before proceeding further. The new categories are redundant and haven't been well thought out. Need a second opinion from uninvolved users. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If the user refuses to discuss it upon another talk page measure, I would take preventative measures for pure lack of willingness to engage. It is highly important that editors be on hand to explain their actions, and not doing so whilst continuing the action is either complete disregard, or a situation which stretches AGF. — neuro^(talk) 01:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

User was still mass-recategorizing without any sign of discussion, so I've implemented a three-hour block. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think they can consider themselves extremely lucky. I just hope they desist once the block expires. C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 09:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

wikihounding IPs

79.132.204.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), only edits so far have been to revert edits made by me, suspect sockpuppet of user:Shir-e-Iran (this IP has already been added to the sock investigation, but I consider the wikistalking to be a separate issue). Wuhwuzdat (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• add another one 84.47.231.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), geolocates to Tehran, same as the last one, same behavior. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• A third, 87.107.37.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), same behavior as previous 2, also geolocates to Tehran. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The first had previously been blocked, I blocked the last two. Not sure how effective this is going to be, given that he is changing IPs between wildly different ranges, and is jumping rather quickly. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    • He's back, 87.107.118.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) same geolocation, now referring to my edits as "Vandalism". Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
      • and again...92.50.30.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) he seems to be a very persistent little bugger. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Who are the service providers of all these IPs? Are these open proxies? C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 09:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• The IP's belong to 4 different ISP's, all based in Tehran. I firmly believe that this incident was started by my recent participation in an AfD for a Tehran based company, an SPI started due to some shenanigans in the AfD and my subsequent Speedy Delete tagging of an recreation of the AfD'd article (page log here), due to the fact that this has been the only contact I have EVER had with anyone in Tehran. As the COI editor who started the AfD'd article was apparently an executive at the company which was the articles subject, I suspect there may be a bit of employee meatpuppetry involved. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Self-identification of a minor

DVDfan12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a self-identified minor who repeatedly adds personally identifying information to their user page. While I know that this type of information is generally acceptable on user pages, in the case of WP:CHILD, I'm not sure this is the case. The information was oversighted at least once previously (or at least hidden) so I'll ping here. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

A 12 year old Mormon from Portugal? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the identifying info again, but I'm sure it will soon be back. I'm not sure about protecting a user page from the user, but it may become necessary. Kevin (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Then he'll just put it on his talk page. Note that he's got various issues. A short-term block (but longer than the previous one) is probably called for, to get that dude's attention. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Fake GA Reviews

New editor End of yarn just registered for an account, and passed Quark as a good article, without seeming to give it any real review from his passing "summary" and his incorrect method of trying to pass it. He's also claimed to be reviewing Prevailing winds. See Special:Contributions/End_of_yarn. I reverted these and left him a note explaining why, AGFing that he was just a new user who didn't understand the GA process. He reverted this as "trolling"[97] sending up some red-flags in my mind. Any one else want to keep an eye on him? Have there been any sock issues at GA of late? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

What???? I read that article like 10 times and is there any sane editor here who wouldn't pass it? I don't really see the problem here. I saw the reversal as a bit hostile in my mind. End of yarn (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, any sane editor would refrain from passing it as is. It fails the GA criteria. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

... FAILS the GA criteria? End of yarn's review might not have been a real review, but there's no need to make up things about the state of the quark article. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not. It has some unsourced parts and some MoS issues. Could easily pass with a little clean up, but in its exact state at the time he passed it, it was not GA quality. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

All sections are extremely well-referenced and it's MoS compliant. Don't throw generic oppositions because you've placed your foot in your mouth. The article more than meets the GA criteria, this is an FA quality or very near-FA quality article. If you have specific comments to make, voice them at talk:quark. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I have not placed my foot in my mouth, nor it is FA quality. There are several statements that have no references, probably just misplaced. There is no reason at all to attack me, or to take things so personally. It needs minor fixes, nothing major. You don't have to go all defensive over that. Very few articles sent to GAN are absolutely perfect for passing right then and there. Gesh. I don't see you attacking the person who made a very length post on the article talk page noting minor fixes needed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not a matter of being defensive or offensive, this is a matter of you depicting the article as something it is not, and this, to me, raises a ref flag about what you're saying about End of yarn. All statements are referenced, the article is MoS compliant, and Markus Poessel's comments are mostly about possible style issues, ways to phrases things etc. Two things stand out as needing correction (so indeed, it should not be a GA yet, but not because of referencing or of MoS compliance), but you could not have picked those up unless you already knew something about quarks and group theory and read the article in details, which, judging from your background and the timing of your edits, is not the case.

I've said my piece about your argument against End of Yarn's edits. I don't care much about what happens to him/her, but let's not hang him/her on fallacious grounds. I'm now unwatching this page, those who want to say something about the quark article are invited to discuss on talk:quark. I can be reached on my talk page for anything else. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: will decline to leave an AN/I notice since he found this within minutes of me posting it anyway. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Even though WP:GAN states that Articles can be nominated by anyone, and reviewed by any registered user who has not contributed significantly to the article, I smell something fishy, as well. MuZemike 21:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Or ducky. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The recently-indef'd sock farmer ItsLassieTime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) admitted to being a GA junkie and some wondered if that user had used fake support win some GA's, but I don't think that angle was investigated - nor does that case necessarily have anything to do with this case. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Meh, doesn't sound or look like a duck, quite yet. Keep in mind the articles ILT was working on. Jumping from 1950s/1960s television shows to a high level of physics is not quite convincing of skull-duckery. No one has heard a single peep, either; that is, claiming to be an 80-year-old from a retirement home or a "socker mom" trying to protect her daughter. MuZemike 04:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

While ILT did intimate that there are socks remaining in the drawer (there was a reference to a "fictitious Harvard student", for instance) and EoY's original talkpage has a certain faint quackiness to it I don't think we're ordering the orange sauce just yet. Bear in mind also that the IP ILT habitually used was blocked for 6 months, as well (and still is blocked, expiring on 8th October 2009). Tonywalton ^Talk 15:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Question: Was there a review page? I can't find one. Diderot's dreams (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, he just threw a short comment on the talk page then updated the GA template. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, then there was no review and the article cannot be passed without it. Maybe this is just a new form of vandalism (vandals are getting more creative these days) and needs admin attention. On the other hand, several hours passed between EndofYarn taking the review at GAN and passing the article, so that is not inconsistent with going over the article multiple times, as claimed. But there must be a written review done. Period. And if anyone disagrees with it they can challenge the review at Good Article Reassessment.

Maybe the best way to proceed is for EndofYarn to post a review, explaining how the article meets each of the GA criteria. If they really applied the criteria this shouldn't take long. We could proceed from there.

I see one shortcoming to the article had at the time of the debated review. This edit[98], made subsequent to the article being passed for GA, changed the term 'mass' to 'rest mass' which means the article had at least one problem with factual accuracy at the time it was approved. Diderot's dreams (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This user hostilely reverted every single one of my edits and called my legitimate effort to review this article fake. It is in my opinion that this thread is here because the user is mad that they were called a troll.

Now, if no one has anything else to say I would like to give this article a "real" review End of yarn (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"Every one of your edits"? You had made all of eight edits, nor were they all reverted. Your passing articles as GA without giving them a proper assessment was reverted, as is appropriate. A new editor suddenly passing GA articles would throw up red flags with ANY experienced GA reviewer and I'm sure if I hadn't reverted, someone else would have. You have no visible experience here, yet are suddenly passing random articles in a topic that is one of the most difficult to evaluate and has its own special criteria is cause for concern. I left you a note, assuming in good faith, that you meant well, yet you responded in a hostile fashion, causing me to wonder if my assumption of good faith was wrong and thus seek outside opinions. You are the only one responding in a hostile here, and I can't help but wonder why? And why a new editors first actions would be to start doing good article reviews, or how you even know about them, as few new users are aware of that area. I could care less if you call me a troll, though it was uncivil. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I like to WP:AGF for a split second here Collectonian, as much as I understand your overall concern ... maybe Yarn was previously someone else who exercised their right to vanish and has returned. After all, in ALL of Wikipedia, we're not judged by the number of our edits, but the quality of a few of them. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

RTV is not a right to "start fresh". So if he did exercise RTV, he would be violating it: "Vanished users have no right to silently return under a new identity." -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then maybe they have an alternate account...that's not sockpuppetry according to the rules. Maybe they're a PhD in English and Journalism who has been reading GA's in Wikipedia for 4 years, and finally decided that they felt like reviewing them, so they created a userid. Then again, you may be right, they may be disruptive. We just don't know, do we, so we need to WP:AGF,and not judge based merely on # of edits. (talk→ BWilkins ←track)

I am no one's "sockpuppet". As you said, I have been reading Wikipedia articles for a while, I noticed the FA/GA icons and I felt like reviewing them. End of yarn (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: An extensive list of comments and suggestions for improvement have been listed on the article's talk page by an uninvolved editor, and the article was subsequently removed from nomination by the nominator. Diderot's dreams (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

History of Jennifer Fitzgerald

Unresolved

 – Further discussion: Talk:Jennifer Fitzgerald#BLP vios in history?

For some reason, my account is credited with creating this article; I did not, and my edits built upon a version of the article created by others. Can someone fix this GFDL violation? I don't want to take credit for another's work, however problematic. Thanks, Skomorokh 18:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Restored the history. See User talk:Icestorm815#Jennifer Fitzgerald. –xeno ^talk 18:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Muchas gracias, xeno. Skomorokh 18:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It may be worthwhile to initiate a discussion somewhere on how to handle sitautions like this. You clearly build your 4/20 stub version on the previous content, yes? So the history is required for proper GFDL attribution, but the concern is that the history still contains much of the potentially WP:BLP-violating material. –xeno ^talk

This does seem to be a bit of a dilemma. One option would be to do a mass oversighting. It retains the GDFL attribution but removes the BLP concerns. However I'd much rather prefer something less drastic if possible. Any other possible ideas? Icestorm815 • Talk 00:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

perhaps make a revision with the edit summary "see Talk:JF/GFDL for contribution history of article prior to this revision", then delete everything prior? –xeno ^talk 01:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Main page featured article semiprotection

Hey, I need a little help here. Ocee (talk · contribs) has taken it upon himself to semiprotect the past few TFAs, which goes against the currently accepted practice, despite my pleas to stop. Today's TFA, Operation Passage to Freedom, was semiprotected despite barely being touched, and I counted two IP edits that were positive contributions. While his idea is not completely without merit, I don't think that a unilateral decision to semiprotect accurately reflects the will of the community or the spirit of the project. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the semi. The edits in the history do not amount to relentless or extreme vandalism, which is the threshold for a TFA prot, and I've left a note to that effect in the log. I'm not about to go full-on guns blazing, however. If he prots again, I'm not going to sustain a wheelwar. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 21:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bongwarrior. "This page is currently protected, and can be edited only by autoconfirmed users ... from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit!" –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If it were true that "anyone can edit", there would be no such thing as an indefinite block. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Given the persistence of some sock farms, apparently there isn't any such thing. ;-) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• TFA semi protection is A Bad Thing™, and just because a guideline "hasn't been discussed in a while" doesn't mean it has lost the support of the community. –xeno ^talk 01:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protecting the main page featured article is actually Doing the Right Thing™ hehe. I'm not suggesting that the guideline has lost total support from the community, I just don't think there is any sort of mandate not to semi-protect the article. I've gone into some depth on my rationale on my talk page, so feel free to take a peek if you're interested, and I'd be happy to elaborate if anyone would like. ocee^{Conas tá tú?} 21:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I am on your side, ocee, especially since the TFA's I've contributed to happen to be niche topics that don't garner many eyes to revert vandalism. But doing it as a preventative measure when it's possible good contributions might arise isn't a good idea. Unless people are having trouble keeping down the vandals, we should aim for a lighter touch. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The thinking on this is, there are so many eyes watching an MPFA while it's up, vandalism gets handled very swiftly, making protection of articles transcluded to the main page seldom if ever needed. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Again on the current TFA. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, thank you for spending some of your time dropping a line and making your views known about semi-protecting the main page featured article. All the comments are much appreciated. While I do feel that I was acting in the best interests of the project and that there are good reasons to semi-protect the main page featured article, I can definitely see the benefits of leaving it unprotected, and it appears that the majority of the handful of people that have commented here see the English Wikipedia benefitting more from leaving the main page featured article unprotected. I hope you'll understand that I was acting in good faith, and while I stand by my rationale for protecting the featured article of the day, I certainly recognise and respect that I'm in the minority on this issue.

With regards to the "wheel warring" hullaballoo below, I spoke with Julian before reverting him and he was fine with it, so no worries on that end. With regards to Clreland's and Deskana's suspicions, I apologise if anything seems amiss, but I do have the best interests of the project in mind. You can see my activity during 2007 here, so while I obviously took some time away from the project, the break was more like from the end of 2007 / beginning of 2008, as opposed to the end of 2006. Again, apologies for any confusion and for my boldish actions, but at least now we know (or I know, at least, it seems as if most of you were already on the bus, hehe) that semi-protecting the main page featured article might not be the best thing to do, at least not without proper discussion first. Cheers ocee^{Conas tá tú?} 06:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Was this discussion with Julian off-wiki? Since it isn't obvious, you may want to note something like that in your summary next time to avoid confusion. --Onorem♠Dil 12:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We did indeed discuss the matter off-wiki, though in all fairness, my comment was along the lines of "Go ahead, I'm not going to wheel war over it". –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That is not exactly the same as Ocee (talk · contribs)'s assertion above: With regards to the "wheel warring" hullaballoo below, I spoke with Julian before reverting him and he was fine with it. Cirt (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Unprotect the TFA

• Unprotect Now please, unless there is vandalism that cannot be handled through normal means.--Tznkai (talk) 02:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Please? Did the entire community just change their mind about TFA protection? If so, I'd like to know.--Tznkai (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is matter of semi protection warring now. Unless there is persistent vandalism it should not be protected. Is Ocee an actual admin on the Wikipedia? Their user page does not designate them as such and questions the legitimacy of the actions. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 04:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I recommend WP:POPUPS - hovering on the redlink shows s/he indeed is an admin and has been editing since 2006 Agathoclea (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with this request. If someone thinks that premature protection is for some reason now necessary on all TFAs, they should start a discussion to see if the community agrees. --Onorem♠Dil 04:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well. Let's have a discussion instead. Would anyone disagree if I was to remove the semi-editing protection? Icestorm815 • Talk 04:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• After a long period of inactivity an admin returns, chooses unilaterally to ignore the long-standing and well known consensus concerning protection of Today's FA and then wheel wars against said consensus to enforce his opinion. Am I the only one who finds this somewhat suspicious? CIreland (talk) 04:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • No. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 04:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the semi-protection and added a little note to not re-protect. Hopefully this doesn't escalate. Icestorm815 • Talk 04:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wheel warring by admin Ocee

Unless I am mistaken, it looks like admin Ocee (talk · contribs) is now wheel warring at today's featured article, here: [99]. Different admins may have different views on this, but unless there is extremely strong community-wide consensus for semi-protection of the TFA, there is certainly no justification for wheel warring. Cirt (talk) 04:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I made a request at the talk page of Ocee (talk · contribs) for the admin to undo the last protection [100]. Cirt (talk) 04:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Was, not is.--Tznkai (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully Ocee (talk · contribs) nor another admin will add it back... Cirt (talk) 04:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ocee has committed two sins here in re Kit (assoc. football) - Protting the TFA without there being extreme vandalism, and issuing preemptive protection (which the prot-pol explicitly forbids, TFA or otherwise). I would be wise and not stir the pot any further; the prot is certainly wrong for a TFA and wrong for a standard article. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 05:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Routine TFA semi-protection

Even before the wheel-warring incident, Ocee had semi-protected the TFA for six days running, in two cases within an hour of it going live. Much the same edit summary each time.

1. 16:13, 26 April 2009 Ocee (talk | contribs | block) changed protection level for "Operation Passage to Freedom" [edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 00:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 00:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)) ‎ (page has been "vandalised" several times since appearing on the main page, and little useful content has been added by the affected users) (hist | change)
2. 00:26, 25 April 2009 Ocee (talk | contribs | block) changed protection level for "Hurricane Ismael" [edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 00:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 00:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)) ‎ (page has been "vandalised" several since appearing on the main page, and little useful content has been added by the affected users - see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ocee&diff=285933745&oldid=285801103 for further explanation) (hist | change)
3. 00:58, 24 April 2009 Ocee (talk | contribs | block) changed protection level for "Learned Hand" [edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 00:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 00:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)) ‎ (page has been "vandalised" dozens of times since appearing on the main page, and little useful content has been added by the affected users) (hist | change)
4. 18:47, 23 April 2009 Ocee (talk | contribs | block) changed protection level for "SkyTrain (Vancouver)" [edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 00:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 00:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)) ‎ (page has been "vandalised" dozens of times since appearing on the main page, and little useful content has been added by the affected users) (hist | change)
5. 20:54, 22 April 2009 Ocee (talk | contribs | block) changed protection level for "William IV of the United Kingdom" [edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 00:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 00:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)) ‎ (page has been "vandalised" dozens of times since appearing on the main page, and little useful content has been added by the affected users) (hist | change)
6. 19:27, 21 April 2009 Ocee (talk | contribs | block) changed protection level for "Alleyway" [edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 01:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 00:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)) ‎ (page has been "vandalised" dozens of times since appearing on the main page, and little useful content has been added by the affected users) (hist | change)

What is going on here? Hesperian 01:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ocee's belief in this matter was that the TFA did not deserve any special treatment as far as protection was concerned. In the Operation Passage to Freedom article, at least (the other five I did not examine) there was indeed vandalism, but nothing above and beyond what a TFA generally gets. In fact, I'll be bold and say that that article suffered *less* than the normal amount of vandalism for a TFA. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 02:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• He has already committed to stopping, so there's no need to prolong this any further. –xeno ^talk 02:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Logging of active sanctions

Currently, this is the system for logging active sanctions.

The individual editing restrictions here and general sanction schemes on areas here are on separate pages to account for whether a sanction is on an editor or an area. Each page has two sections: one assigned to sanctions imposed by the community (either here or WP:AN or another community venue), and another assigned to sanctions imposed by ArbCom at a decision or via motion.

ArbCom decided that it was going to merge these pages, and put them under Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Active Sanctions. However, putting it here would (imo) create all sorts of confusion and headaches (eg; in terms of restrictions superseding one another, there being no central log of active sanctions, etc.) I also think that given sanction discussions from the community and sanction discussions from arbcom, already occur in different venues, we need to have a central log of the final outcomes. This concern could be satisfied if everything was merged to Wikipedia:Active sanctions. But on the issue of merging, an arbitrator has suggested that because the community has not raised any concerns, the merge should be made. I don't believe many members of the community are aware of this proposal to begin with, so I've brought it here for input by the users who help the community impose sanctions where necessary or oppose them where they are not. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposals on logging active sanctions

Please indicate preferences.

(1) A merge is NOT necessary/preferred by the community; this is fine as it is. This system centralises arb and community sanctions, but has separate pages to distinguish between whether the sanction is on an editor or an area of the encyclopedia.

(2) A merge IS necessary/preferred by the community; everything should be merged to Wikipedia:Active sanctions. This proposed system centralises arb and community sanctions, but does not have separate pages to distinguish between whether the sanction is on an editor or an area of the encyclopedia.

(3) A merge IS necessary/preferred by the community; community sanctions should be merged to Wikipedia:Active Sanctions, while ArbCom sanctions should be merged to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Active Sanctions. This proposed system does not centralise arb and community sanctions, and does not have separate pages to distinguish between whether the sanction is on an editor or an area of the encyclopedia.

• Support 1, then abstain on 2 as second choice. Oppose 3. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support 1, oppose 2 and 3. Very important to distinguish community-based sanctions from arbitration sanctions, since arbitration sanctions necessarily supercede community sanctions. Durova^Charge! 16:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support 1. Keep everything separate. Navigating a page this long could be problematic and create more headaches. Synergy 16:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you please move this discussion to the village pump or one of the arbitration pages? This is a decision for the "community", yes, not the "administrator community". Thanks, Skomorokh 18:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a central venue for where users impose sanctions, and it's administrators who enforce these sanctions; they (or users reviewing if a sanction needs to be enforced) are the ones that need to be able to check if the sanction exists within a few clicks upon a complaint being filed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Wikireader41

Resolved

 – Filing IP blocked for evading ban. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] These are edits by a highly anti pakistani and islamophobic editor with a obvious pov he has so far escaped punishment mainly due to admins of indian heritage actively supporting his racist attacks i appeal to non hindu and non indian admins to block him 86.151.123.149 (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Apart from kashmir he has now engaged in attacking British Pakistanis by adding contentious comments about terrorism and disability i responded by adding info about british indians which irked him and he soon ran to nishkid a indian admin who manipulated the sentence of mine and toned it down to make it less evident while wikireader is free to attack and deface and when i revert his pov pushing the article is protected indefinately by the one and only nishkid please consider demoting him or atleast reverting wikireader41 edits in british pakistanis 86.151.123.149 (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Comments by ban-evading user struck. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh... where to begin. Some of the diffs above are fixing typos and formatting, but some would raise eyebrows at Wikiquette Alerts if posted there. All in all, this is hardly an emergency requiring admin intervention, particularly since Nishkid64 has issed a final warning to... wikireader41 - hardly the sign of a biased admin. Meanwhile, the above IP has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Show's over, I think. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

this post is by a banned wikivandal Nangparbat who has a long history of attacking and provoking editors with any kind of connection to India and vandalizing India and Pakistan related articles. he has repeatedly been in conflict with multiple editors and administrators and has been banned from wikipedia for more than 6 months but refuses to stop vandalizing. please ignore his rants.Wikireader41 (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Editor opened similar complaint in WP:WQA, which I have closed as NWQA due to "Opened at WP:ANI afterwards, and since complainant doesn't think warnings will help, that is the proper forum" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Block request for User:Erniebelmonte

Requesting a block of Erniebelmonte for repeatedly recreating deleted pages with copyvio. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 02:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

User had already been warned not to do that repeatedly, was given a final warning, and then 15 min later went and did it again. I have indef blocked. If they come back and agree to abide by our copyright policy, and indicate that they understand it properly, I have no objection to any admin unblocking however. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Given that his first edit was the creation of another copyvio article (Becky Dixon, just deleted after I tagged it), as well as this cute edit, I'd recommend that an admin think twice about unblocking. Someone may want to take a look at the categories he created, too; there may be nothing wrong with them per se, but he's been adding them to some articles where the text doesn't support the categorization. Deor (talk) 02:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Abuse

Resolved

 – Identified IP blocked to prevent further disruption. Nja²⁴⁷ 12:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Re Edit War Shami Chakrabati I have no recollection of making the post about being a social worker. When I examined the origin of this it appears that the post was made by someone else using my wikipedia name on 19 April 2009 at 14:47 but signing it with my name at 08:19 I have aroused some controversy with my views on the BNP talk page amongst an explicitly racist sub section of the wiki community and I assume that this is a result of that, particularly as 86.143.99.30 (talk) has no proper identifier. This is particularly heinous abuse and what can I do about it?----Streona (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The offending edit is this one, and it was done by 86.143.99.97 (talk · contribs) --Enric Naval (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I now find that my user page has been edited by someone impersonating me who has deleted my being an anti fascist and anti racist to say that I am ignorant and for some reason that "King Kong ain't got shit on me". I do not object to reasoned debate. I can cope even with the kind of low rent hysterical abuse that characterises these kind of people- by which I mean self-admitted racists and BNP supporters who are almost always anonymous- but I object to being impersonated. The offender is 87.114.2.30 Can the be blocked ? Although they will undobtedly sock puppet again on false IP as ever.--Streona (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've requested page protection for the Shami Chakrabarti, but it looks like Streona's account has been compromised (contributions here) so semi-pp wouldn't stop it.Chris (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The "King Kong" bit is from a sketch on Robot Chicken. Sounds like some kid with too much time on their hands. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

What's next?

This issue is taking place on 2 different articles dealing with the same content issue. Balloftwine (talk · contribs), a new user and apparenly a single purpos account as no other edits have been made, keeps removing the fact that Dr. Frances Lucas is the first ever female president of Millsaps College from the Frances Lucas and Millsaps College articles, saying this isn't relevant and other things like "Lucas info too self-promoting", "ideologically promotes the controversial idea that a female in leadership position is rare or noteworthy. This is a controversial assumption and should be stricken.", "Remain concerned that "first ever female" is ideological and has no place in the history of Millsaps." and "Clearly other editors are radical feminists demanding that femaleness be privileged on wikipedia." It is, of course, sourced. Considering that Millsaps College is a 100+ year old institution and she is the first female to ever lead it and only became such in February 2000, I find the content highly appropriate and notable. To me, the user has revealed his/her true motive in that since Dr Lucas has resigned from Millsaps due to faculty being unhappy with her, we shouldn't be saying anything positive about her (per this edit on the Millsaps College talkpage). I took the issue to WP:3O (also see Millsaps College#3O) but feel this is something where an admin needs to weigh in. This is the kind of issue where it's pointless to go WP:3O, Mediation, Rfc, Arbcom when it's obvious the user isn't interested in anyone else's opinion and continues to engage in edit warring. Thoughts? Ideas? Questions? - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 08:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Since this source regards her being the first female president of Millsaps College notable enough to mention in its headline, I'd say it's certainly notable enough for us to reproduce. My suggestion is to restore the removed content and explicitly cite it to the above source; I've left Balloftwine a note. EyeSerene^talk 09:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Totally baffled...

• archived to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Jack Merridew-A Nobody — by Jack Merridew 07:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• ...um, not that I want to reopen this can of worms or anything, but is it really appropriate for the user who's the subject of the complaint to be the one to archive it? rdfox 76 (talk) 14:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion was already closed. It would've archived on its own anyway, so it doesn't seem a big deal in this case. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

4chan hacked admin account

Resolved

DFTT. ArbCom is aware; if any actual hack occurred they'll handle it. Durova^Charge! 17:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[109] webcite watch the main page and WP:TFA --[Sig removed by user request, – Luna Santin (talk) 06:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)]

Not safe for work. Hesperian 04:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, we'll figure it out soon enough. I just hope a bureaucrat is available. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Until we know which account it is - which we will the instant he does anything as all admin actions show up on the RecentChanges list - we can't do anything because we don't know which account's been compromised. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 04:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, bureaucrats wouldn't be able to do anything. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The 4chan page shows that he made an attempt to delete 4chan, which failed because it has too many revisions, if that's useful. Looie496 (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting on IRC to contact the stewards so that we can quickly desysop the account when we find out who got compromised. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 04:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Won't blocking it be the easier and faster thing to do than de-sysopping? I thought any admin can block even admin accounts? The account obviously has to be blocked even if it is no longer an admin account. Chamal ^talk 04:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

He can unblock himself unless he's desysopped first. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 04:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

How do we know this is real and not just a troll? If we're to believe the crap posted on /b/, he's gonna redirect the homepage to atheism, so I guess look for that? Most likely outcome: nothing ever comes of this. Oren0 (talk) 04:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The 4chan thread contains images of pages that only admins can access. If it's a trick, some labor has gone into it. Looie496 (talk) 05:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

He's being inundated, from what I can see from the webcite link, with all sorts of different suggestions. Even if nothing comes of this, if he has compromised an account, it needs to be desysopped, blocked, and CU'd. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 05:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

They seem to have rather overestimated the capabilities of an admin account, judging by some of the comments there :D Oh, and they're following this discussion too, apparently. Chamal ^talk 05:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(RI) They can follow it all they want. I'm already idling in the stewards channel and watching RecentChanges, so if they try anything, I'll tell the stewards which account to desysop. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 05:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you guys really think it'd be that hard to get a screenshot of the block page? Doesn't prove anything. Oren0 (talk) 05:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like they have taken the thread down off 4chan...probably just moved it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 29, 2009 @ 05:08

And WebCite is saying "DB Connection failed". We have slashdotted WebCite? :-) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Is that what took WebCite down? I had an upload to WebCite fail when this was happening; I was uploading an old Western Union Telegraph Company technical manual. I filed a bug report with WebCite, but haven't received a response back. I thought WebCite had more capacity than that. If they're so limited that a 4chan reference can take them down, they may not be a good place to put documents referenced on Wikipedia. --John Nagle (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

@Oren0: Doesn't hurt to be careful, does it? While it is probably a bluff, we can just as well be a little alert right now. Chamal ^talk 05:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No reason to be less vigilant, certainly. But more than anything those /b/ers want us to get all paranoid about this. It's not like people aren't watching the main page anyway. I'm just applying WP:DFTT and WP:RBI to the situation. The minute we let this turn into a big deal, whether it's true or not, the /b/ers win. Oren0 (talk) 07:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Just as a quick note the IP that posted here, keeps removing its signature and has been reverted at least three times now. Not sure if there is a valid reason for that or not? It is making it look like Hesperian started the thread, so should we at least have an "unsigned" there or something? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(EC)To be on the safeside, I would do a checkuser on [available in history, – Luna Santin (talk)] who seems intent on not have his "personal dox" listed on Wikipedia and keeps removing the Sinebot added sig at the top. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 29, 2009 @ 05:18

(edit conflict)OrenO - well, I know how I could fake it, so I'm sure there's at least one 4channer who could do the same - but there are details of the screenshot that say "recent Wikipedia screen capture" to me (forgive me for not being explicit), so I'd say it's best to treat it as genuine - if the admins end up looking foolish, they'll at least be a better class of fools than the ones who would let such threats go. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(EC)My contact[Link removed. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)] with the IP user on his talk page is that he is scared that Anonymous will come after him for reporting. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 29, 2009 @ 05:26

My advice, assuming this is true: locate the hacker and give him a real admin account as punishment. 24 hours of having to deal with people like himself should cure him of any future troublemaking. --Ludwigs2 08:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol. Come on, you aren't fooling me. You guys have some special (WR calls it secret) little place where you get to place orders for free take-away pizza/whatever, and get sponsorship deals that rival the NBA. hahaha.

On a more serious note, to find the hacked account - if it isn't just someone pulling our chain - I'd look at the admin accounts that aren't very active. Just like cars parked int he long-term parking at an airport, these accounts aren't likely to be noticed as being oddly active. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

RE the screenshots: I haven't seen the thread, so I don't know what was posted, but don't forget that there are several screenshots of admin-only pages freely available here and on commons. —Travis^talk 16:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Please Block this IP

208.108.164.254 is a continuous disruptive editor, he has gotten blocked temporalily before but he still didn't learn his lesson with this[110] unconstructive edit, check out his talk page[111] for more proof oh this ip's edits. I think he should be banned indefinite —Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomGuy666 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The account was blocked for 1 month earlier today (incidentally, it's a shared IP address for a school). For future reference, reports of ongoing vandalism that need immediate administrator attention should be directed to WP:AIV... and if you don't mind some friendly advice, you may find it useful to check out our editor adoption programme ;) EyeSerene^talk 17:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Request block of editor

JustGettingItRight (talk · contribs)

Warned for personal attacks, continued after final warning. Please deal with. N.B. This is exactly the reason why I wrote HA#NOT: because people throw around such a defamatory term willy-milly! Sceptre ^(talk) 17:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a bad faith report by Sceptre for a complaint I lodged against him during the OAE RfAr, and I do honestly feel he is stalking me for that. Honestly, people like Sceptre make editing on Wikipedia difficult at times. JustGettingItRight (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I am Amorrow and I claim my own five pounds. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Also violated 3RR on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide methods (6th nomination). Sceptre ^(talk) 17:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Reverting wrongful closure of AfD by non-admin, as is noted by the AfD template itself, so this is exempt from the 3RR rule. But on a technical note, so did you. JustGettingItRight (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Tehcnically, I didn't. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

JustGettingItRight, you need to review WP:3RR if you think that your actions were exempt. Sceptre, could you provide some diffs of personal attacks? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

[112][113]. An unfounded accusation of harassment is a serious personal attack as it alleges/implies that the accused has committed a criminal act. Thus why I've been campaigning for more diligent use of the word "harassment". Sceptre ^(talk) 17:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

JustGettingItRight (talk · contribs) was blocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise. Endorse block, per [114], in addition to above. Cirt (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Should really be upped to seventy-two, at least. 3RR and personal attacks alone would've got 48 hours from me. But trolling elsewhere would personally make me increase it. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide methods (6th nomination) is now full-protected, but I think it can be closed as speedy keep. Cirt (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I protected the AfD to prevent further edit-warring. I have also closed the AfD. I trust that, since an uninvolved admin has now closed the debate, there will be no further protests from anyone involved. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with these actions by SheffieldSteel (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I have denied an unblock request of the user. LadyofShalott 18:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

DeluxeCorp - single purpose account rewriting Deluxe Corporation as PR.

New editor DeluxeCorp (talk · contribs) edits only the article Deluxe Corporation. The edits basically consist of turning the article into a PR piece, with links only to the company's site or their press releases. Links to reliable sources have been removed in favor of PR links.

I've reverted, and put the usual WP:COI notices in the proper places, including the COI notice board, article talk page, and the editor's talk page. The DeluxeCorp editor has written nothing on talk and doesn't use edit comments; they just impose their own version of the article. They write well and understand how to edit Wikipedia, but their version reads like a company brochure, and they won't communicate. --John Nagle (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked that account per WP:SPAMNAME. We'll need to wait and see if they come back, but it looks like you've got the article under control at the moment. If the promotional editing resumes, please re-report (or drop a note on my talk-page if you prefer), and we'll deal with it. All the best, EyeSerene^talk 17:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Requesting block of User:Drittes Reich 1940, deletion of userpage

Resolved

 – User blocked, userpage deleted. –xeno ^talk 22:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Drittes Reich 1940: That is, Third Reich 1940. Some highlights from the user's userpage:

• "This user is proud to be a Nazi"
• "This user thinks British people are the main cause of problems in the world" (accompanied by the Nazi-era Reichsadler)
• "This user is strongly in favor of dropping a nuclear bomb over Britain to get rid of vicious trouble makers" (accompanied by File:Nagasakibomb.jpg)

--Rrburke^(talk) 21:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a sock of User:NeMiStIeRs. Blocked by User:John Carter before I could do so. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? User:NeMiStIeRs is a user in good standing, with no blocks in his block history, and no history of blatant incivility or inappropriate edits. Horologium (talk) 12:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It was a softblock. You should reblock if you are sure of this. I've deleted the UP. –xeno ^talk 21:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The subject didn't take kindly to being blocked, and added some obscenities to my user page twice, showing true subtlety by signing himself as Drittes Reich 1940. I blocked the IP indefinitely. I may have been hasty, please feel free to modify as desired. John Carter (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've set an expiry (1mo). –xeno ^talk 22:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Block looks good. Cirt (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

In answer to Horologium's question above, I am not sure who this might be a sockpuppet of, but looking at the contributions it cannot be a new user (their first edit created a template). Looking at their contribs yesterday, the revert to File:Fallahi.JPG stood out (reverts by very new accounts are often worth looking at) and the history of that file led me to think that the puppetmaster might be NeMiStIeRs. Perhaps it's someone else; perhaps DR1940 is a joe job. Being unfamiliar with the histories of the articles and editors involved, I don't know. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sockpuppet, but I would suggest that the sockmaster is user:Shir-e-Iran, as the template created by Drittes Reich 1940 was a copy and paste edit of a template recently created by Shir (note the internal template names are the same in both templates, with Dritte's V-D-E links going to Shir's template). Dritte's edits seem to be continuing the series of edits of Iranian military leaders started by Shir-e-Iran, and continued by his sock user:Artesh-e-Iran. In addition, the IP address's which placed the taunting comment on Dritte's userpage, and committed the userpage vandalism on John Carters user page, both geolocate to Tehran, and fall into the same ranges as several of Shir's IP socks. Recently closed SPI is here. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Just did a little further research, and found another possibly related IP 59.93.192.35, geolocation is off, but today's edits sure fit the pattern. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Signed Userpage vandalism from the smelly sockmaster in question here , posted 5 minutes after my first posting in this topic, geolocation = Tehran. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Re-opened the SPI on this user, with the new accounts listed. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shir-e-Iran Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Block threats from Admin User:OhNoitsJamie

Please note User_talk:Mbhiii#WP:POINT posted by Admin User:OhNoitsJamie. I edited 5 articles he had recently. Each one of my edits (Monsanto-Rottweiler) was for good cause. He didn't like it and threatens to block me. This is the second time I've brought him to the attention of other Admins. The first was over his repeated, inappropriate blocking on March 19-20th. Please, straighten him out, again. Thanks, MBHiii (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mbhiii. Looie496 (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that your edits were "good cause"; you replaced unsourced material without citing a source, merely expressing most optimistically that "someone can find a source". Please see WP:BURDEN on that one. The congruence of articles tends me towards a certain opinion, and that is that you should WP:DISENGAGE and edit some different articles, and citing sources. I can't disagree with his message on your Talk page, but another admin should apply the block. Only time will tell if, when, and who that will be. Rodhullandemu 22:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed both Mbhiii's recent edits and Ohnoitsjamie's recent edits - I agree with Jamie that Mbhiii is editing disruptively at the moment. I have warned Mbhiii that further disruption will result in a block. Also notifying Jamie about this thread... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't even recall your first "report" about me...I don't see any edits from your account on March 19-20th relating to an ANI report. It's clear that your recent reverts were "retaliatory" edits because I'd declined your sixth or seventh unblock request. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Question. Is this user contributing such benefit through her constructive edits that it outweighs the amount of disruption she's causing? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Which user are you referring to? I only ask because you specifically used "she" (which I am not, but commonly assumed to be). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to User:Mbhiii; I have a habit of just assuming that everyone is female until I learn otherwise. In my opinion, the benefit provided to the encylopedia by User:Ohnoitsjamie does indeed outweigh the amount of annoyance he causes. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Whew, glad to hear that. I'll do my best to keep the scales tipped in that direction. ;)OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing quite like a ringing vote of confidence from your peers. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Astonishing. Last month's complaint was this, and now I'm "acting confrontationally and abusively" towards him? I'm neither impolite, like a recent edit-war opponent I had, nor overbearing and threatening like ONIJ. Recently, I checked about 20 of ONIJ edits and made these 5 myself:

Monsanto - add introductory sentence "Monsanto is widely accused of unethical business practices." to ==Criticism== so as not to just go into a list of particulars.

Mr. Lif - add back promotional refs that contain content of value to those interested in Mr. Lif. (Promotional purpose should not trump relevant content. Right?)

Pornographic film - revert blanking of a German ref. (Don't need to read German to get useful info from its references. Right?)

Connecticut - revert blanking of ===Disability Resources=== and its contact info.

Rottweiler - reinsert "Some insurance companies feel that the dogs should not be kept as pets."(w/ fact template) in ==History==

What's so wrong with these that he has, with your agreement, the right to block me for it? My overarching concern is to expand WP and make as immediately useful as possible, at every opportunity. -MBHiii (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I stand by all of those edits, which were

• unsourced opinions (Monsanto, Rottweiler),
• unnecessary commercial links (in the case of Mr Lif, artists typically host free mp3 downloads on their own site; we don't need to link to every mirror)
• unnecessary non-en link (there are plenty of English links and books about pornography; a German one doesn't add anything new
• unnecessary general info (the user who added the disability info to Connecticut was starting to spam all state pages with this info. As I and another editor noted, we already link to each state's official .gov site, which has that info. Wikipedia is not a web directory.

As my block warning clearly stated, I'm not about to play games with obvious WP:POINT edits (in this case, retaliatory reverts immediately following an unblock denial of your IP). Furthermore, I'm clearly not the only user who's is running out of patience with your frequent disruptive editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Monsanto - a summary of what's to follow is not unsourced.
• Rottweiler - a commonly expressed opinion that's easily sourced won't remain unsourced for long; why not encourage it?
• Mr. Lif - allowing someone to put a relevant link doesn't create a "need to link to every mirror."
• One can expect a "filmography of historical porn films" to be pretty rare.
• Conn - WP:NOTDIR "mention of major ... promotions or historically significant programme lists ... may be acceptable."

-MBHiii (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've already wasted enough time responding to your frivolous allegations. I'm not wasting any more. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikihounding

The content issues here are becoming somewhat of a red herring. The key issue is that User:Mbhiii, after other conflicts, clearly followed User:Ohnoitsjamie around to articles Jamie was doing cleanup work on, and reverted changes Jamie made.

This is a clear and obvious violation of WP:WIKIHOUNDING - following an editor you disagree with around and bothering them on pages you have not previously participated in. Mbhiii clearly went to five articles he had never participated in ( Monsanto, Mr. Lif, Pornographic film, Connecticut, and Rottweiler ) over the course of 30 min on April 28th, directly and immediately following Jamie's edits, and reverted each of them.

The exception to Wikihounding is if an editors' contributions are damaging the encyclopedia by vandalism or the like - In this case, that clearly is not true. These are ordinary content disputes. Happening to bump heads with other editors over content disputes is one thing. Following the same editor to five different articles, over 30 min, which you have never edited before, is Wikihounding, and not ok.

Mbhii - Your dispute over the propriety of the individual edits is not relevant. The issue is that you followed Ohnoitsjamie, to five articles.

That sort of behavior is rude, against Wikipedia etiquette, and disruptive. If this is done again it will lead to a block. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I will support a minimum block of 1 week if it happens again; it's grossly unacceptable behaviour - please don't let it happen again Mbhii. I suggest you voluntary avoid any unnecessary interaction with Ohnoitsjamie. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Further disruption from User:Off2riorob after 72 hour block expired

Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) literally just came off a 72 hour block - his third block for disruption on the topic of of Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh), specifically disruption at the WP:GA article 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot (see latest ANI thread).

He has now started a Good Article Review on the article [115] - literally his first action since coming off the 72 hour block.

The article is currently undergoing an RFC on its talk page, also due to complaints raised by Off2riorob (talk · contribs). I note that Off2riorob (talk · contribs) is already engaging in canvassing [116]. I think a GAR at this time is inappropriate, and this page should be speedy closed as keep. Also would appreciate another administrator taking action here with what appears to be relentless disruption from this WP:SPA, in the face of multiple escalating blocks. Cirt (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Support a block or a topic ban. I have been watching since I blocked him a while back, and while I will take no further action against him myself, I agree something must be done. Repeated requests to stop and think about his edits have apparently been ignored. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd endorse a topic ban. I've also been following this dispute for a while, and it seems further action is necessary at this point. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

what is wrong with requesting a good faith good article review ? I have thought about this and I feel a review is in order considering what I commented there [[Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/1985_Rajneeshee_assassination_plot/1]] . (Off2riorob (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC))

I have requested a article review in good faith and I am immediately rushed here by cirt again as if I am causing further disruption ..by asking for an independant good faith article assesment .. this honest action is not disruptive and neither does it deserve a topic ban. (Off2riorob (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC))

I have endorsed a speedy close of the GAR. I also believe a block of the above editor for cause, possibly including WP:POINT, seems more than reasonable. John Carter (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Endorse the 1-week block by EyeSerene. PhilKnight (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec - you were too quick for me!) Blocked for one week; I was tempted to indef given their eventful tenure, but I'm a sucker for last chances so I've notified the editor that agreeing to a self-imposed topic ban may be their best way out of this. Re the GAR, even as a bad-faith nom it's likely that the review will proceed anyway. EyeSerene^talk 16:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

My thanks to EyeSerene for taking appropriate action here. I have redacted the part about canvassing per a comment [117] from Peteforsyth at the GAR page. Cirt (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Strongly endorse block, and probably a topic ban too, as someone who's tried hard to work with this person on this topic. One thing I do think we should note is that he sought adoption, and was apparently adopted...but I don't see any evidence that he sought the counsel of his mentor before proceeding with the GAR. In my opinion, that does not reflect very good judgment on this matter, and would support a topic ban. -Pete (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with block but wonder if a different kind of hammer could have been used. Off2riorob's writing appears to be that of a non-native English speaker. Wikipedia isn't like any other culture and dealing with that from a foreign language and cultural perspective must be strange. On the other hand, perhaps he'll take the next seven days and read, learn, and become one with the culture here.... —EncMstr (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)