Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive682

requesting undo of non-consensus move of Libyan no-fly zone article

Despite non-consensus and non-closure of a Requested move from Libyan no-fly zone to Coalition intervention in Libya, User:Ronnotel at 19:42, 20 March 2011 made the move. See this edit: [1] or [2] for the move summary. The un-closed discussion can presently be seen at Talk:Coalition_intervention_in_Libya#Move_to_Coalition_intervention_in_Libya. Myself and two other editors in the discussion have stated opposition to making the move prior to consensus. i'm not sure if this really needs an admin, but because of the need to preserve page history and talk pages, my guess is that it probably does need admin intervention. Boud (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Any autoconfirmed editor can move a page back to where it came from, provided that that the only line in the history of the redirect is the move, which, in this case, it is. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Please note that there were multiple discussions on-going and I attempted to determine consensus across all input. I looked at the persuasiveness of the arguments and, in particular, the fact that the article is currently linked from the front page and the former title was somewhat incongruous with recent events. Indeed, this was not an admin action, and, like many page moves, it may yet be undone before we arrive at the real title. I hope and expect that Coalition intervention in Libya is deemed better than Libyan no-fly zone, but something else may become the final choice. Ronnotel (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell: thanks for pointing that out. Ronnotel: thanks for turning up to chat. Since admin intervention is not needed, we can continue discussion at the talk page of the article (even though that could be difficult if we now start having frequent page moves by every editor who looks at the persuasiveness of the arguments and moves the page without waiting for consensus because of the "urgency"). Boud (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Another user has renamed the page... So, indeed, people are just moving it about. 184.144.166.85 (talk) 07:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I locked the page from moving for at least 1 week. Highly visible page, this is something we don't need. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The move to 2011 Military intervention in Libya was done in good faith - following my recommendation based on the closest thing to a consensus (IMHO, and in the opinion of the person who did the move) on the talk page. Someone else (presumably an admin) moved to 2011 military intervention in Libya based on WP:MOS. In any case, a move protection for one week cannot hurt IMHO: it's obvious that the page will receive a lot of attention in the coming week or so, and there's no urgency in changing the name. People can (temporarily at least) pipe | the rendered name if they feel it's urgent. Boud (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

User 91.155.234.89 making allegations of 'criminal deeds'

User:91.155.234.89 has been making ever-increasing suggestions that editors who disagree with her at Talk:Rauni-Leena_Luukanen-Kilde are engaged in some sort of criminal conspiracy - see [3]. S/he has repeatedly been asked to be civil, but refuses to do so - I think that this has gone beyond a civility/etiquette issue, and the IP needs to be blocked - and warned that making similar accusations on his/her talk page will result in a block there too as he/she already has (see User talk:91.155.234.89). It should be noted that he/she is attempting to have (possibly libellous) assertions regarding an alleged 'depopulation' program involving Henry Kissinger added to the article as facts, rather than as the opinion of a fringe conspiracy theorist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a deliberate character assassination going on here [4] and here [5]. Nothing I have suggested to improve the article has been accepted. All my edits were systematically reversed for several days until a semi-protection was put on the article. I have already been banned from every page except from my user page and I'm am continuously threatened. I have already contacted Wikipedia.org in the US (Greetings to Joe Daly) and Wikipedia.org in Finland. The editing policy practised on the article is completely out of line and criminal. Only biased sources aimed to ridicule the subject are used. None of the sources I have suggested have been accepted. The members involved in this act are: Dipa1965, AndyTheGrump, LuckyLouie, Dougweller and Moreschi. 91.155.234.89 (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. This guy can't take a hint. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This user has now posted a message on his talk page in Finnish that google translates as "All the Finns to sabotage this playground of criminals!" I understand we can't indef an IP but I think this justifies other editors adopting a revert and block on sight policy toward this editor if he returns. Do we need a formal consensus for this? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say this IP will not be making any useful contributions [6]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I say we revoke the talk page if all she's going to do is use it to attack users and post incitements/threats to vandalize. If she's not going to put together a cognizant unblock request, why should we give her a soapbox to rant atop? —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 03:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Their response to the ban says Wikipedia is run by "Still Existing German Nazi Psychiatrists' Mindcontroller Secret Service". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 05:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk page has been revoked, and I extended the block to 1 month. –Herr MuZemike 05:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but shouldn't the 1-mo. block be reset on account of Δδ (talk · contribs) showing up and editing in an identical manner to 91.? —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 21:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I need help right now

At Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011. The third phase was initiated this morning. A few users who don't like the phrasing of one of the questions have decided their objections constitute some kind of consensus to obstruct the entire process and have unilaterally placed it "on hold." Need uninvolved admins, as many as possible, to come in and deal with this. I am stepping back and will take no further action in this matter today. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Although I am not involved in the "obstruction", I'm concerned that you have not initiated the 3rd phase of this RfC in good faith. In particular, you seem to have completely ignored the opinions expressed in the 2nd phase despite claiming that the questions in the 3rd phase are based on the responses from the 2nd phase. You seem to be trying to railroad this through, without actually caring about community feedback, in my opinion. I imagine if you just changed the wording of your first question so that it does not present a false dichotomy, no one would object any more, although I'm not aware of the other objections that have been raised. Kaldari (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We discussed this phase for over a week. Some objections were raised but they were all over the map and/or complaining about things outside the scope of this RFC so I went ahead anyway as there was no coherent consensus not to. I don't feel it is appropriate for me to take any further actions here and I am afraid an edit war may be on the brink of breaking out, so more admin eyes and/or tools in the area would be much appreciated. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion on my Talk page might be useful for people to look at. Kaldari (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand why you are so averse to adding the phrase "for now" to the first question, as this is the most prominent opinion of the people who want to turn off pending changes. At first you said it was because the Foundation had taken that option off the table, but Steven Walling clarified that that was not the case. Since I don't see any other compelling reason for ignoring the opinions of those editors, I have to wonder if it's some type of "divide and conquer" strategy, where you are presenting a false choice between two options, when in reality, more editors support a third choice. Kaldari (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia talk:Pending_changes/Request for Comment February_2011#phase 3: what to ask., which I'm guessing is what prompted Beeblebrox to open this thread. Kaldari (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011#Re Question 1 seems to be related as well. Kaldari (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Chzz's 10¢p

• "there was no coherent consensus not to" (above) is an extraordinary rationale for such a massive change to the RfC.
• Previously, phase 2 was introduced after just 2.5 days chance for discussion - I didn't even know about it; I objected as soon as I did. The discussion was quickly archived [7] with the 'reset'. There was a shout on AN, and I commented there - offering a possible alternative (which some others thought useful too) [8] - but got no response.

Prior to that, we'd had a long, rambling discussion but we had made progress. People were discussing the concerns. Phase 2 put an end to the discussion, forcing people into boxes. Phase 2 was never going to tell us much we didn't already know - it told us a) lots of people care about lots of things, b) some people care about some more than others, c) we all want Wikipedia to be better.

• There was considerable opposition to the suggested 'phase 3' over the last few days. Between 13 March and 15, five users discussed it (on the RfC talk page). Four of the five gave specific, reasoned concerns about it - Chzz, UncleDouggie, SpinningSpark, and WhatamIdoing. The closest to supporting it was Off2riorob - and even xe wrote, "I am in two minds about phase three".
• During the short time while 'phase 3' was implemented, everyone except Off2riorob and Beeblebrox raised concerns, of one kind or another - in essence, "Whoa, hold on a bit...please let's talk about this". (I hope, now, we can do so)
• As soon as I saw "phase 3", I said, I'm tempted to just revert the page; I'm amazed you've done that, with such clear opposition shown here - and ongoing discussion. I can understand a need for bold steps, and I'm sure your intents are good; however, I think that was a serious mistake, not in line with consensus, and that you've imposed your own viewpoint - and maybe I should have reverted right then - but I hate causing a fuss. So, others added their own criticisms, but still, Beeblebrox insisted on forcing it. And here we are.
• Finally, I am disappointed with Beeblebrox's comment, "I'm sick and tired of this obstructionist crap. You guys want an answer then you bitch and moan" [9]. We're all frustrated but, that is uncalled-for.

I appreciate the good intentions, trying to resolve this very complex issue, but... It's hard on us all. I've personally been asking why the 2-month trial has been continuing since August 2010. "Establishing consensus can be a lot harder than taking a poll, but so are most things that are worth doing." WP:POLL

Throughout (and including right here), I've tried hard not to repeat - and tried to quietly interject e.g. "No, that's not right, please see [this]" - but sadly, that fails. Those who write in BIG BOLD LETTERS tend to be heard more - and Beeblebrox has done just that, in this RfC - not always in CAPS and bold, but sometimes by the fact that he has put *his* slant into all the == Section headings == which then makes it look all nice and 'official' The very format of "Phase 3" slants the argument against any idea to halt PC until we can resolve the mess.

Please - if you read nothing else of all the long debate - consider the basic, core problem - Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011#Re Question_1.  Chzz  ►  22:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

As one of the dissenting opinions (as evidenced at Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_February_2011/Archive_2) it seems like the expression of dissenting views is being swept underneath the carpet (by archiving the previous discussion) and expecting that those were previously involved to re-express their dissent. As expressed many times on "Phase 2" there are several dissenting opinions (and even some that were overwhelming consensus against moving forward with PC until answers get answered (and not swept underneath the rug). Don't roll along on the tracks if people are expressing concerns about the way the process is being railroaded. Hasteur (talk) 00:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, whether PC is in use right this minute is not what the RFC was intended to resolve. And the idea that I am trying to suppress dissent is just wrong. Phase three, as I designed it, was intended to solicit the widest possible spectrum of ideas. Once they were all collected they would be read and analyzed by a "jury" of an as yet undetermined nature (since nobody would even discuss this point at the RFC talk page), and commonalities between the various proposals would be used to formulate a rough policy which could be improved over time into a more comprehensive policy as the community sees fit. The problem with the objections to phase three is that they did not agree as to what the actual problem was. I think the process is straightforward and simple and in fact we have already had a few users turn in completed questionnaires. This will be the seventh time I have stated this: if leaving PC on is a deterrent to continuing this discussion then remove it from all articles and we can move on. I really don't think it has any bearing one way or the other but some users do and they have been told again and again to go ahead and do it. Two admins over at WP:AN said they think it is a good idea, yet they won't act on it. Why? The alternate proposal for a phase three is a dogfight between completed policies on the use of PC. I think that is a terrible idea and will only cloud things further, take even longer, and be much more contentious than my simple questionnaire. I seem to have to keep repeating myself on some points so I'll say again that I am open to discussing the phrasing of the questions, but the "big one" has got to ba answered as it has been the primary goal of this RFC from the very first edit to find an answer to it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Update' It looks like we are quite close to a compromise and there has not been further edit warring so the failure of the cavalry to show up wasn't so bad after all and this thread can probably be closed as we shouldn't be discussing this in so many places at once. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Legal block notification

For transparency's sake, I'm notifying this board of my indefinite block of User talk:TheOriginalSkunk for making legal threats. The block followed two e-mails to my Wikipedia e-mail address threatening legal action. Following my reply and warning concerning the content of the first e-mail, this edit was made to my talk page. Because of the quality of the e-mails and deleted The Skunk article, this is a blatant troll account to me -- but I will forward the e-mail text to an arb if anyone wants. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Based on the on-wiki evidence, that certainly seems reasonable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

What an idiot. I have no pity for such people (especially the ones that in addition try to blackmail others with a lawsuit). Serves him well. CoolKoon (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You should forward the e-mails to the arbcom-l mailing list if there is an unblock request that someone needs to evaluate. If there isn't, and if you don't think the threats are real, then I'm not sure there's a need to do anything else. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the clarifications. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be tempting, though probably against the rules, to retort that, "Wikipedia is very unhappy with Original Records and are considring legal action." Make sure to keep the typos, of course. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

User:3.178.243.7

Resolved

 – Blocked for 3 months. Next time please report at WP:AIV —GFOLEY FOUR— 22:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Please help dealing with abusive IP User:193.178.243.7 User talk:193.178.243.7 (reverts with abusive comments; was warned before). Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This probably should go to WP:AIV. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Need help with speedied deletion on Fistgate article

I tried to add a speedied delete template but I got a not allowed message.

The fistgate article serves only to accuse President Obama's openly gay Kevin Jennings of being associated with a sexual practice using unreliable sources or sources that don't support the statements at all; also "fistgate" is almost solely used by conservative activist bloggers. The short version is that in 2000 an activist from Mass Resistance illegally taped a health/sex education conference workshop that was co-sponsored by Jennings' group GLSEN (they did not approve information that was not age-appropriate and had nothing to do with the session which was run by State health educators). Despite a court injunction against releasing the recording the activists did so, held a press conference and a talk show aired parts of the tape including someone (who may have been a plant) asking about fisting. This was re-dug up a decade later after the President announced he was appointing Kevin Jennings to the US Department of Education in 2009 and rebranded as fistgate by those opposed to Obama, Jennings or both.

[10] Media Matters, who have debunked a lot of similar claims, saidThe latest charges, which highlighted the creepy right-wing fascination with gay sex, were rolled over days and presented as the ultimate take-down of Jennings. But alas, the serious press has been singularly uninterested in the story. A check of Nexis shows not one serious national news outlet picked up the story this week, despite the fact that right-wingers, led by Andrew Breitbart, hailed it as a sensational blockbuster.

I'm surprised that what is essentially a tranparent and slanderous smear is being legitimized by Wikipedia. I started to fix the article but there is very little to support it existing at all. I know people are free to criticized government officials but this feels over the line. Is there anything that can be done or a better page to ask? Also the "Massachusetts News" and "MassResistance" articles basically repeat the same versions. Haley- Haley 23:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Based on the age of the article and how many editors have worked in it, I doubt you'd get a speedy deletion under any of the WP:CSD criteria, and a WP:PROD would likely be removed in short order. You'd be better off nominating it at WP:AFD and seeing if consensus can be gained for deletion. Note that I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with your points; I don't know enough about it to do so. I'm just pointing out what looks like the viable option. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that worked! Haley 01:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Irregular restoration of deleted article

This article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Argentine, was deleted 11 January 2011. After that, was written on Metapedia (search White Argentine on Metapedia). Some one has restored it [11], using the same Metapedia's text, with a new name: Argentines of European descent, but is the same article. The problem is, on one hand, they are copy the text from Metapedia to Wikipedia, without permission. On the other, is a mockery of the decision taken by the community. They don't ask the Deletion review, just acted on the basis of facts, disrespecting the community. It is possible to do some thing? Regards.--GiovBag (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You could put a speedy-deletion tag on it for G4 (recreation of a page deleted after discussion), but you would have to make sure to put a supporting argument on the Talk page. Or you could tag it under WP:COPYVIO, if Metapedia doesn't follow the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license (I don't know if they do or don't off the top of my head). --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no. It wasn't done that way. The 'White Argentine' article was userfied, edited to remove the most glaringly-obvious problems, and then renamed as 'Argentines of European descent'. Though I don't agree with the way this was done, it was approved by several admins. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If that's the case, WP:CONSENSUS must prevail, end of story, IMO. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Tehwhirled

I need advice regarding user:Tehwhirled. The user in question was created on March 10th, 2011 and his first edit was to create an article about the Libyan no-fly zone on his user page. Since then every edit of his 160 edits, except for 11 has been on this one article Libyan no-fly zone. His intention seems to be to keep as much criticism of the operation as possible in the article, even if it based on wrong or outdated quotes i.e. he had Alain Juppé as a critic of the no-fly zone. He says Clinton is critical of the no-fly because of a statement she made on March 3rd about lack of demands for it in the Arab world. He puts Richard G. Lugar into the section of people saying it is "An act of war", when Lugar has never said such a thing, but criticized how Obama intends to proceed and opinions that Obama seek first "a declaration of war against Libya" from the US congress. Lugar does not criticize the no-fly zone, he doesn't call it an act of war, and when you try to remove this misquotation [12], and remove the outdated quote by Clinton [13], he reverts and calls it abusive editing. Then I took to the talk page pointing out that Clinton has been misquoted and that Alain Juppé is definitely not against a no-fly zone this happened: "Wikipedia is not your SOAPBOX", I then told him to please watch his tone and [14] and to not misquote. His answer: insulting me and avoiding to discuss the wrong insertion and misquotation of officials. Asking him to take it down a notch [15] and for a NPOV [16], were ignored too. Now he continues to add criticism of the no-fly zone [17], [18] which is fine with me as long as he does not do it in a POV way [19] and as long as he does not refuse to accept any criticism of wrongly listed people, edits with a NPOV and stops insulting other people. But the advice I am looking for is what do to about the suspicion that this is a sock specifically created for POV warring by an editor: the focus on one topic, the one sided editing, the abrasiveness of his style and the refusal to allow anyone to remove "supposed" critics of the no-fly zone, points in my view to POV-war sock specifically created to control this article. What can be done about that? Should there be done anything about that? thanks, for any advice. noclador (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You know what. I don't give a shit about this fascistoid bullshit. I request of the admins that my account be deleted. It's the last time I countribute to this website. Thank you. --Tehwhirled (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Because of attribution requirements for edits we do not delete accounts. You are free to wipe your user and talk pages and discontinue contributing if you desire. -- ۩ Mask 23:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Username policy#Changing your username Nil Einne (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

user:Tehwhirled is adding again "criticism" to the article Libyan no-fly zone. The problem: it is not criticism of the no-fly zone or the operations currently underway, but a opinion piece from March 8th about what could happen after Gaddafi is out of power: [20]. noclador (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

More on Tehwhirled

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

user:Tehwhirled POV warrior, misquoting sources, 3RR at Libyan no-fly zone‎ and personal attacks "you fascist bureaucrat psychopath", "you perversely biased POS". Repeated warnings and discussion attempts have been ignored. noclador (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That guy's still not blocked yet??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

They've put him on the sand for the next 24 hours. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

He is now using socks: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tehwhirled noclador (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

continued attacks on other editors

Calling tow editors: "fascist". noclador (talk) 13:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Given this,[21] the admins might want to revoke his talk page privileges until (or if) he's unblocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

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

and again he is back - new username User:Catsycat and his first two edits are to misquote Zuma and Museveni; noclador (talk) 04:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Warning template abuse

I would like to request an admin issue a caution to user Mo ainm for warning template abuse. I would myself however i already issued them one for warning template abuse, however they have since abused a warning template again with no jusitification for it. This user and i do not see eye-to-eye, however i feel this is a case of harassment.

Firstly they issued me a warning as can be seen here, for allegedly editing an article talk page comment, when in reality all i did was alter an articles talk page section heading to a more relevant and content related title according to the Section headings part of the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments policy.

What i changed it from and too can be seen here. Justification for this change can be seen here. Other than Mo ainm's revert of it citing "refactoring", to which i restored it per the quoted policy, no-one has complained about the renaming with even the initiator of the topic allegedly "copy-editing" it by removing the question mark from it as can be seen here. So it would appear they don't object, so we can assume its not controversial - though how could the talk topic and the article section under disucssion being used as the title be controversial. Thus i issued Mo ainm a caution for warning template abuse for issuing a warning when it was clearly not called for.

Rather than apologise, they decide to for no apparent justifiable reason at all issue a warning template abuse caution back at me. They didn't elaborate on how exactly i merited the warning either.

I feel an admin should step in to caution Mo ainm as any further justified cautions/warnings from me in regards to warning template abuse i feel will no doubt be ignored and i'll probably be the subject of more petty tit-for-tat. I would also like to have an admin step in now to nip anything here in the bud. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Mo and Mabuska, I think it's best to avoid using user-talk templates at all. They are like walking up to someone, pulling an electronic device out of your pocket, and playing a bureaucratically worded recorded message at them through a speaker instead of talking to them like a human. The other person doesn't pay any attention to what the message says, and they just get annoyed with you. If you have to criticize someone's editing on their talk page, just edit the page and describe your issue in normal english instead of using those templates. We have a essay don't template the regulars but it should really be "don't template anyone". 75.57.242.120 (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Are they really "bureaucratically worded" ? I'm sure they could be improved, but personally I think they are written rather well, especially the "lower level" ones. Someone I know was indulging in some petty vandalism just after they first created their account, and they actually felt quite welcomed by the template that begins something like "Thanks for your attempts to lighten up Wikipedia, but..." --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

They are worded well, though some do leave some room for improvement. The warning templates used where abused by Mo ainm as they had no valid justification whatsoever. They are short ones and its clear what they say and are for. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Jaimechelle COI, Incidents

Resolved

 – Closed by Seraphimlade. Jamiemichelle is topic banned re Frank J. Tipler and Omega Point theory, broadly construed; can appeal after a reasonable period of productive editing (generally speaking, 3 months minimum). 75.57.242.120 (talk) 07:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This user has a conflict of interest with this article and is hostile to other editors while trying to push in inclusions without consensus into a Fringe Theory article Frank J. Tipler with his beliefs that it is mainstream [22]. He has been attempting to do this by citation overkill [23]. This is evident from the talk page of the article Talk:Frank_J._Tipler. He has also previously been hostile [24]. He also has been making accusations [25] (non-exhaustive list). I can provide many more diffs if required. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes, because Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been so widely published in the mainstream peer-reviewed scientific literature, including those papers makes this whole affair unfair.

How dare I include his papers which have been published in mainstream scientific journals and proceedings.

At any rate, your objection is absurd. Administrator N419BH already settled this issue, so stop attempting to go over his head. His requirement was that the references more appropriately pertain to the sentences which they address, and with that proviso he agreed that all of these peer-reviewed papers published in mainstream scientific journals and proceedings can stay in the article. Hence, *at most* all you can do is rearrange where the citations appear in the article. You cannot simply *delete* them.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, would you be able to provide more diffs of his accusations? I feel that those diffs show him as a bit arrogant, but not hostile. LiteralKa (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Diffs? How many diffs do you want? I could spend a large portion of my time collecting them. But see the latter portion of this discussion: [26].--Jamie Michelle (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I regret having to put the matter bluntly, however Jamie Michelle is a known crank with a long history of disruption at Wikipedia articles relating to this subject. Clearly on a mission to promote the unorthodox theories of Tipler, his repetitive cut and paste monologues on Wikipedia Talk pages are evident all over the internet as well, simply Google the phrase ""the only way to avoid the conclusion that the Omega Point exists is to reject the known laws of physics" for a taste. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

After seeing that, I agree. (Though diffs would be cool too :D) LiteralKa (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

LuckyLouie is part of an athitheist crowd that got worked up after Prof. Tipler appeared on a television news broadcast. The online video of this made the rounds and was posted on a number of antitheist discussion boards, after which they started disrupting all the articles associated with Prof. Tipler on Wikipedia, even though they knew nothing about the Omega Point cosmology other than that they disliked its theological implications.

LuckyLouie follows me around on Wikipedia in order to inject his would-be wisdom.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that I added the ANI template to LuckyLouie's edit page as an editor recently involved in the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are some diffs. Some of these diffs are from this administrator noticeboard [27]

[28][29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] Here he misquotes a settlement plan to justify edits against concensus. [35] IRWolfie- (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that IRWolfie-'s complaint here has no foundation whatsoever. This issue has already been settled. Administrator N419BH already settled this issue, and IRWolfie- is here attempting to go over his head. N419BH's requirement was that the references more appropriately pertain to the sentences which they address, and with that proviso he agreed that all of these peer-reviewed papers published in mainstream scientific journals and proceedings can stay in the article. Hence, *at most* all IRWolfie- can do is rearrange where the citations appear in the article. IRWolfie- cannot simply *delete* them.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a diff of this alleged settlement. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

N419BH is not an administrator.[36] But it wouldn't matter, because administrators make mistakes as well as non-administrators and are usually open to having their decisions reversed if other factors surface. Doc talk 21:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me. "[R]eviewer, rollbacker", I ought to have said, if I could have found out that information, which you have now provided me with.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Civility problems aside, a more long-term solution might be to request that Jamie Michelle stop edit-warring and abide by consensus at the article: i.e. cease "citation bombing" the article with any and all papers published by Tipler. Continued edit warring might be followed up by a topic ban if needed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Because, Lord knows, Wikipedia needs less citations to papers in mainstream peer-reviewed journals and proceedings. This is what is distroying Wikipedia. We must put a stop to it! Yet this issue has alreadly been settled by "reviewer, rollbacker" N419BH.

It's clear what your objective is here. And that objective is not to tell people about how widely-published Prof. Tipler's papers on the Omega Point cosmology are in the mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journals and proceedings.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

At any rate, IRWolfie-'s posts here are an attempt to get around "reviewer, rollbacker" N419BH discession on this matter. Wikipedia's policy on this issue is quite clear, and so there is no ground for IRWolfie- to say that this discession is out of bounds, as N419BH's discession was merely based upon Wikipedia policy.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Jaimemichelle, conference proceedings are not peer reviewed and therefore not considered reliable sources for science articles. They are definitely not reliable sources for fringe theories. IRWolfie has plenty of policy based reasons for removing the sources you added. See policies such as WP:UNDUE and WP:SPS. Sailsbystars (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, proceedings are peer-reviewed. Peer-review is a standard process of proceedings papers.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This is about your conflict of interest with regards to the topic, not what occurred in an imaginary settlement (provide diffs). IRWolfie- (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

As an aside to Jamie Michelle, N419BH's opinion on the matter is merely one editor's opinion. There's obviously a discussion going on, so one previous opinion isn't sufficient to gauge consensus. Please focus on the current matter. Dayewalker (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because how horrible it would be if Wikipedia started citing peer-reviewed papers in mainstream scientific journals and proceeding. Wikipedia could never last were that to occur. This is a horrific outcome, which must stop if sanity is to prevail.--Jamie Michelle (talk)

Oh, so you don't want to be implicated in bringing up an already-settled issue. How convenient of you. Wow, you're really looking out for yourself. You're really taking the high road there.

Perhaps we should all just bow-down and worship you for your selfless devotion to truth and beauty. Lord knows you have only the highest of motives.

At any rate, your posts here are an attempt to get around "reviewer, rollbacker" N419BH discession on this matter. Wikipedia's policy on this issue is quite clear, and so there is no ground for you to say that this discession is out of bounds, as N419BH's discession was merely based upon Wikipedia policy. And N419BH's discession was that all the peer-reviewed papers in mainstream scientific journals and proceeding must remain in the article.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Jamiemichelle, you need to drop this "reviewer, rollbacker" nonsense, because it is meaningless here - any editor who has been around a while and hasn't misbehaved can be granted review and rollback rights, and they provide no authority whatsoever. N419BH has no authority and has not "finalised" anything. But even if N419BH was an admin, they would still have no authority to make content decisions - the community, through discussion and consensus, makes content decisions, and that's exactly what's happening here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Moving forward is there anything that can be done to mitigate the effects of the obvious COI of Jamiemichelle?. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You have expressed your own views on the Omega Point cosmology. And I have offered counter-points to what you expressed. Thus, it is improper to say that I have some sort of "conflict of interest" when you have expressed the same sort of interest, but in an opposite way.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Given that the user spends most of his time spamming internet forums with ideological pro-Tipler diatribes entitled "God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics" I think expecting him to behave differently here on Wikipedia might be unrealistic. I support a topic ban to include the articles Frank J. Tipler, Omega Point, and Cosmology. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Your post here violates Wikipedia policy, as despite who you think I am you are not allowed to connect my Wikipedia presence to whoever you think I am on any matters outside of Wikipedia. I will report this.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not and administrator, and I have never claimed to be one. Rest assured that if I was and administrator I would have blocked you for violation of WP:3RR, a red-line offense. and if you look at my post the article's talk page I told you that one citation per sentence would suffice and that you would need a reliable source to claim the theory in question was mainstream science. Furthermore, I told you that each citation should be relevant the information contained in the sentence. Your response was to revert, for the fifth time that day, to your preferred version of the article, claiming in the edit summary that as an administrator I had endorsed your version, when in fact I had not. You have continued to make this claim while continuing to edit-war over the article's content. N419BH 02:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Likewise support a topic ban. I'll take Jamie at there word that they wish to be a productive editor, but that clearly cant happen while they're tied up pushing crank theories a simple Google search shows they're rather obsessed with. -- ۩ Mask 02:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I see a history of tendentious editing in non-Tipler topic as well (in 2006, alleges that the FBI was involved in the 1993 WTC bombing,[37]). I loved this two-hour, 108 edit revert war on the Tipler biography between Jamie Michelle and Headbomb in 2009. Didn't we used to have a 50-revert rule (j/k)? The bulk (but not all) of Jamie Michelle's editing seems related to Tipler and the Omega Point, including attempting inserting it into Existence of God,[38] but I do see some ok edits to computer-related articles and other topics[39]. The 1994 Nature review of Tipler's "Physics of Immortality" is brutal, by the way. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

An 108 edit revert war? Wow. It appears that Jamie Michelle has been a cyclical disruption problem for 2 years now, and a lot of editors including myself have been kept busy cleaning up the mess. A recent statement indicates they feel persecuted for bringing "truth" to Wikipedia that "God and the resurrection can be proven by standard physics". Please admins, this is a case where you can do this user and the community some good by using your tools. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

My experience with Headbomb has shown he has a high tendency toward edit warring; I know because he has permanently turned me off bringing any additional physics articles up to FA. I don't think you can lay the blame entirely on Jamie Mitchelle's doorstep here.—RJH (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You're absolutely right about that. But I might add that Headbomb wasn't involved in the last couple of Tipler article disruptions. They originated from behavior by Jamie Michelle. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The blame lies entirely at Jamie Michelle's doorstep. I repeatedly tried to engage him/her on the talk page, where I was met with nothing but scorn, insults, etc...

As for RJH refusing to bring articles to FA status because he didn't get his way at Supernova over a style issue as stupid as presenting citations in a consistent style, that says a lot more about him than it does about me (WP:OWN). Which is a real shame because RJH produces great content. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The blame for an edit war where both people reverted 50+ times lies entirely with just one of them? Nuh uh. I've got to say that's one of the more entertaining diffs I've made recently though. ;-) 75.57.242.120 (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

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

Community consensus here is relatively straightforward, and results in the sanctions being applied as written. Jamiemichelle may appeal these sanctions either to the community after a reasonable period of productive editing (none was specified, generally speaking this is considered at least three months of trouble-free editing), or as always, may appeal to the Arbitration Committee, or to Jimbo Wales. I will make the appropriate notifications to the banned editor's talk page and to WP:BU. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

---

In light of continued POV-pushing against consensus, I propose the following:

Jamiemichelle (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from all articles and corresponding talk pages related to Frank J. Tipler and Omega Point Theory, broadly construed. This topic ban applies to discussing the above on unrelated pages. Failure to comply will result in the removal of editing privileges for an appropriate length of time as determined by the blocking administrator.

Commentary

• Support as nom. N419BH 03:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support as previously noted. A mandated break from the Tipler crusade is a smart idea, and enables him to contribute productively to other areas of the encyclopedia if he wishes. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• As noted earlier, support. -- ۩ Mask 04:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support JM, please try to edit some totally unrelated topics for a while. The ban can be reviewed and maybe lifted once you've gotten some more experience and built up a good record. You currently have 432 edits of which the bulk are related to Tipler or dispute resolution. It takes a good while longer than that to understand how this place works. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support This gives time to see whether or not edits by this user JamieMichelle will turn out more productive results on other pages than any of the recently disruptive contributions made on pages related to Tipler and the Omega Point Theory. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support 3rr is a brightline policy and it's been violated on more than one occasion, both today (which got a block) and Monday [40][41][42][43]. An enforced change of topic to one where the user doesn't have a strong opinion might help the him understand better how to edit in a collaborative environment. Sailsbystars (talk) 05:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support We'll then see if this editor is really here to help the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - topic bans should not be drafted with phrases such as "broadly construed." Try limiting it to just the two specific articles and see how it works out. Racepacket (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment "Broadly construed" is standard wording, so that the restricted editor cannot wikilawyer regarding their edits to a "related" topic, deprecating those in conflict with the subject or their topic ban for instance, are not covered by the terms. The uninvolved admins are usually adept at determining whether contested edits are related to the topic. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• The whole idea is to avoid further misunderstandings and disputes, so it would make more sense to develop something precise that would avoid future "wikilawyering" and return trips to ANI. The question is not whether there are admins "adept at determining" what they think we meant here, the question is whether the proposal can be clearly understood by JM. He can push other theories, just not the Omega Point Theory. Racepacket (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• I concur with LHvU's explanation: wikilawyering can work both ways. If JM were to edit pasta & be sanctioned because "obviously Frank J. Tipler eats pasta", that reasoning won't fly. On the other hand, if JM edits pasta to add the fact Frank J. Tipler eats pasta & BTW here's some facts you need to know about his ideas, then I'd be surprised, were the clause "broadly construed" not included, if JM didn't wikilawyer over being sanctioned. The point here is to see if can make contributions which improve Wikipedia, not to find innovative ways JM can advocate for this Tipler guy. -- llywrch (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support looks like enough of a pattern of disruption to justify a topic ban... — Scientizzle 14:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support, let's see if they're actually interested in helping the encyclopedia. Dayewalker (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment; leaning towards oppose in favor of alternative wording; in my opinion, this doesn't go far enough because the extent of the problem justifies going beyond the article and article talk space alone. Some individual interpretations of appropriate lengths of time are absurd to the point I'd remove that mention altogether, but due to the nature of this issue, why force an admin to use a presumably definite period of time if they are up to scratch with the nuances of policy and such rulings? I'd be willing to support "Jamiemichelle is indefinitely banned from editing on the topic of Frank J. Tipler and Omega Point Theory, broadly construed, including talk pages. This topic ban also applies to discussing these topics on unrelated pages. Any uninvolved administrator may enforce this topic ban." Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Hmm, I wonder if there is standardized wording from arb decisions for topic bans. If there is (finding out would require comparing a bunch), I'd say go with that. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support; it would be a net positive for article content and for the community. I'd be happy with indef too. bobrayner (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Maybe tweak the wording to be more standard, if there is such a thing. But obsessive fringe theorists rarely listen to reason, and we have plenty of evidence that this one isn't. So for the good of the project, this has to be stopped, whatever the precise wording. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support the proposal, but if possible I'd like to see the topics of science, religion, and pseudoscience (broadly construed) added to the topic ban. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 22:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support, as an editor involved is a previous situation with this editor. Ncmvocalist may have a better phrasing, but "broadly construed" has been used to support Ncmvocalist's preferred wording, as JM's edit adding Tipler to an article makes that article "related to ... Tipler ..., broadly construed." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Perhaps an administrator should make close this thread and make a note of it at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 22:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Regrettably, Support and close thread. Sigh, it's such a shame whenever intelligent editors with so much potential turn out to be single-purpose POV pushers. Let's just hope this one will turn out to be different. -- œ^™ 22:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

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

IP harassment

Resolved

 – Rangeblocked by another admin. –MuZemike 15:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Special:Contributions/166.205.137.189
• Special:Contributions/166.205.136.91
• Special:Contributions/166.205.138.250

User:LeftCoastMan was recently blocked for personal attacks, above IPs are harassing Moreschi and myself about it, please block. Swarm ^X 06:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hm, they seem to have stopped. Action may not be necessary. Swarm ^X 06:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Because User:Bsadowski1 made a rangeblock there. –MuZemike 15:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Averaver

User:Averaver (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) This user, who has a block notice on their talk page, appears to be making small edits to a variety of pages - no serious damage done, but examination of contribution history shows a consistent pattern of adding foreign categories and brackets to categories. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried talking to them? I don't see any such attempt on their talk page; is the conversation somewhere else? What, exactly, do you feel the problem is with this user? "Adding foreign categories and brackets to categories" can be useful, if done correctly; are you saying they're doing it incorrectly? Block notice also appears to be a non-issue. I don't understand why this is on ANI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Just because a user was once blocked once doesn't mean that he can never edit again. Many editors are blocked temporarily. His block seems to be related to his ISP, not because he wasn't editing in good faith. In fact, his edits appear completely innocuous and might be helpful to Italophones. --NellieBly (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the ANI notice on their talk page, and asked what their edits 'mean', with two examples. I can't see what adding a '|' pipe does for a category, e.g. "Category:Janet Morris" -> "Category:Janet Morris|*", so I asked a "so edjoomakate me" question. Shenme (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

For category links, the string after the pipe is used as the sort key on the category page. So, making the change "Category:Janet Morris" -> "Category:Janet Morris|*" makes the page (generally) the first entry in the category. It's useful for eponymous categories -- see WP:SORTKEY and WP:EPON. The difference between using a * or a space after the pipe is, as far as I know, stylistic, apart from * being a few characters after space in ASCII so sorted slightly differently. If using a * the pages appear under a "*" heading on the category page, whereas using a space means they have no heading (e.g. Category:Brontë family was done with *, Category:George W. Bush with space). Nothing to get excited about here. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 06:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi,All. I have been blocked because my ISP proxy. Now I don't use proxy and haven't anything problems with work. In general, I work with "Writers"/"Poets"/"Literature" categories and articles - add iwiki and small changes for category's indexes. Usually I use a "*" or a space for index. I try that work with some Wikies: EN, DE, FR, IT, PL and RU. --Averaver (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, my apologies - I misunderstood as I couldn't figure out the edits ob a couple of articles that I watch, and I say the block notice and was puzzled! Glad that it has been cleared up. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism by blocked IP

Resolved

194.81.239.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is blocked, but continues to vandalise their own talk page (diff1, diff2). What is the threshold for denying talk page access? -- John of Reading (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Forget it, Materialscientist (talk · contribs) has dealt with it. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The easiest way to ask about revoking talk page access is contacting the original blocking admin on their talk page. —GFOLEY FOUR— 17:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I was about to do that, then saw the note in the header at WP:AIV saying it should be done here... -- John of Reading (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Elephanthunter and Lesbian article

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

On March 17, after 13 months being away from Wikipedia, Elephanthunter removed a statement [44], [45], [46] from the lead of the Lesbian article that summarizes points made by a dozen sources. After being warned for 3RR violation on his talk page, s/he followed with placing a NPOV template on the article. Elephanthunter also listed the dispute at Request for third opinion. A talk page discussion followed (at Talk:Lesbian#Men_have_historically_shaped -- starting March 17), in which Elephanthunter repeatedly gave minimalist and confusing responses while I documented in full the sourced material in the article and repeatedly asked him/her to provide alternate ideas or concrete suggestions for the statement in question. This has not materialized and instead, Elephanthunter has accused me of WP:OR [47] and WP:SYNTH [48] in the article, despite a list I provided on the talk page illustrating 14 examples of cited statements or entire sections that support the summary sentence in the lead that s/he removed. S/he is tendentiously practicing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. After two days, I posted on the talk page that if Elephanthunter was unable to provide a source or any intelligent argument stating why the sources currently used in the article should be considered unreliable, the template should be removed. When nothing materialized, I removed the NPOV template. S/he replaced it.

I wrote the article, so I am involved in it. It is assessed as a GA, and I'm interested in it keeping that designation. My explanations to Elephanthunter are clearly ineffective. Another admin stepping in to protect this content would be appreciated. It is probably too early for a topic ban, but if Elephanthunter does not realize very quickly that s/he should have a valid reason for removing the statement, one that is supported by sources, perhaps someone else can point this out to make it clearer. I will not be able to reply here for a few more hours, unfortunately, but I would appreciate some attention on this. --Moni3 (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looking at the article Discussion page, this is a matter of debate that has been subject to ongoing discussions between several editors for over a month, and I'm not seeing a clear consensus as to whether to include the material or not. I think Elephanthunter may have a valid argument in that the material may be non-neutral, but I also think Moni3 has a valid point in that its removal without consensus was premature. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That is a misunderstanding of the consensus guideline. I don't deny it is a controversial statement and that readers may disagree with it, but it is clearly supported by multiple sources. The editors don't get to decide what is included and what is not if reliable sources repeatedly make the same point. The statement has been the subject of several talk page discussions and it has been rewritten for clarity at least three times. If it has to be rewritten again for clarity, I do not object to that, but anyone interested in the neutrality of the article should be aware of the points made by the sources. If there are other experts that say differently, they should be provided. So far, Elephanthunter has stated no clear reason for his/her objection. All I can conclude is that it is his/her personal opinion that it does not belong in the article. That is not how content is created, and that is the definition of original research. --Moni3 (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked Elephanthunter for 24 hours for being the primary driver in the week-long edit war on Lesbian. Courcelles 19:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Attention grabbing edit on World Down Syndrome Day page

User Pardk has used the above page to pass a message onto a named individual.[49] He's made no constructive edit, just the insertion of a blank line and then the edit summary to leave a message. Could somebody revdel it please? User informed. a_man_alone (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

WTF ... is this CSI or a joke? The user's talk page is even more messed up. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Revdeled. Dunno about the talkpage -- is this block evasion? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

They've just done it again here, using a couple of spelling corrections as a means to try to contact someone via the edit summary. I've issued another warning. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No message this time (but their talk page message is still there) but there is a name [50] Nil Einne (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted the edit summary and left a final warning. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that "Sarah Irwin" is in one of the articles that got edited, added 15 January.[51] Is this some weird prank? 75.57.242.120 (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, "Sarah (Irwin) Ferguson", how curious -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you think that disseminating the person's name is a smart idea, given that the whole discussion began as a request to RevDel it as personal information? Think before you do things, maybe...? ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 09:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That's the name of a person mentioned in the article who is long dead - can't see them objecting to it. (and the RevDel was to remove the edit summary abuse - there was no personal info in it other than a name that is far from unique). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

PS: Just doing a bit of Googling, I see there are many people with the name mentioned in the edit summary - 25 on LinkedIn, 132 on 192.com, etc - and there's nothing here that identifies any living individual. But if people think this name needs to be hidden, I have no objection to someone rev deleting my comment here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think revdel is needed. Concern over posting the name in ANI is why I first checked the article's edit history, to find where the name was first inserted into the article (Jan 15). If there is still suspicion about it (maybe there should be) then it might be worth trying to run down a source for the Irwin stuff in the article. But it would have to be kind of an elaborate hoax, if the January edits are connected with today's. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a pretty run-of-the-mill vandalism technique - vandal A posts messages on article A, vandal B replies on Article B, A replies on A, and so on. I don't know why they do it, but if you do recent changes patrol you'll see it often. They were probably sitting right next to each other in lab. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the top of their Talk page, which makes personal attacks against another person. Corvus cornix_talk 19:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Alexandre8

User:Alexandre8 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - repeated personal attacks'

I reverted this users personal attack and warned him on his talkpage see here with a repeat of the comment and suggested he apologize, as per a discussion on my talkpage User_talk:Off2riorob#Rroland the user has not only refused to retract or apologize as suggested but has repeated the personal attack yet again. As such imo the user is in need of an edit restriction to assist him in addressing this repeated NPA violation. Off2riorob (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not even any of your business. The user is perfectly capable of writing this himself. Oh, I forgot to mention, the other user is stalking my edits and his userpage is completely FOUL! Alexandre8 (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Wait a minute. You call people nazis on Off2riorob's talk page and you claim it's none of Off2riorob's business? Really? Reyk _YO! 21:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, here's a challenge. Look at Roland#'s User page, and try not to through up. I'd get a doggybag at the ready. Alexandre8 (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC) p.s If you think this is about making me realise the evils of my ways. I'm already perfectly aware of them. what I did was entirely wrong, but I cannot stand that user's stalking/disgusting and offensive userpage. Alexandre8 (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You're aware that what you did was wrong, yet you just made another personal attack? BurtAlert (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok well, In all fairness, look at his page first, and then you'll see that he's actually asking for this kind of behaviour, hence why he himself doesn't report people. This is someone ELSE reporting my behaviour. Alexandre8 (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• note - Alexandre8 has now removed the comments from his talkpage, they can be seen here. Basically, it was a personal attack on Rolands talkpage and then I warned the user and rather than retract the personal attack they repeated it on their talkpage and again on mine. As the person that saw the original attack and reverted it and warned, I am completely in my rights when the personal attack was repeated on two more talkpages to report the situation here. Off2riorob (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that. You guys are all too used to people putting up a fight! I'm not!!! IT's the same rhetoric. Hands up I broke the rules. I know! All I want you to do is turn off "human droid" mode, and have a look at that users page, and have a good old laugh with me. And by that user I don't been rob. I mean Roland. Alexandre8 (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, which Roland are you talking about? Could you put a link to his talk page? BurtAlert (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RolandR With pleasure :P! Alexandre8 (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Didn't the subject of Roland's page come up just a few weeks ago? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep. It's very controversial. Alexandre8 (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it did, also involving Alexandre8. Since Pedro was very clear here, I'm blocking Alexandre8. I suppose we can start out with 24 hours, but if Alexandre8 is really going to take the line "I can't help myself and I'll do it again" (paraphrased), this will rapidly increase in duration. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Alexandre the Gr8 has a rather peculiar editing history. I might have said that last time too. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the administrative action. Rolands talkpage may be controversial but I don't see anything there that qualifies as a get out clause to personally attack him. Off2riorob (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I find it offensive. I might have said that last time also. But if Alex seriously cares about it, he should take it through a proper deletion request. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• I consider the cartoon on RolandR's talk page similar to the use of the word niggardly; you might intend for it to be taken one way, but so many people are going to misinterpret it, freak out, and complicate your life, that it might make more sense to just not use it. I wonder if anyone who doesn't consider RolandR to be Stalin or the AntiChrist has politely discussed it with him on his talk page? If not, then... there's a suggestion. If so, then if you've still got a problem with it, try an MfD (there's precedent, I think, for treating a portion of a userpage as a userbox, even if it's not technically on a subpage).

  I'm also concerned that RolandR appears, from a casual glance, to still be following Alexandre8 to pages he has not edited before, and poking them with a stick. I've got little time this evening to look into games of silly buggers, but an admin who's procrastinating from doing actual productive work might want to look into that in more detail, and perhaps just force the two of them to avoid each other with an interaction ban. Just because Alexandre8 can't avoid becoming irrational where RolandR is involved doesn't mean there isn't a problem in the other direction. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Bot Requesting Assistance

See here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 21:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, shit. Skynet is becoming self-aware! –MuZemike 22:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Nah, just a really neat script that Anomie built into the bot. All bots should have it, I think. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 22:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Asimov was right... GiantSnowman 00:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Iaaasi

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

It is time to review the unblocking of Iaaasi. Iaaasi is an extremely disruptive editor with a long history of abuse [52]. Iaaasi was unblocked following a cited "mild consensus" in [53] this discussion. However there are some reasons now to reverse that decision:

• - The unblocking proposal was based on the outrageous lie that Iaaasi did not sock since March [54] This lie was told by Iaaasi on IRC on September 27 (check the dates on socks before that date[55]). Since Iaaasi lied to a person in a position of high trust (MuZemike, Administrator and CheckUser) the effect of the lie was devastating to the integrity of the discussion.
• - The discussion took place during IRC canvassing, with multiple people commenting confirming this. One participant even said: "I dislike the IRC canvassing" [56]
• -Several people only supported the unblock with a full topic ban yet none was imposed at the time of unblock

So the consensus was 1. Based on a lie 2. Based on IRC canvassing 3. Based on votes actually supporting a topic ban.

Please note that IRC actions are not always transparent to the on-wikipedia community. Things such as Unblock request spam is somewhat evident on wiki, by counting the number of UBs on socks and main account (dare anyone to try to add it all up) but there is evidence to IRC requests as well [57] With the case of IRC requests responders may be unaware of previous requests. They are even hard to find if they posted about on wikipedia (diff above). Thus the community is unaware of the previous actions, and most previous declined requests. If dozens of admins decline to unblock that certainly shows something in way of consensus doesn't it?

Yet the unblock happened, let's see what changed since then. Iaaasi was recently blocked again(5RR), proving once more he is highly disruptive. [58] This block was about the 25th block [59] he recieved, he immediately reacted with posting three different unblock requests, previously he posted about 15 of them, on various accounts. Funny how all the declined unblock requests are later, discounted and forgotten huh? In fact before Iaaasi was unblocked he had an unblock request declined 20 minutes prior... [60] Yes let me repeat that, 20 minutes later Iaaasi already submitted a new unblock request which was accepted [61].

So the unblock was done in EXTREMELY questionable circumstances, to say the least. Iaaasi is back to disrupting wikipedia continuing the exact same patterns, the exact same types of edits only with more gaming more wikilawyering and more pushing the limits. We have confirmation that he is abusing IRC in various ways, fishing for reverts, canvassing, you name it.

Simply put Iaaasi have exhausted the patience of the community by operating a multitude of sockpuppets for well over 2000 edits and various other antics. There is no way he is a net positive to the project under these circumstances.

Proposal1 : Iaaasi to be banned from wikipedia indefinitely

Proposal2 : Iaaasi is topic banned from Central and Eastern European topics broadly defined indefinitely.

Please indicate below whether you support or oppose the proposals.

• Support Siteban Hobartimus (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Topic Ban Hobartimus (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment When I got noticed about the fact that the indef block of Iaaasi was countermanded, I believed that that couldn't be any other thing than a joke ,and no it wasn't. First I would like to quote what administrator Toddst1 told about the case [62] when the voting was about the second chance of Iaaasi that "This user has exhibited some seriously racist hatemongering. Please read [63]. This should have been logged as an WP:ARBMAC block. I think unblocking would be bad for the community in general even without the sockery.". And then one another administrator FisherQueen told the one detected sockpuppet of Iaaasi that " You really have broken too many rules for us to allow you to edit at all. If this information is truly important, it's inevitable that someone else will eventually add it, but you seem not to understand that you really are blocked from editing the encyclopedia at all. You've created so many sockpuppet accounts that it's very unlikely that you'll ever find an admin willing to unblock you, or at least, not until several years have passed without any more edits from you. You've tried often enough that you know now that any accounts you make will be blocked, and the changes you want won't be made by you"[64]. But ,unfortunately, sometimes there are when the impossible things come true, and now Iaaasi is allowed to edit the English Wikipedia under a legal account. And now the user follows me onto almost all of the pages that I posted on or edited from the onset of his unblock even though I do not want to encounter this user, but so were with his sockpuppets ,too, that followed me around on Wikipedia, and when I wanted to commence check user investigations concerning this user, or I just mentioned my suspicion in connection with his sockpuppetry to an administrator, the sockpuppet still emerged at the same place to hoodwink the administrator that he was not a sockpuppet of Iaaasi.--Nmate (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Siteban--Nmate (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment – If I may, I would like to direct those involved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iaaasi as well as the previous SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iaaasi/Archive#15 March 2011. All of the socks submitted have not edited since July 2010 at the latest, but yet they are just now being brought up at SPI, while Iaaasi is currently blocked for 3RR (which may be interpreted as akin to kicking a defenseless person while down). I'm sorry, but I have to question the motivation behind this proposal, as it looks like skeleton-digging to me and an attempt to Iaaasi re-blocked for something in which he was already blocked for. Moreover, there are other commentary made by other users [65] who question this same motivation. –MuZemike 15:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

So what suggests you that Iaaasi being blocked for a violation of 3RR, MuZemike?--Nmate (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, assuming I don't have ESP to read other admins' minds, I'm looking at his block log. –MuZemike 16:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear MuZemike, before commenting anything on this case, first can you please explain to the community, why did you post the following to Wikipedia from a position of high trust? since his block this past March for disruption, and he has not shown to have socked during this period of time. as opposed to reality [66]. Was this because of the IRC lies told by Iaaasi? Hobartimus (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Simple answer. I have not seen the additional socks, nor was I aware of any additional socking, if that is true, then I have nothing else to say. Before this past week, I have not communicated with Iaaasi since virtually his unblock; it has only been the last couple of days that I have been communicating with him as a result of the two previous SPI cases. If he is socking again, then I am the one who would be very disappointed, and I'll let the community carry on with whatever they choose fit to decide. –MuZemike 19:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You see that answer is far from simple. In fact it's extremely complicated, first in your reply you say "additional socking" as compared to what? Your original comment clearly states "has not shown to have socked during this period of time". So what is additional here? On the day in question the user page of Iaaasi looked exactly like this, [67] with the links to the categories clearly visible [68] [69]. Once again, the comment posted by you following your extended IRC discussion with Iaaasi [70] and the reality [71] In your comment you also claim "He has been consistently constructive over at simple.wiki and at ro.wiki". Did you have help in determining that the contributions were constructive, or do you have a native like understanding of the Romanian language as well? Hobartimus (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

That being said, also keep in mind that on User:Hobartimus/sandbox4, all the socks were from last year; User:Zzzsolt, while it says "15 April 2011" was part of the recent two SPI cases which was just discovered, and you list 3 more suspected socks, all of which have last edited in June 2010. Why reporting them now? Do you have evidence that Iaaasi is or has been socking in 2011? Because how I see it, we're basically having the exact same ban discussion from earlier, except you seem to be digging up whatever old sock puppets you can find to be taking into account stuff he did back in 2010 as the result of his first indef block in order to try and sway the community in your favor. –MuZemike 19:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Why reporting them now? Because they were discovered now... Because some members of the community were busy spreading statements about "no socking" and "constructive contributions", instead of investigating finding and handling them at the time, when it should have been done. Isn't it the admins job to enforce policy? Why wasn't policy enforced, why were these socks not blocked at the time? Aren't you an admin with the CheckUser access? You ask me why the sockpuppets were not found earlier? Hobartimus (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

First off, I wasn't a CheckUser at the time, and even after the fact (i.e. September 2010), there was no reason for me to "go fishing" for further socks. Unless you brought something up privately with another CU or even another admin about suspicions of further socks; no SPI cases were ever filed until a couple of days ago; I cannot be everywhere at once who is able to "sense everything". Unless there are more socks after August 2010 which we don't know about, he has kept clean for several months, at which point I requested the community reconsider the indef block, which achieved a rough consensus in support of. –MuZemike 20:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes there are definitely more socks after August 2010. Were you unaware of this? Does anyone read any of the evidence presented in these cases? Hobartimus (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Tell us who they are then, and provide some evidence. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Warning Since we have confirmation of abusive stealth canvassing (on IRC) from the last discussion, [72] I explicitly ask everyone to not whether the same thing is going on here now (Iaaasi going to IRC urging others to post on his behalf in an extremely abusive manner trying to derail consensus). Please preserve any off-wiki communication you have with Iaaasi because if the IRC abuse case goes to arbitration, the committee would presumably want to look at all the evidence. (Note MuZemike has a history of communicating on IRC with Iaaasi, so I would ask him if he was explicitly asked to comment above by Iaaasi, or influenced in any way by off-wiki communication) Hobartimus (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't see any evidence of recent sockpuppetry. If a past decision to unblock is now judged to be wrong, we'll just have to live with that - we don't ban people as punishment for past problems, we only do it to prevent future disruption. So lets leave the current block to expire, and then consider taking action if necessary based on future behaviour. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Will you please comment, to confirm or deny whether you were canvassed on IRC by Iaaasi into this present discussion. Hobartimus (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I was not -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose per Boing; this seems very punitive and vindictive to me. Also, since when has off-wiki interaction been considered in on-wiki blocks and bans? Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 16:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Will you please comment, to confirm or deny whether you were canvassed on IRC by Iaaasi into this present discussion. Hobartimus (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I go on Wikipedia IRC only twice a month and have never had any contact with this user. How about you learn to assume a bit of good faith? Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 16:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I do assume good faith. But with confirmed abuse on IRC in the past in a discussion like this, and confirmation below that Iaaasi is presently on IRC right now, you could see that it may be important to get the facts straight. And you seem to have misunderstood the request, off wiki behavior is not the reason to block, present and past disruption and abuse on-wiki is the reason to block [73]. Including as administrator Toddst1 put it "seriously racist hate mongering"[74]. Hobartimus (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - How ironic that at the time of this proposal an additional method of Iaaasi has surfaced as well: he seems to be keen on harassing users on accusations of sockpuppetry regardless of whether it's proven or not. In this case he seemed to have achieved the blocking of an innocent user that's been caught up in the crossfire between Iaaasi and some others with the user's only fault being the fact that he was a regular editor of the Golden Team article. The accusation of sockpuppetry was also quite hypocritic from a user who has his own list of sockpuppets (though truth be said, it still pales to Bonaparte in comparison). In fact I still don't know what was anyone thinking when they voted to allow Iaaasi to come back....
  

The other thing that amazed me about Iaaasi's attitude was his obvious lack of respect for even the most credible sources (provided they don't fit his agenda): this was the first occasion when he removed the source in question (an academic source published by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences). He also proceeded to remove the same source from the Matthias Corvinus article and used an absolutely bogus and irrelevant argument for defending his move much like in the John Hunyadi article, albeit with some difference in wording. All in all I

• Support a complete site ban as per the reasons above and the fact that I fear it's unlikely that his attitude might and will change in the future. I think that the site ban is necessary due to the fact that Iaaasi might view his methods as "useful tools" in "settling disputes" (i.e. silencing any opposition) in any other topics as well, should he be given a topic ban only. CoolKoon (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Apparently Iaaasi's currently online on IRC. He doesn't say much though, only seeking the help of admins. Interestingly enough he only seems to appear there when he wants support for his cause. CoolKoon (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I was pretty shocked when Iaaasi was unblocked without providing a response to this. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Iaaasi asked to be unblocked so that he could post here at ANI. I declined the unblock and offered to transfer any comments from his talk page to this board. So far he has not posted anything but I am watching for a response and will copy it here when it appears. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I've been sort of half-following and occasionally commenting on this rather tedious battle. There's quite a bit of apparent acrimony between Nmate and Iaaasi, and between Hobartimus and Iaaasi. Some problems with Nmate's editing are in this thread from a few days ago. IMHO there was no intervention because the editing from all sides was pretty bad, and the dispute is too complex for outside observers to reach reliable conclusions about. Iaaasi has made some good contributions and also (IMHO) some subtly tendentious edits that he defends with wikilawyering. Be that as it may, I have NOT seen evidence of further socking since his unblock, and I think Nmate focuses too much about the pre-block socking which is not news. If Nmate has evidence of recent socking, s/he should please post it. My alternate hypothesis is that Iaaasi has become skillful enough with WP content guidelines to be able to game them without having to resort to socking, which of course isn't a good thing either. I hate extended DR but I don't see a way to get to the bottom of this short of an RFC/U that would have to examine the edits of several of Iaaasi's opponents as well as that of Iaaasi himself. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The socking was never the issue it was the disruption caused by the socks. Edit warring, harassment, wikilawyering, gaming, etc. If you look for signs of recent disruption you should look over Iaaasi's recent contributions, or might consider the fact that he is currently blocked for disruption. Btw, the original unblock given, was conditional on being fully reblocked on further disruption. Now that disruption was proven this shouldn't even be a question. Hobartimus (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, he's blocked for some lame revert warring, with unblock requests declined because he should know better by now, but excessive reverting per se is fairly low on the disruption scale, which is why he only got 1 week block. One of the reviewing admins made noises about indef if the disruption continues; we're not there yet though. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose As other editors stated there are no evidence of recent sock-puppetry. He can`t be banned again for something he was already banned before, otherwise one user who receives a block could be blocked indefinetly and never receive a second chance by all this. He was banned for a arbitrary rule (3RR) that doesn`t really state anything that Iaaasi is acting like before(sock puppets and similar). I also don`t think it is right to file a report about someone who is blocked and doesn`t have a possibility to defend himself. Adrian (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Could someone ask for a Commons checkuser to look into this? commons:user:Hobartimus was created in February so data might still be around. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I don`t believe it was really Hobartimus, especially because that day he had activity on Wikipedia at 23:13 and commons 15:03. I don`t really know, when someone logs in your commons account, is that the same account as on wiki? Can that person, once he had access to commons account to use the wiki account also? Anyway, maybe there should be a check on this matter to avoid any further confusion. Adrian (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Adrian, there is a feature called Unified login that allows a single account to be linked across all the Wikimedia sites. However, Hobartimus is not enrolled in it.[75] I proposed a checkuser because that might be able to tell who (if anyone) impersonated Hobartimus. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Me neither, I think it's quite obvious that it's a sock made by someone with the intent of libeling Hobartimus. The problem with Commons is that you have to log in in order to be able to upload anything. The account created on Commons doesn't have to correspond to your account on EN WP at all, just like it's the case with WP in other languages. A unified account is a convenient tool for preventing similar situations from happening in the FUTURE, but doesn't help in resolving issues like this. I'd say that these require some sort of arbitration by admins. CoolKoon (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Now THAT is an excellent idea indeed! Good job, AB from Oakland, CA ;) Even if the SPI won't reveal Iaaasi's connection to this account, I have a feeling he isn't by far the only one who doesn't see eye to eye with Hobartimus (to say at least) so it might reveal a sockpuppeteer for sure... CoolKoon (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• I have posted a checkuser request on Commons as described above.[76] 75.57.242.120 (talk) 10:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Though no investigation has been done so far, at least it's been banned to limit the malevolent intentions the account was obviously created for. I'd love to see the CU results though. CoolKoon (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Neutral (for now) I think that perhaps the most involved and a neutral editor on the Hunyadi articles with the least experience of Iaaasi before the socking began is perhaps me.

It is true that Iaaasi can be domineering in arguments, his warning on my page for redacting his Stubes comments off the John Hunyadi article were somewhat aggressive, although this seems to be true to his form. In the last six months he has argued vehemently with other users, taking it to their talk page and putting multiple posts before they have responded, I believe that in his time-frame quick is ten minutes and slow is an hour :¬)

There have been plenty of discussions and editing approaching warring, the main problem is that the editors who mostly edit the Hunyadi page are either swamped with Iaaasi's enthusiasm about the Romanian aspects or by a general brow-beating to which they quickly succumb. There is also the problem of him introducing the "this might be a sock of Stubes" all the time, that really has to stop as it really does Iaaasi no good at all - report it to the appropriate notice board and once a decision is made, then act rather than putting it all over article and user talk pages. For the articles he is involved with it takes a lot of work to get him to co-operate in discussions before reverting and, once BRD has been circumvented, he does not really take the point that consensus is the way forwards before the second revert.

In reality it is difficult to opine on the previous behaviour. It seems to me that he has calmed down and the week block has not been evaded (to my knowledge) or any nasty posts made on his talk page. There were some recent posts on his talk page during his block that were not really to do with an unblock request and seem more of him keeping an eye on things - posts he would normally have put on a user sub-page and which he has deleted today.

My main concern is the build up of this feud. People are collecting evidence against each other and I suspect that the situation must be resolved before any further progress can be made. Collecting evidence which proves ones innocence and another's guilt is, in reality, that old "I am in a war" scenario that is to be avoided at all costs - escalation is inevitable.

Iaaasi's block runs out tomorrow. There have been several of the old crowd editing the John Hunyadi page after coming out of their shell holes, I hope that there will not be any edit warring over the work that has been done since Iaaasi was prevented from editing. I have kept an eye on them and they seem fine, but we will see what happens once his block is lifted.

In conclusion I suggest that Iaaasi tries to get out of his very narrow scope of editing and tries to look at a more broad set of articles that he can turn his hand to. He is an excellent researcher and has, in my opinion, tried to gain more balance in his editing. That said, he really does need to stop at the first revert, discuss, and if consensus is not found, he needs to learn to let it go. After the improvements that I have seen in his behaviour it is true that he still needs constant watching and prodding with the NPOV stick every now and again - but I really do think that a permanent block, whether or not it should have been given earlier, is not appropriate now. Someone who has had that many socks, entered into so much warring and wikilawyering can also learn to edit in a collegial fashion. I would hope that he has learnt by this block that it is better to edit than not and that he will also have learned that warring achieves nothing. I urge him to look for guidance and consensus much earlier on in disputes and once he can abide by BRD things will be better for all.

(I have not supplied any diffs as I do not think they are necessary and would perhaps just add fuel to any fire - If anyone has a need for them I will be happy to supply anything requested) Chaosdruid (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose It seems to me that User:Hobartimus just will not let go. He is constantly trying to amass any evidence he can to try to rid User:Iaaasi - as can be clearly seen at User:Hobartimus/sandbox4 where some considerable time has been spent to document every possible (old) error by User:Iaaasi. The consensus was to give User:Iaaasi a second chance offer (not to just unblock unreserveably) , he formally accepted that offer, did the second chance requirements, and was finally unblocked on the 8th December. Since that time, as far as we know, he has continued to edit under a single user name. I see no point in continually dragging up old history just because some editor dislikes him. If a new (post Dec 8th) sock can be found then I'm for a ban, but we have stated that he could have a second chance, and I think that to now revoke it would give a bad impression to others - are we going to say to other editors "Have a second chance, but we might block you again if the mood takes us"? We must not lose sight of the policy The purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment - to me this request is all about punishment, not prevention. It's time to let it go and get back to building an encyclopedia  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

There was no consensus. Please do not claim there was a consensus when there was only 4 users who supported the unblock, who didn't either 1. want a topic ban imposed 2. were mentioning the lie that WP:OFFER applies because of the big lie that Iaaasi did not sock. 3. mentioning that they came to vote after persuaded on IRC. These false claims of consensus are getting really really annoying. Please also note that unblocking someone 20 minutes after their request was declined by another administrator (in this case Sandstein) is a very interesting procedure to say the least. Hobartimus (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

That's no longer relevant - a decision was made, and even if it was made badly, we do not go back and punish people retroactively for things that were done months ago. Any new block or ban would only be to prevent future disruption, and you have given us no evidence of any *ongoing* disruption that you think needs a ban to prevent -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

For transparency reasons which I feel should be here instead of fragmented on my talk page, the first set of comments is in response to [77]:

1. With regard to my thought that Iaaasi was being constructive on Simple English and Romanian Wikipedias, that is a question on interpreting judgment.
2. The only ways Iaaasi could have possibly communicated were either via email or via IRC. According to his block log, between 18:24, 10 March 2010, and 07:16, 26 November 2010, his talk page editing privileges were revoked. The talk page restriction was lifted by another admin. Shortly after, he posts an on-wiki unblock request.
3. Yes, at the behest of Iaaasi, I requested that the community take another look at the indef block of him; I figured, if he wishes to be constructive in his editing again, and the community can agree to it, then why not try? I did what any other Wikipedian would do and AGF in that he sincerely wishes to be constructive on en.wiki.
4. I wanted to see if I had some time to go through some SPI cases, and that's when I saw the first SPI; at that point, I watchlisted it. That's how I saw the 2nd SPI case; I have already explained this to Hobartimus before.

I am a fairly approachable person, and I take most requests (such as the December 2010 unban request) seriously. I made the unban requests and the comments on the two SPI cases as a member of the community and not just as an administrator. That's why I decided to leave the unblock situation with the community, and that's why I only commented on the two SPI and took no action.

Now, let's go through all the socks Hobartimus recently reported to SPI, if I may:

Socks reported to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations the last 4 days

Account	Date of last edit
BBorbely (talk · contribs)	05:16, 11 June 2010
SlovenskýMuž (talk · contribs)	15:30, 21 June 2010
Zzzsolt (talk · contribs)	09:46, 6 July 2010
Karpatia1 (talk · contribs)	05:56, 7 July 2010

Other socks listed at User:Hobartimus/sandbox4

Account	Date of last edit (or account creation, if no edits)
Nauneim (talk · contribs)	13:22, 11 March 2010
Ddaann2 (talk · contribs)	15:53, 17 March 2010
Nauneim1 (talk · contribs)	14:58, 9 March 2010
Umumu2 (talk · contribs)	07:19, 19 April 2010
Umumu (talk · contribs)	06:41, 20 April 2010
Conttest (talk · contribs)	07:12, 12 May 2010
JanVarga (talk · contribs)	16:44, 25 May 2010
DerGelbeMann (talk · contribs)	17:42, 7 June 2010
MarekSS (talk · contribs)	06:38, 7 June 2010
EurovisionFan2010 (talk · contribs)	15:09, 3 June 2010
DusanSK (talk · contribs)	17:35, 16 June 2010
Karpatia1 (talk · contribs)	05:56, 7 July 2010
MartinMagera (talk · contribs)	13:09, 20 May 2010
Rogvaiv1 (talk · contribs)	14:52, 9 August 2010
CyanMoon (talk · contribs)	08:24, 11 August 2010
YellowFF0 (talk · contribs)	07:57, 25 August 2010
NimeniRo (talk · contribs)	06:29, 18 June 2010

Iaaasi has very well made some edits anonymously under 79.117.128.0/18 (see [78] and [79]). As far as the other edits on that range, keep in mind that this is coming from a mobile ISP, so we are dealing with many people on this range editing similar things.

Anyways, with the exception of the two anonymous edits above, can anybody name another possible sock of Iaaasi whose last edit or account creation was September 2010 or sooner? –MuZemike 23:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean ones that were active after 2010 Sepetember? There are several fairly obvious ones, but I'd rather not waste the time on explaining it. It seems that a good 90% of what I was saying was ignored anyway no matter how much the evidence. If you actually spend a minimal amount of time investigating the case you will see them anyway. Don't get me wrong I'm very happy that some of the evidence is actually getting looked at now, but I'm afraid the discussion is already populated by comments which were made before such new developments. (not to mention the previous discussion) I understand that some admins (or others) don't have much time for looking at cases. I guess it's something to take into account for next time. This is why I became a bit concerned; when I realized that the person who was the blocking admin in May of an account from the above list became the person who said the following in September since his block this past March he has not shown to have socked during this period of time. Hobartimus (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

If you have some evidence of post-unblock socking that you don't want to put on the wiki, please email it to MuzeMike or some other checkuser or the checkuser mailing list (WP:CHECKUSER). Alleging there are/were socks you know about, without giving evidence, is not going to result in action. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 08:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, as I am now rather involved in this dispute, it should be left to another uninvolved CheckUser. You claim "fairly obvious socks", but you are not mentioning a single one of them. –MuZemike 09:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I'm certainly no fan of Iaaasi's editing but I'm pretty ticked off at Hobartimus's alleging "obvious" recent sock activity without giving a shred of evidence for it. I'd like to formally request that Hobartimus refrain from casting such aspersions in the future, unless he provides credible specific evidence on-wiki or to checkusers. If he makes further such unsubstantiated allegations he should receive administrative sanctions. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I will send the evidence of "2010 September or later activity" to any uninvolved CheckUser or administrator who promises that sanctions (1rr/ week on CE, EE articles, Topic ban whatever) will be enforced should the evidence be deemed "credible" by them. Btw dear IP "fairly obvious" was written above and not "obvious". And even then, to become anything close to that you would need to put in quite a bit of time to analyze the edits look for patterns etc. Since you seem hesitant to AGF, that a "shred of evidence" actually exists IP, I will send you a "shred of evidence" if you send me an email. (it will be quite the short version, as it is not much fun to collect it just to be ignored). Hobartimus (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, "fairly obvious" then. The issue is when you bring a complaint about somebody, you have to present the evidence, not tell people to go look for it themselves. And I didn't say no sevidence existed (I consider that an unknown), just that you haven't presented a single shred, and I haven't noticed any myself despite having spent some time looking at content problems with Iaaasi's edits, and nobody else seems to have presented any either. If you have some, don't email it to random admins or users (if someone emailed you claiming to be me, they weren't). If it's private, send it to a checkuser since they are authorized to deal with confidential info. If it's something that you think non-checkusers can be allowed to see, post it on-wiki. Your condition that an uninvolved admin or checkuser agree ahead of time to impose specific sanctions before you send the evidence is almost certainly a non-starter, since that creates new opportunities for you to get into further debates with them after the fact if the outcome isn't what you want, and it would be crazy for them to allow that. You have to just send it and let them decide for themselves what to do with it. That said, I'd expect their level of tolerance for more socking by Iaaasi at this point would be very low. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 03:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"(if someone emailed you claiming to be me, they weren't)" Thanks for that warning IP. Btw are you an admin logged out? You seem to be speaking quite a lot in the names of the admins. Hobartimus (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You should not ask an IP to out themselves. There may be a very good reason why they remain as an IP - also some IP's are very knowledgeable about Wikipedia.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violation, stolen picture present in Wikipedia

I have opened a separated section on the ground that a picture uploaded into the commons by Iaaasi, is given counterfeit license saying that the author of the picture is User:Conttest, who is the name of one detected sockpuppet of Iaaasi, and the picture is included in two Wikis, the English and Romanian ones in the articles ro:Ioan de Hunedoara and John Hunyadi when in fact the real author of the picture is Glatz Ferenc , which was published in a historical book under the title of "A magyarok krónikája" on the page of 174 in 1995 and the original name of the picture was "Hunyadi János birtokai 1456-ban". In my opinion, by doing this, Iaaasi committed a violation of GDFL license trespass ,mainly because the user is being blocked for a violation of 3RR at the article John Hunyadi that contains the aforementioned picture. And when the user wanted to ask for an unblock, this moot map was brought up as a reason for being unblocked on the ground that this map is a significant part of his constructive contributions here on English Wikipedia."Except referenced text, I've uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and inserted in the article the following images: [1] [2] so I don't think I can be accused of having disruptive intentions regarding it."[80]

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Huniade-domeniul.jpg
• http://mek.niif.hu/01900/01918/html/index74.html

--Nmate (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a clear cut case, the picture was uploaded as if it's author was Iaaasi. While in reality it was the work of others. If you look at the picture it becomes quite evident but with exact source given at the above link [81] (A magyarok krónikája. Officina Nova, Budapest, 1995, 174. oldal) there could be no doubt. Hobartimus (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Tagged for deletion on Commons. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh wow! Talk about cynicism! He not only "pirates" a picture off the internet to claim it as his own, but also cites it as a "fine" example of his "constructive" work. Just how many of such mishaps are you willing to tolerate him before cutting him off for good? CoolKoon (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yikes, that was pretty lame of Iaaasi. Still, incorrect and/or bogus image attributions are one of the most common serious mistakes on Wikipedia, and that was from almost a year ago. Has this or anything similar been brought to Iaaasi's attention before? 75.57.242.120 (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It's hardly from a year ago it was present in the Wikipedia article John Hunyadi as of today. Hobartimus (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The file was uploaded on 27 April, 2010.[82] 75.57.242.120 (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually it's hard to assume good faith in this case especially due to the fact that Iaaasi was bragging about that picture at a time when he was already well-acquainted with WP rules. And besides, when you download something from the internet (especially one that doesn't have copyleft/CC/public domain written in its proximity), in >90% of the cases you just know it can't be used by you and uploaded to Commons as it were your own, due to the fact that it is NOT your own. CoolKoon (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It was rather unwise of him to refer to it recently as an example of his good work. But the correct action is being taken - it's up for deletion. Again, we should not be considering bans based on things done a year ago. It looks to me like there has been a long standing content dispute and a lot of emotion and bad feeling, and that neither side in it is entirely innocent - but that some progress has been made in calming it down. What we should be looking for now is evidence that it is likely to continue, or whether it looks like Iaaasi (and others) can be brought round to editing collegialy and within Wikipedia policy -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC) (Updated -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC))

I wouldn't say this in itself requires banning but I think it's wrong to just think of it as something that happened a year ago. The fact that they were boasting about it shows they were aware of this image and hadn't simply forgotten about it. This either means they completely forgot that what they were boasting about was an image which was not their own and which they did no receive the permission of the copyright holder while claiming it was their own (possible but doesn't seem that likely) or they were aware of this and didn't do anything about it (choosing instead to boast of their good work). Given how serious we take copyrights the later is completely unacceptable for an established editor. As I said I'm not calling for a ban, but it needs to be made clear to them that they must respect copyright policy and should not make misleading claims about the copyright status of content they contribute and no we're not going to keep giving them second chances on this like we may have done with sockpuppetry and whatever else they have allegedly done wrong. Frankly I'm far more concerned about this then their alleged? xenophobic personal attack mentioned above or whatever socking they may have done in the past or heck even if they are socking right now. Nil Einne (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd ask for Iaaasi to list all images that he's uploaded from any account, for license checks. That said, unless he's been in trouble for this particular issue in the past, I wouldn't flip out about it. NFCC problems are rampant on Wikipedia because of the tendency of users to click past the confusing or unfortunate requirements, and endless drama results all the time. I've elsewhere suggested that users should not be allowed to upload images directly (they can still use WP:FFU), without a rollback-like permission that would only be given after showing some basic understanding of license requirements. However, that idea has never gotten much support. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'd take Iaaasi's images with a pinch of salt indeed. It turns out he was already warned for copyright violations in the past. Despite that he proceeded to upload some additional copyrighted images using his sockpuppet even after this warning. Sure, this all happened before he was "pardoned" for all his deeds before December 2010, but the fact is that he SHOULD know better than this by now. Hopefully he'll refrain from this in the future, but I won't count on it. CoolKoon (talk) 02:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess I see the logic behind this. Xenophobia, sockpuppeteering, edit wars and nationalism won't get you sued unlike copyright violation would, right? CoolKoon (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Suspicions of blocking a user based on unfounded allegations

A few days ago I came across an interesting claim (to say at least). An IP editor was complaining about the fact that Iaaasi has managed to block both of his accounts by (obviously falsely) claiming at least in one occasion that this users' accounts are in fact sockpuppets of Stubes99. His first account was OliverTwist88. After he was blocked based on accusations fabricated by Iaaasi, he obviously created a sockpuppet account GrandMariner. The SPI link quoted above indicates that his first account was NEVER blocked for socking, but obviously for disagreements between him and some other users on the grounds of the content of the Magical Magyars article (where I found his rant as well). The SPI block (linked above) also reveals a few additional facts: HelloAnnyong has admitted himself that OliverTwist88 was incorrectly banned by him and is willing to unblock one of his accounts (either this one or GrandMariner). Despite that Iaaasi has continued to assert that this user in fact is Stubes99. As if to provide an additional evidence of the contrary (though this probably wasn't the editor's intention, supported by the fact that he didn't even sign his note), presumably the very same editor has added the note above using his IP address (24.25.218.135). This IP address seems to point to San Diego, CA, so unless the user in question is using a proxy, he simply cannot be Stubes99. Therefore I suggest a proxy investigation of the IP address. If it turns out not to be a proxy, then this whole issue will be a fine example of the "work methods" of Iaaasi. Obviously he never assumed good faith in case of this user and the way he was accused makes one think that the editor's only fault was the fact that he had a different opinion than Iaaasi. This would be the second notable example of Iaaasi disregarding anything and anyone with an opinion differing from his own, and goes as far as removing academic sources if it doesn't fit his agenda. EDIT: interestingly enough this whole process was done well after Iaaasi has been granted his second chance to be a constructive member of he WP community. Unfortunately I don't think that this is what constructive attitude looks like.

What I suggest is restoring this editor's unrestricted access to Wikipedia for one of his accounts (he might choose which one) and clearing him all of the accusations that he has anything to do with Stubes99. Also, in the real world in such situations it would be a defamation issue of Iaaasi against OliverTwist88/GrandMariner. Do you happen to have a process that corresponds with this (maybe issuing a warning or something)? I think that nobody should get away with making one's life miserable using false accusations. CoolKoon (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no reliable way to tell whether a given address is proxying remote traffic. Some proxies label themselves as such, others not. All kinds of spy-vs-spy crap might be going on. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

When you edited this page to start this thread, a bright orange bar told you that you must notify any user you mention. I have notified Iaaasi. JohnCD (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I thought that since it's mostly about the falsely blocked user, only he has to be notified, which I did. CoolKoon (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I know, but WP admins have nevertheless managed to block a cornucopia of open proxies in the past few years. Therefore they MIGHT know something in regards these proxies that we don't..... CoolKoon (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

There are some users on Wikipedia who know how to detect proxies. I am not one of them, but a Google check shows the IP 24.25.218.135 is blacklisted on five different blacklists see this chart, so it could very well be a proxy IP or zombified in some way. User OliverTwist88/GrandMariner was offered the opportunity by HelloAnnyong back in February to unblock one of their two accounts but so far they have not responded. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, they probably know some advanced URL trickery/traceroute magic that we mortals don't. There's something about this IP which makes me think it isn't an "open relay" though: OliverTwist88/GrandMariner seems to have been using this IP address for quite a while (several months I think) which probably means that he's editing from his workplace, which is a bigger corporation (smaller ones usually rarely have fixed IPs). His IP resolves to cpe-24-25-218-135.san.res.rr.com, which seems to be part of the internal systems of Time Warners (probably part of an internal SAN as the domain name leads us to believe). It could also be a fixed IP of a Time Warner Cable subscriber too. All in all I don't think that it looks like a proxy location (those have usually much more shady places an nonsensical or nonexistent DNS entries). He could still be using a VPN connection, but there's no way one could reliably detect that remotely. Traceroute didn't reveal anything suspicious either. The blacklists could be pretty much due to a badly configured SMTP server (there are servers that randomly probe IP addresses all over the internet for such weaknesses and exploit them almost immediately). Anyway, this is my 2 cents worth, if someone knows more about this, please try to shed some light into it. CoolKoon (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• FYI 24.25.218.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is Not an open proxy as far as I can tell and there is no evidence supporting that claim. Being in a few blacklists is normal for most IPs. In the future, proxy checks should be requested at WP:OP. Sailsbystars (talk) 03:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. This indeed shows that the blocked user has absolutely nothing to do with Stubes99 and Iaaasi's association has turned out to be a mere fabrication aimed at getting rid of this user for ulterior motives (the details of which are unbeknownst to me). Since the user's been made aware of this investigation via the talk page of his IP address, all that remains is his answer. Though I still think that a warning or something should be issued to Iaaasi to make him aware that he shouldn't go around accusing people like this. Unfortunately I don't know the exact procedure to follow about this. Could someone possibly lend me a hand in this? CoolKoon (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Your request defies elementary logic. In a trial the judges are responsible for the decisioon, not the accusing party (Iaaasi (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

What are you talking about? I'm asking the judges to make a decision. What's illogical about that? CoolKoon (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not a trial, so there are no "judges." The administrators will be making decisions or, if necessary, the Arbitration Committee will. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to the SPI investigations where the respective accounts were blocked. I am not guilty if they were wrongly blocked, I only put the arguments and other took the decisions. I used a metaphor, I made a parallel between a trial and a SPI investigation (Iaaasi (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

It'd be nice and all if it'd be true. Unfortunately it isn't. You've asserted conclusions and statements which had nothing to do with the truth. You kept asserting that OliverTwist88 is a sockpuppet of Stubes99, which turned out to be false. This fact has been confirmed even by an admin who even offered to unblock this user's account. So if I translate it to your metaphor, it means that the defendant has been acquitted on all charges, yet (partly due to his own inaction and partly due to bureaucratic delays) he's still in jail. And sure, it's easy to ignorantly point your fingers at others then say that it wasn't you who made the decision. But what if those decisions were based on dubious proof? Because I'm afraid that that's what happened. I mean if I were an admin (which I'm fortunately not) and was presented with some claims of a user being a sockpuppet, I'd be tempted to block that user (especially if I'd see that claim as substantiated). However if this proof would later be revealed as "ganz falsch", I'd feel bad about it and not only unblock the blocked user, but would also issue a warning to the user who supplied me the misinformation. I mean you might've been given a second chance, but I doubt that the admins will take it lightly if you'll keep making others' lives miserable again. The choice is yours. CoolKoon (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You know what? I am sick of your abberations. I will not put your comments on this thread in account any more _{text added by Iaaasi} (22:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

Excueeze me?! My conscience is clear, I didn't bend the truth nor did I suggest that an editor is in fact an alias of a malicious editor and have him blocked this way. I've opened this thread due to the fact that the editor in question has been mistreated even though he didn't show malevolent intentions. I also think that scaring off users who mean well is a bad idea. CoolKoon (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

He was already offered the possibility of being unblocked, so what do you want more? When will you stop begging for my block? Get used to it, I am not going to get blocked (Iaaasi (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

• I am so sick to death of the bullshit that is constantly heaped upon this page. CoolKoon, Iaassi, do not address each other on this page anymore or I'll block you from editing. You've both said enough, and are just repeating the same tired whining about each other over and over and over, killing innocent electrons in the process. Nothing either of you two say here will change the outcome of this thread (whatever it is going to be). --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

A month ago, HelloAnnyong offered to unblock OliverTwist88 if they would agree to stop attacking other editors. I've reminded OliverTwist88 of this on his talk page. If he agrees, I imagine HelloAnnyong will unblock him (or, if they aren't around and I am, I will). If their behavior doesn't change, tho, I imagine they're going to be reblocked very quickly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it seemed as if he wasn't aware of it, because about a month later he posted this rant of his. Therefore I've tried to notify him via his IP about this ANI thread on his talk page and on the talk page of his favorite article too. This is the most I can do about this I'm afraid. CoolKoon (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Mysterious glitch (cont.)

This is a continuation of a previous section which began, "There was a mysterious addition of the phrase ' Bold text '...". (See Mysterious glitch.)

I discovered how the problem occurs. It’s the same as the scenario that Rich Farmbrough mentioned except It occurs on the CAPTCHA page that comes up when an IP tries to submit an edit with an external link. The toolbar loads after the CAPTCHA box opens, moving the toolbar up to where the CAPTCHA box was. Depending on timing, sometimes the click designed to get focus on the CAPTCHA box hits the toolbar instead. From my experience, the inadvertent addition to the edit is not obvious. It probably causes sufficient wasted effort and trouble on Wikipedia with "rvv" etc. to justify spending the effort to fix it. 75.47.154.175 (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• You can leave a post at the technical village pump and someone with some experience or knowledge can figure out what exactly is going on and put a bug in the tracker. Protonk (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• There's an edit filter in the works for this also, but I haven't enabled it yet. 28bytes (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • While I welcome anything that would get rid of these erroneous additions that I see dozens of during any vandalism patrol, it seems that giving new users an edit filter rejection is only going to totally confuse them since they didn't deliberately add the text. It also makes me rethink the value of ever leaving a test edit warning on a user talk page. If our own software is effectively causing these things, we've been chastising users needlessly for a long time. Who knows how many other test edits are caused by similar things? —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
    • My thought was to just tag it so that recent change patrollers would see that there was a problem and fix it after the edit had been made. I agree that warning or preventing the edit would confuse and irritate newcomers and likely be more trouble than it's worth. I cleaned up a big batch of "===Heading text===" lines a few weeks ago, I'm sure a bunch more have crept in since then. 28bytes (talk) 06:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I've just done a search, and found and removed about 20 of them -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
      • And several dozen occurrences of '''Bold text''' - that's a much harder one to find though -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
        • This search should help, though it's full of legitimate uses. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
          • Thanks. I've tried a number of different search approaches, but I always seem to get almost no hits, or thousands of false positives -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If the software developers put an extra line space between the CAPTCHA box and the Toolbar, that may fix it. 75.47.154.52 (talk) 01:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Article disruption by topic banned editor Jaimemichelle

Jamiemichelle (talk · contribs) is edit warring and has reverted the article Frank J. Tipler 3 times even though he is topic banned [83] from doing so. [84] [85] [86]. The ip is his as can be seen at [87]. Note: I originally filed this as a sock puppet as I thought Jaimemichelle was trying to avoid the topic ban. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

His edit summary suggests he does not recognize the topic ban. Regrettably, it might be time to increase sanctions to a block. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Editor and IP both blocked for 1 week -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

PS: Anyone is free to lift or modify the block without any need to contact me first, should they deem it appropriate -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

talk:Muhammed

I have an editor Chowbok (talk · contribs) who is repeatedly removing an ongoing discussion about the images on the page. I realize there's a page notice about it, but I don't really care, and I'm more than happ to wp:IAR it as a useless and tawdry bit of bureaucracy. This is a valid discussion that should not be shuffled off to some subpage where people who have the article watchlisted won't see it. Chowbok seems willing to edit war over it (three removals in the last few hours [88], [89], [90]), but rather than reporting him for 3rr, I just hoped someone could restore the section he keeps deleting and give him a warning about page-ownership. Notifying him now. --Ludwigs2 23:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this comment pretty much sums up this editor's attitude. "I don't care about rules, policies, or consensus when they apply to me, but can you please warn this user I disagree with for violating rules, policies, and consensus?" Having the image discussions on a sub-page is established by long consensus, and I don't see why Ludwigs2 gets to violate that just because he's upset that not enough people are paying attention to him.—Chowbok ☠ 23:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Notified. further, another editor reverted his deletion, so simply discussing the issue may be sufficient. --Ludwigs2 23:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I won't keep reverting, but I would appreciate it if somebody could step in and enforce this consensus that's worked fine for years.—Chowbok ☠ 00:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Consensus can change. but yes, clariy would be nice either way. can someone advise? otherwise I'll just keep on trying to have the conversation over his interference. --Ludwigs2 00:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not just "this editor", it's also this editor and myself. The Muhammad/images page constantly has users posting complaints that the images are offensive to Islam. The complaints are regular and pretty much the same for which the answer is WP:NOTCENSORED. It's not very interesting as a result and not many look at it. This thread is different. It's not looking at it from the Muslim point of view but considering whether the images fulfil WP requirements generally. Having looked at the archived discussions, this issue has not been properly addressed before, dominated as it was by Islamic view v. WP:NOTCENSORED. If it is relegated to the images sub-page there isn't the traffic to have a proper discussion. The editors who have objected to this have shown no interest in participating in this discussion whatever place it's in, and seem more concerned with terminating it as quickly as possible eg this DeCausa (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI, the deleted discussion in question is here. --Ludwigs2 00:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) As the third editor...my point is that the relegation of the discussion to the other page is, in effect, a form of silencing. The main talk page, Talk:Muhammad, has almost 1300 watchers. The images subpage, Talk:Muhammad/images, has less than 150. Are there any other talk pages (outside of wikispace) that have this type of format, where one specific topic is relegated to a far less watched subpage? I have no problem with a "big red hand" notice at the top that says "No, we're not going to delete all of the images because it's offensive to your religion". I do have a problem with saying "...and if you want to talk about it, go vent somewhere else". However, as I've posted on Talk:Muhammad, I guess I (personally, not speaking for DeCausa or Ludwigs2) can handle the discussion going on on the images page, so long as whatever consensus is reached there is respected when applied to the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think a number of article talk pages have subpages for persistent discussions that are unlikely to go away any time soon. Talk:Myanmar has one for the naming dispute Nil Einne (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

What I find a bit disturbing about this discussion is the idea that we should censor something "because Muslims might be offended". There's a whole lot of stuff in wikipedia that Christians would find offensive. Are they going to be catered to also? Or is there some double-standard being applied in favor of Muslim sensitivities? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to be absolutely clear: this thread was not about removing images because they might offend Muslims. That's not the issue. Please don't go off on that tangent otherwise you'll miss the point. It's about OTHER problems withn the images. Not about Muslim complaints. DeCausa (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of what the thread is theoretically about. Where to keep the discussion is up to you all, as it's not very important. But the arguments being made, to remove the images because they'll offend somebody, is actually important. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

But that's not the argument. DeCausa (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That is an underlying reason for having the discussion. If there were no controversy about the images, I seriously doubt that you'd have brought up the topic.

I don't really care where the discussion takes place, as I have both the talk page and sub page on my watch list. I'm fine with having the discussion play out on the main talk page and move it to the sub page when it dies down. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with that. I firmly agree with WP:NOTCENSORED and religious offence is not relevant to my thinking - and I raised this thread. I have repeatedly countered requests from Muslims demanding the removal of the images because of offence - and will provide diffs if required. However, what I have said is that everyone has been so busy defending WP:NOTCENSORED that the normal discussion you would have on the images (as you would have for any article) hasn't taken place. DeCausa (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, I'll tell you my reasoning. I have absolutely no problem offending someone at need (as anyone who's ever edited in my vicinity must be aware of), but I don't see the point in offending people without need. Most of the images of Muhammed on the article do not need to be there - they do not show or depict anything that cannot be handled equally well with different images or text explanations - and since they do not need to be there and clearly do bug people, common courtesy says we should remove them. If here is any image of Muhammed on that page that actually has positive value for the article, that image should stay regardless of who is offended; I just question whether any of those images actually has positive value.

The main problem right now is that we cannot even discuss whether an image has positive value because of people trying to disrupt the conversation. that's just annoying. --Ludwigs2 01:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

There really is no "normal discussion" to have; we have an article on Muhammad, and we have fair use images of Muhammad that can be used to illustrate the article. Case closed. Tarc (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• The location of the discussion isn't really a big deal either way; you're (not "you", Ludwigs, but "you", everybody (including Ludwigs)) focusing on the wrong thing. Hopefully, I am considered unbiased and neutral enough to be trusted on this. I am about to flip a coin. Heads, it goes on the main article talk page. Tails, it goes on the image talk page. (No, really I am honestly flipping a coin). And the result is: Heads. There. Resolved. You may now return to your previous discussion, already in progress. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, it's interesting that you have found that problem too now. I have had it on the radar for a while, and also mentioned it in some places (probably some of the discussions around autofellatio and similar topics where the censorship red herring regularly comes up). Now BullRangifer will be confirmed in his belief that we are twins... First time I looked, there were more depictions of Muhammad on Muhammad than there were depictions of Jesus on Jesus. I see that meanwhile the Christians have been active to rectify this. Currently Jesus wins 20:6, if we count the 12 pictures in the gallery separately. The page looks like a Catholic church, which is appropriate. (It would also be appropriate if it looked like a Calvinist church, though.) However, I don't see why the Muhammad article should look like a Catholic church. I think there is some systematic mobbing of Muslims from Wikipedia going on that simply can't be tolerated.

As it happens, I am currently involved with Criticism of Muhammad. Comparison to Criticism of Jesus is still very instructive, although the article has improved a bit recently.

And to anyone going to shout something about censorship, before making yourself ridiculous consider this: None of the depictions of Muhammad show anything but what the artist imagined him to look like. Therefore to the extent that the article is not specifically talking about (historical) depictions of Muhammad in the west and in the Islamic world, or about periods when such depictions were normal, they are just ornamental and misleading. We are not talking about the article Depictions of Muhammad, which will of course always look like a gallery. Hans Adler 01:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

PS: The location of the discussion matters to the extent that in the event that a consensus develops for removing some of the images, other editors can then claim that it's not valid because it didn't happen on the article's talk page. However, I don't believe that we can solve this problem without (1) a huge centrally announced RfC, (2) Arbcom, or (3) a clear call to order from Jimbo. Or maybe the Foundation should give us something like BLP that makes it clear that abject nastiness of this kind is not tolerated. I am sure that for every radical Muslim who gets angry at the pictures we are losing ten moderate Muslims (think of Turkish intellectuals, NATO soldiers or Turkish winegrowers, for example) who wouldn't care about these pictures if it wasn't so clear that they are only there to show disrespect to their fellow believers. Hans Adler 01:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Would that wikipedia would show such concerns over disrespect towards Christianity and Judaism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Try putting an image of this type on Criticism of Jesus, make it stay there for a week, and then come back so I can take you seriously. Compare this to the last image on this version of Criticism of Jesus, which was there for a long time until it was recently removed. Try adding "criticism" of the type "Jesus is a devil and first-born child of Satan" to Criticism of Jesus (I am sure this can be found, although not from Muslims since they accept Jesus as a prophet). Then look at the Luther quotation on Criticism of Muhammad. Hans Adler 16:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm starting to think this old adage should apply to Wikipedia too: "If a public library is doing its job, it has something in its collection that offends every single person." --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Best to keep discusson on the images sub-talkpage, even if it's not about Muslim cencurship. GoodDay (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added my comment to the article talk page, undoubtedly insulting people, and which basically says:

• if you don't know why there is a separate images talk page, you haven't read enough of the past discussions,
• if you believe through enthusiasm that you have something new to say, you haven't read enough of the past discussions (at the very least, doing so will 'cure' your enthusiasm)
• if you object to the way people react to your enthusiastic new idea, you haven't read enough of the past discussions

And, good grief, this one page has seen more "consensus can change" chants than any other I know of. You have to bring something new and compelling to this. And convince people that you have read all of the past discussions. Shenme (talk) 06:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Duke of Pei

I would like other opinions on whether Duke of Pei (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of Yongle the Great (talk · contribs). Based on edit pattern and user name, I suspect that this is a sockpuppet, but I'd like some other opinions. --Nlu (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a loud quacker to me. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 13:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. I've done it for you. DuncanHill (talk) 14:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed as Yongle. TNXMan 15:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged. T. Canens (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Padania article

Please excuse me if I'm writing on the wrong place, but I'm not sure if the case I'm reporting to you fits a more specific page.

Since January, User:Enok has made huge changes to the Padania article. Some were good, others were not accepted by other users (at least four: Filippo83, Keith 64, Dans and I, plus one or two IP users). We had a long time appeasing Enok and accepting his advices, as the article's history and the talk testify. However, Enok continues to remove the material he doesn't like from the article, in defiance from other editor's will. Filippo83 and I started to rollback him, but nobody of us wants an edit war. Also Therequiembellishere noticed Enok's actions and rollbacked him. Keith 64 showed up in talk page to urge him to stop. Filippo83 proposed that we should ask help to an administrator and that's what I'm doing now. In the last case Enok removed opinion polls and the Padanian flag proposed by Lega Nord. Any help and advice from an administrator is welcome. Thank you so much for your attention. --Checco (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Enok appears to be taking ownership of the article. Breaking parts of it into a separate article that focuses on the independence movement may be a good idea, but I see no indication of consensus to do so. In any case, it's a content dispute that likely needs to go into the resolution process. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing to add to Checco's speech: he summarized the facts as they happened, and I do support his position. I also agree with N5iln's position.

Filippo83 (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Checco, it is mandatory that you notify editors when you start threads about them on AN/I, per the big orange box at the top of the screen when you edit. I have done this for you, but please remember in the future. I have warned Enok about edit warring, but further engagement will probably be required. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to N5iln for showing up. I will have no problem in going through a resolution process, but everyone here should note that there is already a consensus in the talk page and that consenus is opposed only by Enok, often in subtle ways. I'm also wondering if Enok's actions can be identified as vandalism, as other users suggested in the talk, or at least as lack of Wikitiquette, civility and respect for others' opinions...

@SarekOfVulcan: Sorry about that. I notified Enok in the article's talk page first (as he sometimes contributes without logging in and he always shows up at the article) and I would have notified him about thje ANI in his talk page soon. You preceded me. --Checco (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janos Boros (3rd nomination)

Can we get a few more eyes on this please? It's becoming a mess, with cross-wiki canvassing and apparent nationalist bickering on my talk page (which I just collapsed). T. Canens (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

IP with a problem

Could an admin review this IP's edits and take appropriate action please ? I've come across his edits a few times and I think Wikipedia would be better off without him. This edit where he lists biracialism as a congenital disorder is fairly typical. This contribution is also an example of how he likes to spend his time. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm amazed they've had hardly any warnings - I've given one now for that latest change -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Iaaasi's complaint about User:Squash Racket and User:Hobartimus

I am filing this report because I want to inform the admins about the disruptive behaviour of these two users.

At the article Magical Magyars

Squash Racket undid with no valid reasons my edits. He tried to restore a link to a deleted image (File:Zakarias.jpg) and changed the lead, breaking WP:BOLDTITLE. He engaged in an edit war: [91][92][93], even if I explained him about what he is doing wrong: [94] [95]. The only thing that stopped him was the threat of breaking 3RR rule: "I don't make more reverts because I don't want to break the rule"

Based on talk page discussions, the most frequent name of this team is Golden Team, not Magical Magyars. The real question is which form of Golden Team shall we use, not whether we'll replace it with some other name. You know that very well, still engaged in an edit war coming back from a week-long block for exactly that.

You also misquoted me. I said: I don't make more reverts because I don't want to break the rule like Iaaasi did a week ago. Squash Racket (talk) 09:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

At the article Székely

Here the initial conflict was with User:Hobartimus, an editor whose open hostility against me was noticed also by the admin User:MuZemike: "It is clear that you are an enemy of Iaaasi"

He tried more times to re-add an unreferenced information inserted by someone. He broke WP:DE (the paragraph Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability) by adding an unsourced text and a flag that belongs to a political organization (Szekler National Council) and listing it as the flag of Szekely Land, an ethno-culural region with no official status and consequently no official flag. Instead of bringing citation, he asked me to prove that his statements are false. As it can be seen, also Squash Racket joined the edit war (Iaaasi (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

First you claimed it was an "unofficial flag" , than that it was not even a Flag of Székelyland unofficial or no. So was it or was it not used for representing Székely Land... You didn't provide any evidence for any of those claims. Btw there is no policy anywhere against having "unofficial" flags even if they were unofficial. Hobartimus (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It is the flag of a political organization. As you can see, it is written "The floating flag of Szekler National Council", you did not bring any reference for your statements (Iaaasi (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

Not a "political organization", but an organization representing the Székely... You know the "Székely", as in the article in question where the whole issue took place. Hobartimus (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Quote: The Szekler National Council is the main political organization (Iaaasi (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

In case it wasn't clear I referring to the fact that they are not just any random organization, but one representing the Székely the exact topic of the article in question. Hobartimus (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It is like naming the flag of the Chinese Communist Party the flag of China, because it is the main (and in this case the only) political organization in China. But it is not only about the flag, you tried to readd an unreferneced text ("The 16th century from the end of the remaining flags and uniforms show that the Székely people used the sky-blue-gold-silver and red and black flags."), thus breadking WP:DE (Iaaasi (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

(edit conflict) That comparison is irrelevant as the Székely are not a country. And the flag was placed in the article body as it should be and not in any info box or similar. The comparison holds no water at all. Why don't you tell us what's really going on here. You realized yourself that you broke some rule and try to obfuscate this fact by quickly putting in a "report" to cover it up. Did I get it about right? Hobartimus (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The comparison is perfectly relevant, because you equalize the flag of Szekely Land with the flag of Szekler National Council, a political organization from Szekely Land. (Iaaasi (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

Why are you two holding your content dispute here? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not a content dispute, he tries to add unrefenreced information (clear disruptive edit) and he does not want to accept wp:verifiability. It is an obvious case, if they don't get a sanction this time, I don't know what to think about justice on wikipedia(Iaaasi (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

Iaaasi is right; any unsourced content can be removed on sight. It is up to the person who wishes to reinsert it to provide citations. Boing! said Zebedee is right too; this is a content dispute and there is no administrator action that need be taken at this time. I might suggest you all try editing separate articles for a while as this is the fifth thread at ANI from this group of users in the last ten days. None of the behaviour is bad enough to justify any blocks or other admin actions at this time. We are not here to mediate content disputes. If you can't figure out how to work collaboratively perhaps it is best to split up and edit different articles for a while? --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"Iaaasi is right"... And that is all? I mean... no sanction? Not even an 1 hour block? I was indef blocked once for disruptive editing, and now no measure is taken?...It is not a common content dispute, WP:DE was clearly broken, I've proven that using diffs... What must happen to give them a block? Last week I was 1 week blocked for edit warring, and they never get anything whatever they do?(Iaaasi (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

1) We don't do punishment blocks, and the aim of editors in content disputes should be to get the content right, not to get the other editor blocked. 2) If this forum is swamped by you two arguing with each other for much longer, I expect someone will eventually block both of you. Frankly, there is far more important work to be done here than trying to sort out your endless squabbles - can't you just keep away from each other for a while? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course, when I break rules I am blocked, but when these guys do it, "there is far more important work to be done". What can I say... a very "equitable" treatment (Iaaasi (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

I've expressed *my* opinion, and *I* have never blocked you - so you are getting no inequitable treatment from me -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The policy is clear. Unsourced content can be removed on sight with an exception from under 3RR from BLPs. The article in question is not a BLP as such There is no 3RR exception here. Even if there was an unsourced (trivial and it's content uncontested) sentence involved (brought up after the fact as an ex-post justification). Hobartimus (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Diannaa, Hobartimus says that policy applies only for BLP, can you please make a clarification? (Iaaasi (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

Exceptions are very clearly listed as to what does not constitute a revert [96] Hobartimus (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

And once again the unreferenced argument about a trivial sentence was brought up ex-post (after the edits took place). So it is irrelevant to this discussion. That was never the issue. The repeated removal of the flag without any justification was the issue. Hobartimus (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

@Iaaasi: What he is saying that reverting someone who persists in inserting defamatory information into a BLP is an exception to the 3RR rule. And whilst we are talking about rules, here is the list from the Blocking policy as to what constitutes disruptive editing to the point where a block can be laid:

• vandalism;
• gross incivility;
• harassment;
• spamming;
• edit warring, especially breaches of the three-revert rule;
• breaching the policies or guidelines, especially the sock puppetry policy;
• attempts to coerce actions of editors through threats of actions outside the Wikipedia processes, whether onsite or offsite.

Typically when we are fighting vandals they have four warnings on the board before they get blocked for adding/removing content inappropriately.

@ Hobartimus: Iaaasi says there is no reference saying that the flag was used in the way described, and that is why it was removed. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 22:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

@Hobartimus "The repeated removal of the flag without any justification was the issue" Not only this was the issue. You were keeping inserting a deleted unrefernced text (Iaaasi (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

@Iaaasi the first time you have mentioned that you have an issue with anything being unreferenced as a reason for your reverting, was when you made your 4th revert, in a short amount of time, to the article [97] previously all your given reasons were reasons about the flag ("not being official" and similar). After you made your 4th revert with the "unreferenced" comment in the edit summary I did not readd that one trivial sentence (in fact I did not readd anything). Hobartimus (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

So if the text has no references, and the commmentary about the flag has no references, they can and should be removed from the article. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 22:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hobartimus, please restrict your discussion to the content of the article and dont make personal remarks about who is or is not on a "spree". Thanks. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 22:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If you object I'll remove the spree part, (is it a negative word? you learn something every day) and will instead note that I observed that a large number of reverts were made by Iaaasi in a short time on the Székely article. Hobartimus (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That is a lot more neutrally phrased. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 22:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

@Hobartimus You are the one who makes disruptive edits and you still have nerve to accuse me of multiple reverting? (Iaaasi (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

Let's not get into a debate about who is a disruptive editor because it would lead us far. I only said that you made reverts. I will apologize if it turns out that it was a false "accusation" and you did not make several reverts recently in a short period of time on the Székely article. Hobartimus (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to remind this whole group of editors of a few simple facts of life on Wikipedia:

• Be civil
• If someone reverts your edit, immediately take it to the talk page
• Quit throwing Iaaasi's past history up in his face. Just quit talking about it.
• All content needs to be properly sourced.

I am going to the gym soon and will stop responding to this thread. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 22:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat something I said above: "If this forum is swamped by you two arguing with each other for much longer, I expect someone will eventually block both of you. Frankly, there is far more important work to be done here than trying to sort out your endless squabbles - can't you just keep away from each other for a while?"- If it carries on much longer, I'm going to propose an interaction ban on the two of you myself -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As a uninvolved user (other than reading the previous complaint on the city page) I tried to sort out the dispute between Iaaasi and Hobartimus. It resulted in Iaaasi trying to use DR policies and others stonewalling them. I would agree that in the 2 subesquent threads I've seen mentioning Iaaasi, it seems like an oil/vinegar combination. I would endorse the bi-directional interaction ban. Hasteur (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

"I would endorse the bi-directional interaction ban" - what does this ban consists of exactly? I don't want to get any ban just because of Hobartimus. I don't know what Hobartimus thinks of me, but I am ready to cooperate with him if he does the same, I don't consider him my enemy, just a user like any other (Iaaasi (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC))

An interaction ban means the two of you are not allowed to talk about or to one another. Basically, you are required to leave each other alone. Violation of that ban leads to blocks. So, if you two can't quit fighting, neither of you will be editing at all. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think an interact ban is not necessary yet (Iaaasi (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC))

If the arguing continues, it won't be up to you. Just take a break, have some WP:TEA and avoid one another for a while. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Legal Threat

See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Lynne_Spears - a seriously pissed off IP has left a legal threat, though under the circumstances I can hardly blame them. Exxolon (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced BLP text removed (by Courcelles), page protected (by Excirial). I have a hard time getting worked up about the legal threat, although the odds that the IP is actually the person they claim to be are pretty low, and in a way that's a BLP issue too (I think I'll go refactor that comment now). I'm curious why an attorney is threatening to hire an attorney to sue us... --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The legal threat is obviously over the top and likely bogus, but the National Inquirer is not a valid source for the time of day, let alone BLP information. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

"The attorney who represents himself has a fool for a client." --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This really needs a closer look. The IP doesn't actually claim to be the lawyer whose name is used; it just drops the name in as a possible contact. The news story has been circulating for years, and picked up by reliable sources even though it first ran in the Enquirer. It doesn't appear to be defamatory -- subject killed kid playing in the road in auto accident, found not to be at fault, not charged -- and there's no sign Spears or anyone associated with her has objected to the story in the past; indeed, there's moderately reliable sourcing that the subject has confirmed the story. (whether it really belongs in the article is a different issue.) I think the IP likely has nothing to do with the named attorney (who's prominent recently as the result of being on the non-Sheen side of Charlie Sheen lawsuits), and there's mischiefmaking going on, whether by a Spears fan who just doesn't like the story, or by a Sheen fan trying to stir up trouble for the lawyer. Either way, I think the lawyer contact information should be rev-del'd and an eye kept open for further IP shenanigans. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I've had a quick look and speaking personally I don't feel it needs Rev Deletion, redaction is fine. The name & phone number are public record (it is listed on his website); my opinion is that deletion is only valid for non-public information. I suggest that nothing much else needs to happen (from an AN/I perspective) other than someone to keep an eye on the IP to help them out if they come back --Errant ^(chat!) 19:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Two pages wot need deleting

Hello all - I PROD tagged two pages a week ago, specifically Greg Secker and Knowledge to Action. The less I say about the subjects of the articles the better... suffice to say they're rather litiguous ;)

Pages are blatant adverts in any case, albeit better done for that kind of thing than most wiki adverts, which is presumably why they've survived so long (if there are any bored wiki detectives then maybe you'll find some huge paid-to-edit ring. Or maybe you won't :P

Anyhow, the prod time is up, so if anyone wants to do the honours.... Egg Centric 22:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

There don't appear to be any reasons given for the PRODs -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's yer reason up there. They're totally unnotable and the articles are clearly adverts... Egg Centric 22:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I mean the reason needs to be IN the PROD at the time so that people can ponder it, not given on this forum a week later. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Boing!'s right on this one, Egg Centric. I've contest both of the PRODs and copyedited them with a chainsaw to (mostly) fix spam issues. There was nothing verified left on Secker's article, so I redirected him to the company. AfD it if you wish. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

SuperblySpiffingPerson

User:SuperblySpiffingPerson has been making a number of POV changes, including undiscussed name changes to articles related to the current situation in Libya. These are edits are, in my opinion, at best disruptive, and POV, and at worse definite vandalism. Please could somebody with sufficient privileges look into this, and see if there are grounds for, and way to, prevent this editor from disruptingthese pages at a time when many editors are trying to update them in a fast-moving situation. Articles affected include National Transitional Council, Timeline of the 2011 Libyan uprising, 2011 Libyan uprising International reactions to the 2011 Libyan Civil War 2010-2011 Middle East and North Africa protests Thank you. regards, Lynbarn (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the moving of International reactions to the 2011 Libyan Civil War back to International reactions to the 2011 Libyan uprising so it is line with the main article name, and requested that it be move protected. Ravendrop 01:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Questionable use of Twinkle by User:PhGustaf

Over the last month and a half or so there has been a flare up of disputes on abortion related topics. Over this time User:PhGustaf has used Twinkle to revert several opposing editors during content disputes (see a few below). As Tinkle is expressly designed for non-controversial routine maintenance and to counter vandalism this seems like the inappropriate use of a tool. After being warned about this on his talk page PhGustaf's very next edit was to use Twinkle to make a revert in a content dispute on an abortion related article. - Haymaker (talk) 06:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• On the page "Abortifacient", and again
• On the page "Crisis Pregnancy Center", again on the same page
• On the page "Lila Rose", and again on the same page, and again
• On the page "Planned Parenthood, again on the same page, and again, and again, and again

This is a content dispute. You two seem to be disagreeing, at varying degrees, about specific pieces on a controversial topic space. Gustafs's twinkle use seems to almost entirely use edit summaries, explain the actions, and I'm not sure ever violate 3RR. There's 0 about this that involves Twinkle. Tools have restrictions because of their potential abuses. If someone uses edit summaries then worries about twinkle are no different than "abuse" of undo. If you have a content dispute or a 3RR dispute there are forums for that. But I feel like you've got a content dispute you want to elevate because you think you found a technicality. I disagree. Shadowjams (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with using a semi-automated tool to perform a revert IF YOU LEAVE AN EDIT SUMMARY explaining the revert. This user did leave an edit summary in each of the diffs you gave. What is not permitted is using rollback or twinkle with no edit summary other than "reverted edits by xyz to last version by abc" or some such thing, unless the edit is vandalism, spam, a bulk action, etc. --B (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

These articles are 1RR. It's unfair. Using Twinkle, designated for counter-vandalism, is like bringing an assault weapon to a knife fight. It would seem prudent to disable the user's access.Lionel (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think it is unfair? He used it correctly with edit summaries, but it is not like it is something that could not be done by the disagreeing parties. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You might want to check out WP:Activist and WP:Boomerang before you take this any further. Anon But Wise (talk) 03:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Long term harassment of user:Hohenloh by user:Freshstart101

I am not sure how far back this goes or what was the original interaction between these users which triggered this, but starting with IPs from early 2010 and continuing today as Freshstart101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) this editor keeps badgering user:Hohenloh to essentially acknowledge that they should be on good terms either Hohenloh likes it or not. What disturbs me is the length of this campaign that this person has waged against Hohenloh. I would like an interaction ban at a minimum for this user from ever contacting user:Hohenloh again. Thank you. Here are some diffs to illustrate my points starting 26 April 2010 and ending today:

• Revision as of 04:12, 26 April 2010 (edit) (undo)86.40.96.88 (talk)(→Why are you behaving like this?: new section)
• Revision as of 16:15, 30 April 2010 (edit) (undo)86.40.210.11 (talk)(→Reported on ANI: new section)
• Revision as of 18:35, 3 May 2010 (edit) (undo)86.40.202.253 (talk)(Undid revision 359933761 by Hohenloh (talk) I am doing this in good faith, as I don't sincerely believe you could be so callous.)
• Revision as of 18:57, 3 May 2010 (edit) (undo)86.40.202.253 (talk)(Undid revision 359940871 by Hohenloh (talk) What have I done to earn such contempt?)
• Revision as of 19:01, 3 May 2010 (edit) (undo)86.40.202.253 (talk)(If they should strike you, then offer the other cheek.)
• Revision as of 19:04, 3 May 2010 (edit) (undo)86.40.202.253 (talk)(→Lets get perspective`: new section)
• Revision as of 16:09, 11 May 2010 (edit) (undo)86.45.207.131 (talk) (→Are we cool yet?: new section)
• Revision as of 17:45, 11 May 2010 (edit) (undo)SlimVirgin (talk | contribs)m (Protected User talk:Hohenloh: per user request on RfPP ([edit=autoconfirmed (expires 21:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC))]
• Revision as of 18:18, 25 May 2010 (edit) (undo)Horologium (talk | contribs)(→Discussion on my talk page: new section) Here they involve user:Horologium in their bizarre campaign to make "amends" with user:Hohenloh.
• Revision as of 14:23, 23 March 2011 (edit) (undo)Freshstart101 (talk | contribs)(→Dear Sir: new section) Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

In previous discussions, the user concerned said (inter alia) "I find your NPA policy to be an utter joke, ...", "I despise your policies", and "My God, the contempt I hold for this website at this very moment is overwhelming". Unless his attitude has changed drastically, there is no place for him here. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not so much concerned about the place of this person here or not. What concerns me is the persistent badgering of user Hohenloh over such a long period. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The examples you quote are almost a year ago. I was so ashamed of my conduct after that that I completely removed myself from this site in self imposed exile. To be honest I think this is all a little much, my history is well known and I make no secret of it. As the 'book of evidence' alludes to, my most recent interaction with the said user was in May 2010... to suggest that this is a persistent campaign of harrasment makes the word 'exaggeration' seem a little... well... exaggerated. Freshstart101 (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The jury should be pleased to learn that an attempt to [nip this in the bud] was rejected by the originator of this report. Whether this changes anything with regards to the motive of the reporter, I am unsure. Hopefully we can arrive at a solution where I can edit wikipedia unharassed in the future. Freshstart101 (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I am completely uninvolved in your dispute with Hohenloh therefore there is no motive on my part other than to make you understand that if Hohenloh does not want to interact with you, he shouldn't have to. If you just forget about pursuing your long-term goal of making him accede to your demand that he should be on good terms with you, or acknowledge whatever you said he has to acknowledge, then this can be resolved. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You are backtracking. Fine, I'll put my cards on the table. You wish to someday be an admin. In order to achieve this goal you need to display your zeal for dealing with perceived troublemakers. THis decision to report me should have been Hohenloh's alone. Yet you intervened and manufactured a drama out of this for no reason whatsoever. THis is part of the reason why wikipedia is plagued with personality politics and contrived drama of this sort. This report was malicious and personally offensive. If hohenloh doesn't wish to respond to me, then I'll live with that. But your behaviour is open to question here. Freshstart101 (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You call my clarification "backtracking". And you are opening a crystal ball and looking at the future and you claim to know my wishes. What can I say? As far as the report being malicious, I am making factual statements about long-term demands by you focused on a single editor. Your allegation of this being malicious is, well, bad faith on your part. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something Freshstart conducted his campaign in April and May 2010 (according to your diffs), then stopped (apparently dropped out of WP) and then made an admittedly slightly strangely worded apology this month. Why is the last post harrassment - unless you are saying it's sarcastic. Is that the point? DeCausa (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that anyone who focuses on a single editor with a single bizarre demand and resurrects the same bizarre demand after a year has passed, causes the other editor to be at least concerned, disturbed, worried or worse. I call this harassment. This long-lasting focus on a single editor (Hohenloh) and for a specific purpose, to acknowledge good relations with Freshstart, is bizarre and disturbing. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, he could, as he implies, have a guilty conscience and want to make amends. We should perhaps WP:AGF. I think you can't really say that apologising after a long gap constitutes harrassment. The only doubt I have is if the apology is ironic (eg signing off "your humble steward" etc. Why isn't Hohenloh complaing btw? DeCausa (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, the whole tone of the message: quote: "Would you condescend to give me a reply", the closing remark as you mentioned etc. don't make this message look genuine at all. But even if it were genuine, Hohenloh seems unwilling to engage with this person, as is his right. So even if someone's intentions are good, pursuing them on an unwilling partner is harassment. Have you heard of the persistent suitors of Penelope? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but WP:AGF. If I have a little flair to my prose, surely that is no reason to condemn me? In fact you understand the etymology of 'condescend' you would understand, that in this context it was very respectful of user:hohenloh. 'Condescend to help me', would be something a Roman citizen would say to the emperor if he was requesting something. It is a recognition that the ball is in hohenloh's court and that should he choose not to condescend to give me a reply then I will live with it - like a good Roman citizen would!! Oh, and AGF. Freshstart101 (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

AGF is irrelevant here. Even if you have the best of intentions, Hohenloe doesn't wish to play ball with you. You said: It is a recognition that the ball is in hohenloh's court There is no court and no ball. There is no game. If you understand that, this can be resolved. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you yet realised that you have invented a drama here? If hohenloh reverts my edit... SO BE IT. Get that into your head. Its not harrasment if your apologising and willing to accept anything he/she says. Honestly. You are manufacturing drama for its own sake, its quite annoying. Just admit you are wrong and let us shut up this stupid thread. I've said over and over and over again that all I did was apologise and will accept it if he ignores it. Jesus Christ. Freshstart101 (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Frankly Dr.K. is suggesting quite a few disturbing things of his own. He is alledging that I am in some way 'disturbed', even though I went out of my way to show contrition (Absenting myself for nearly a year) and then went out of my way to apologise after the event. My motivation is straight forward; Hohenloh is a prominent editor in an area that I myself am interested. It serves no-one any good if we hold animosity towards each other. If he wishes to ignore me then I'll live with that. I'm not obsessive. I'm genuinely sorry about my past behaviour.

I am eccentric. 'Your humble steward' is an obscure Irish literary reference that I think hohenloh might have got. If not, then so well. What can I do. Freshstart101 (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Folks, I think this is an argument over nothing. Freshstart101 has apologised for actions from a year ago (if in a slightly flowery way), and Hohenloh is free to respond or ignore. I don't see any need for any admin action, so I'd suggest we just leave it at that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

yes, I was going to say the same thing. If he approaches Hohenloh again (if Hohenloh doesn't respond to his aplogy) then maybe admin action would be looked at then. DeCausa (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly what I tried to prevent in the first place. To the extent that no more unsolicited friendship/reconciliation messages are directed at Hohenloh in the future, it is fine with me. And I wish Freshstart101 the best in their future endeavours. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah right. Not only have accused me of 'long term harrasment' but also say I am 'disturbed' and actually accuse me of being ungenuine. You created this drama for its own sake, I really don't know why, maybe you simply enjoy. Frankly I think some kind of apology is in order, but I've quickly come to learn that rules of wikipedian civility simply don't apply to perceived 'outlaws'.

Not once has Dr. K being pulled up for this by admins or mods. Shameful. Freshstart101 (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Come on, can we please drop this now? What I see is good faith from everyone, but perhaps just some misunderstanding. There is no admin action needed here - nobody to block, nothing to delete, nothing to protect. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Horse, meet stick. Stick, meet horse --Blackmane (talk) 09:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

ELN could use a few extra eyes

I am increasingly concerned about some recent civility issues at WP:ELN and would really appreciate having a few extra admins watching Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Paraphilic_infantilism for a few days. The section has just been closed, but we have had something of an epidemic of WP:LASTWORD, so there's no guarantee that it will stay that way long enough to be archived.

In the best-case scenario, it will stay quiet, and you can write this note off as an overreaction. That is the outcome that I'm hoping for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but it's already been reopened here. I'm done with it personally since I get attacked constantly by this editor. More eyes would be appreciated since everyone except this editor feels the discussion has come to a conclusion. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

As the main recipient of what I consider a lot of unwarranted hostility, I'm happy to comment if anyone is interested. I'm happier just to close what I see as an issue with an extremely obvious consensus, a whole lot of drama, and little else. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I reclosed the section because nothing good can come from more discussion about this issue. The editors agreed that the external links didn't belong so there is nothing more that needs to be said. --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to point two things. First, as "this editor", I would have appreciated being notified about this discussion. The selective participation here echoes WhatamIdoing's sending personal invitations to specific editors[98][99], asking them to get involved in that EL discussion. Second, that there have been a number of incivilities and improprieties involved. Most recently, Crohnie deleted my comment[100] to try to secure her and WLU the WP:LASTWORD, while accusing me of "rude and uncivil"[101].

Please note that WhatamIdoing is not uninvolved in this discussion. This started as an edit war between her and myself, summarized here. WLU became involved. It could have ended there, but did not. My request to WLU not to involve other locations was deleted with the comment "or I can just delete this without reading it"[102]. From there, WLU spread the conflict onto four other pages (Paraphilic_infantilism, infantilism, Diaper_fetishism, and Adult_diaper) starting a number of edit wars (eg [103][104][105][106][107], including one with a bot[108]. He also created other messes and left them to other editors to fix, such as using a Wikipedia printout as an RS[109].BitterGrey (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

BitterGrey, I invite the ELN regulars and members of relevant WikiProjects to comment on discussions all the time. As in this case, I typically select victims volunteer editors for such notes based on the noticeboard's history statistics. You will discover that these editors' names are at the top of the list.

Also, I can't really imagine why you think that an essay I was invited to start out of a conversation at WT:MED has anything at all to do with WLU deleting an internet chat room and your personal website from an article that (1) isn't within WPMED's scope, (2) I've never edited and (3) I've never even read. It frankly sounds like a conspiracy theory.

I agree, however, that it was appallingly rude of you to repeatedly accuse Crohnie of "puppetlike foible[s]". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Why did you think regulars needed to be invited? If they really are monitoring that board, wouldn't they already be monitoring that board?

Since WhatamIdoing brought up that conversation at WikiProject Medicine, I'll explain how it also fits in here. WhatamIdoing's post included glowing praise for one editor who was being "chastised by a handful of (minority-view-holding) editors for not re-re-re-re-disclosing his 'conflict of interest' every single time he edits certain pages."[110]. This is a reference to discussions such as those at COI/N and ELN. In both those examples, WhatamIdoing was that editor's sole advocate. I was among the "handfull" of other editors in some of those debates. As I wrote, she isn't uninvolved here.

A neutral editor would have first commented about the accusation that I was misleading readers (ELNO#2), made by WLU[111][112][113][114] and later echoed by Crohnie[115]. Not only were these accusations made first, but are more serious than a mere foible. That foible was pointed out here[116]. BitterGrey (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobody invited me, and anyway, I am sufficiently independent to disagree with whoever has invited me to a discussion. Yet I did not comment on ELNO#2 simply because it was not necessary for deciding the situation. We are not here to stroke people's egos, we are here to build an encyclopedia. And for the more professional among us this means coming straight to the point and not wasting time getting side-tracked.

Frankly, this is ridiculous. It's a clear case of ELNO#11 (which basically follows from ELNO#1 + WP:SPS), and in 3 weeks not a single editor argued for including your link. I have seen a lot of foul play and mobbing at Wikipedia, but this is not an instance of it. Hans Adler 01:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"Why did you think regulars needed to be invited?"

Because they hadn't commented, and you wanted people that met your personal definition of "uninvolved" (i.e., had never opposed you in any dispute, ever) to comment. In my experience, most people don't jump into a very long and distinctly unpleasant conversation with a wikilawyering website owner who is insulting other participants and spewing conspiracy theories unless they've been directly encouraged to do so. Perhaps your experience is different. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice that a lot of people are saying unpleasant things here, but only one person is providing diffs.

@Hans Adler: I attempted a factual closure yesterday[117]. Apparently others weren't happy with it and wanted to argue more. BitterGrey (talk) 02:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Except your close wasn't accurate, at least my part in all of this. I didn't withdraw from the discussion, I withdrew from discussing things with you only because you couldn't be polite and kept attacking. As for difs, there are plenty of difs added to that discussion. The discussion was over, the editors all decided that the two EL's you wanted were not acceptable to the project so we closed it stating this. There was no reason to allow you to close it as you are very involved and was only telling part of the story about what editors had to say which wasn't needed. Please, lets close all this out for the sake of sanity already. Bittergrey has been rude and has attacked multiple editors at this thread and at other locations. If difs are requested by anyone other than BG I will gather them up. I will not interact with Bittergrey though any further. Thank you in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"There was no reason to allow you to close it as you are very involved"[118]? I think all the uninvolved editors tacitly accepted my attempt at factual closure[119] and stepped back, content to let the discussion archive. They had been heard and didn't need to get the last word in. I needed to stay involved to hold things to the facts. For example, regarding the "the two EL's [I] wanted"[120], I never argued for the second EL ( http://abdlplay.com/forum/ ). As already discussed[121], I've long avoided making any changes to the external links section myself due to the COI. This is why I hadn't removed the forum link. I also didn't disagree with Hans Adler that it was a forum, and so ELNO#10 applied[122]. I did, however, question[123] Crohnie's application of ELNO#10 to Understanding.Infantilism.Org. BitterGrey (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It's amusing to me that Bittergrey is claiming to try to close the issue given both myself and Crohnie tried to actually close the section and it was twice reverted by Bittergrey. There are no outstanding external links issues in that section, not a single editor besides Bittergrey supported including the links, I simply can't see a reason for anyone to continue posting in this section. The only issue I actually see is WP:BATTLE. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between summarizing an apparent consensus, as I tried to[124], and hiding the discussion to reserve the WP:LASTWORD for themselves, as WLU[125] and Crohnie[126] did. This is a repeat of WLU's behavior where this all started, at wp:Conflicts_of_interest_(medicine), where he archived the entire talk page[127] immediately after removing my comment[128]. At least WLU has started including diffs, so everyone can see that what WLU considers a second revert was actually me restoring my comment after they deleted it, just as I had to at Conflicts_of_interest_(medicine)[129]. (Crohnie later apologized for the deletion at ELN, WLU did not for COI_Med.)

As for this being a WP:BATTLE, it involves multiple articles, mostly ones that WLU had never edited before this began but that I have long been involved with [130][131][132][133]. In the multiple conflicts (eg. [134][135][136][137][138]) the person spreading the conflict is made most clear by the edit war between WLU and Yobot (a bot). While a fan of the Terminator series, I have to side with the machine on this one: Yobot didn't start the conflict, WLU did. BitterGrey (talk) 03:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that's an edit war, doesn't it look like someone repositioning a template as part of a set of edits? Calling it edit warring seems an almost irrational over-reaction. And don't you think that's the sort of thing you would politely bring up with an editor on their talk page, rather than first starting a section on an article talk page, then spamming the comment across multiple message boards? Has anyone else commented on my "edit war"? Did they support your interpretation? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Clarification: I did not purposely delete anyones comments as I state here that it was probably an edit conflict that I missed. I apologized for not catching the edit conflict which is different than saying I "apologized for the deletion". It's time to stop this battle that is ongoing already. Enough should be enough already. Would someone please close this section? Thank you in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, Bittergrey seems to ascribe personal malicious intentions to any mistake or difference of opinion. I would rather further outside input rather than closing the section, but that is less likely the more posts are made, so I'll make this my last one. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

@WLU, the last message I left on your talk page was deleted with the comment "or I can just delete this without reading it"[139]. That message asked you to please not spread this issue to other locations. As for outside input, this thread was started explicitly as a mere civility issue, WP:LASTWORD,[140] on a board that explicitly doesn't handle incivility. This might have had the effect of innoculating the audience, to prevent involvement. This might have been a mistake, but whatamidoing's extensive background with this board[141] suggests otherwise.

@Crohnie, your apology was noted (last sentence, first paragraph in my last comment). Assuming that one's opponent simply reverted and so should be simply reverted isn't a rare mistake. The topic of the deletion was raised here by WLU, who counted my restoring the deleted text as a repeated attempt to "reopen" the discussion[142]. Fortunately he is providing diffs now, so his points can be quickly shown false.BitterGrey (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

My search of the archives with an AN prefix shows that I have made just fifty-four (54) comments to any AN board, representing 0.11% of all of my edits over the last four years. I doubt that is what most people would consider "extensive". If you want to consider the baseline for "extensive", please note that dozens of editors have edited just this one AN board more than one thousand times.

Your allegedly "factual" close looked to me like an effort to enshrine a distorted version of the reasoning as The Truth™ about that conversation. It was also completely unnecessary, since all we really need to know is the plain fact is that nobody except you supports the inclusion of an external link to your personal website about paraphilic infantilism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Those 54 edits put WhatamIdoing somewhere around 93rd percentile here. Reasonably extensive. Besides, even at my lowly 16 edits[143], I'm aware that the text at the top of the page clearly states "To report impolite or uncivil communications with other editors, see wikiquette alerts." (i.e. This isn't the place to report a case of WP:LASTWORD[144].)

@WhatamIdoing, could I ask you to actually read and understand my attempt at factual closure[145], as opposed to arguing based on what it "looked" like?[146] BitterGrey (talk) 02:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I read your so-called "factual closure". I understood it. I disagree with it, as does every editor who has expressed an opinion so far. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing, we get that you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Would you care to tell us why? Please be specific, with diffs, instead of appealing to false hyperbole: I am an editor, I have expressed an opinion, and I don't disagree with the closure. Thus your "as does every editor who has expressed an opinion so far" statement is not true. BitterGrey (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

When someone states "everyone disagrees with you", your defense is "that's not true, as I don't disagree with myself"? It may be wiser to just accept that your opinion is not shared by anoyone else, and leave this and all other related discussions quietly, before someone forces you to do so by blocking you. Fram (talk) 08:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, many have tacitly accepted my attempt at factual closure[147]. Yoenit, MrOllie, AndyTheGump, NortyNort, and Themfromspace were involved in the EL discussion, but haven't commented since the factual closure was posted. It effectively removed the external link as an issue of debate. Others include Moxy, who disagreed[148] with being listed as an invitee[149], and Hans Adler, who considered the ongoing discussion pointless[150]. Notably, they didn't disagree with the 'conclusion' of the closure (ELNO #11). That leaves only whatamIdoing/WLU/Crohnie and myself. If whatamIdoing won't share what her actual point is, them I am forced to agree with Hans Adler. BitterGrey (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterization of other editors in your closure. That I (and I wager others) did not comment is more a sign of recognition of the futility of arguing with you than a sign that I 'tacitly accept'. - MrOllie (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for letting me know. BitterGrey (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Of note is that Bittergrey considered all of this part of a pre-existing dispute, rather than a routine effort to establish that a link was (fairly obviously) inappropriate. In many situations, whole swathes of totally unrelated pages are brought up to "demonstrate" that any edit to a page is the result of ongoing disputes. [151]; [152]; [153]; [154]; [155] Routine edits and minor disagreements about equivocal style guidelines should not result in a talk page dump of a half-dozen completely unrelated links with the accusation that it's an extension of an unrelated dispute. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If Bittergrey really isn't motivated by getting the last word, don't bother replying at all, even in an edit summary. Seriously, saying "I'm making a null edit just to let you know I'm not interested in getting the last word in" is just a slightly sneakier way of getting in the last word. The best way to explicitly not reply is to not actually reply. I admit I do like beating dead horses and getting the last word, but only when there's an actual point involved. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like Bittergrey or an administrator to refactor the false accusations that I behaved as a meat puppet. Bittergrey accuses me of this multiple times even after WLU explained why I was not his meat puppet. I feel this is totally uncivil as is a lot of what Bittergrey put in that long thread. I will not allow his attack on me stand as is and will strike it myself if it is not done by him or someone else. I was not a puppet for anyone, like I have said multiple times and I do not have to answer Bittergrey's questions to prove I am not a puppet. I gave my own opinion about the links and even said the ELNO #11 was the strongest reason for the link to be unacceptable. I said I was done talking to Bittergrey, not that a withdrew from the discussion as Bittergrey claims again in his futile attempt here with a false factual closure. Thank you in advance for taking care of this immediately. --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Expired Nuclear Ban and Probation - with new facts on the ground.

Given the banning Admin (Thatcher) is inactive, I repost here with apologies in advance...

This ban [156] is now long expired, and actual events on the ground have given the lie to certain positions promoted by the unbanned side of the related content dispute (among them, that the people outside Russia are so superior that meltdown will never happen in developed countries.) "I listed how the people in American plants are different - reliance on insurance, independent inspectors, lack of incentive for malfeasance. You know all these things and continue to ignore them. Simesa 2 July 2005 21:28 (UTC)" [[157]] So according to Wikipedia's preferred POV, "the people" "are different", and that difference explains safe or unsafe operation. These are people who risked their lives in hand-sewn lead-suits in 45 second one-time shifts to scoop hot uranium off the roof. [158]

Note that I was banned for this edit: [159] proving to my satisfaction that this was always about content and about promoting a "Nuclear Plants are the very model of a modern Major General" POV.

My opinion remains that the Arbcom turned a content dispute into a personal vendetta - "unpublishing" government-sourced content in the bargain - such as the navy manual on the effects of radiation, (by changing the case title from content to a single named individual), which feels to me like the mother of personal attacks. But I have respected both, and ask that you now respect the expiration and take down the Ban Banners on these articles. I even promise to be nicer to others than they are to me. :) Benjamin Gatti (talk) 13:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

For background, it looks like Mr. Gatti was banned from those articles based on his indefinite probation as outlined in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Benjamin_Gatti#Final_decision based on a discussion here. Syrthiss (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

For even more background, it looks like Mr. Gatti was banned for simple content including this (talk) diff [160] which even to those whose grasp of meaning is slippery at best bears no relation to "disrupting the operation of wikipedia" Benjamin Gatti (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that the same diff you present in your 'Note that I was banned for this edit' above? Why are you presenting the same diff again? Syrthiss (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

To answer a question with a question, why did WP ban for simple content? There is nothing objectionable or "disruptive" in that diff [161], but it was used to justify a ban. One of the items floating about in wake of the Japanese tidal wave is the naked fact that my contributions on Nuclear were less POV and more fact than the Arbcom determined; History is, in short, a far better judge than the collective votes of the popular. Saying Nuclear is risk-free doesn't make it so - discounting the lessons of Chernobyl on plainly racists grounds doesn't make it any safer, and a Personal Attack by the ArbCom won't cure the Milk of Fukushima, any more than the Trials at Salem proved Witchcraft. It is beyond bittersweet to have been vindicated by this calamity, but the least Wiki can do as penance for "killing the messenger" is to consent to allow for government sourced documents on the risks of Nuclear energy to be published on their respective pages rather than banning editors for doing so. Benjamin Gatti (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Without defending BG's approach here nor suggesting his summation above and the alleged unfairness is accurate, is there any disagreement his topic ban has expired (like was it extended?). If not removing the ban banners would seem appropriate. If not, removing the banner in Talk:Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act and whereever else it is would seem appropriate. Since the banner is not a template, does anyone have a list? Nil Einne (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

(←) Wow. It seems very, very inappropriate that that banner remains on talk the talk page-- it was added over five years ago, and their most recent ban expired on 31 May 2008, nearly three years ago. In any sense, we don't place those banners on talk pages, so I've removed it. I believe just the one exists. Swarm ^X 18:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering how a group of five people have a "personal" vendetta, but I digress. Given the spiel above, I doubt Gatti will last long again. Yes, the ban has expired. The Probation is indefinite, though. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Personally attacking ArbCom certainly isn't a good start. Swarm ^X 23:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I was the main one initially involved in this mess. Ben is Wikilawyering just like he always has. He always sees this as a "content dispute" when it wasn't. I'm personally anti-nuclear and the other main editor involved was neutral on the subject. Its all about the rules of Wikipedia and Ben has never shown any real push towards following them. And I think the fact that he picked now to come back shows that. He has an agenda and he will do anything...absolutely anything...to get it across. I think the original arbitration case shows that. And I think the fact that he's demonstrating the exact same behavior shows that he hasn't changed. He was banned for many, many reasons. His behavior was so extreme that he helped to scare one admin away (Katefan0). And another one (me) is now basically doing disam work because I've been completely scared off from doing administrative work outside of some anti-vandal stuff and article deletion work. Containing Ben is a full time job and I mean that sincerely. So yes the ban has lifted, but my guess is that we'll go down the same road. As I emailed Ben, I don't think he sincerely knows any other way of operating. And thats the thing. If his passion was just used for something else other than disruption and chaos, it'd be a great thing for the encyclopedia. But he doesn't care about Wikipedia at all. Just his pet articles. And I'm nervous about posting this as I feel like I'm opening up a can of worms. Ben is relentless. And I'd love to AGF here but I'm seeing 0 change. None. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 04:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, a few admins can still impose a ban of up to one year, but further issues should be intolerable. A community ban is always a permanent option.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Swarm (talk • contribs)

Considering the tone of his responses already in this thread, to simple attempts by an uninvolved editor to bring additional background (shouldn't people have as much information as needed?), I agree that while the ban is expired the probation has not and while the 'badge of shame' of those banners can be removed any recidivism will likely turn out poorly for Benjamin. I'd have an entirely different feeling on this if he had taken the intervening time and made significant edits to the encyclopedia outside these areas, but I see sparse contributions. I don't necessarily blame him for ill feelings towards the encyclopedia and not wanting to contribute because of that, but it doesn't help your cause down the line to show that your problematic behavior has changed. Syrthiss (talk) 11:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Personally I feel it's best to just drop this thread. Yes Benjamin Gatti started it and it's largely his fault that we're discussing his comments when all he needed to do was resist the urge to espouse his POV and have a dig at arbcom; instead simply asking us to remove mention of his now expired topic ban on the article talk page which was all that concerned us. But it's best to just leave it be since I don't think there's anything worth discussing on ANI at the moment. If BG becomes active again there's a good chance we'll be back here in the future but until then... Nil Einne (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Out of process WP:CHILDPROTECT issue

Resolved

 – Cjgraham blocked as returning troll. TNXMan 13:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

WE have a New editor Cjgraham (talk · contribs) who basically popped up on the talk page just to attack another editor as a child pornographer [162][163]. Given as none of the instructions at WP:CHILDPROTECT make it clear what we are supposed to do, I bring it here. A Block is probably in order and REvdelete as well but further action may be needed. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 17:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, firstly notify Cjgraham; if no one has done so when I've finished this post I will do so. Secondly, accusations? With any rationale? Sounds more like a wp:harass than a wp:childprotect. Also, out of process??? I'm confused. Are you saying Cjgraham was out of process? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Theoretically when it come to this you dont make accusations on Wiki but Email stuff to Arbcom your concerns and let them take appropriate action. Accusing on the talk page is out of process from the proper procedure. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 18:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I have notified Cjgraham; it seems s/he was making a fuss about an image on Commons, now deleted. I suspect a troll. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Oops my mistake The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 18:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

A good faith mistake is better than an unreported issue which turns out to be sinister. Mjroots (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Cjgraham is indeed a troll that I have blocked. TNXMan 13:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Jmorrison230582

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

---

Resolved

 – WP:WQA, not WP:ANI

Jmorrison230582 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I wanted to report his " too polite" comment [164], which really much hurted my feelings. Took away my motivation to contribute to Wikipedia for now. Could somebody check if he/she has done anything like this before? Thanks. Sorry if I shouldn't report this. Pelmeen10 (talk) 08:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

To explain that I took offense is maybe because I'm from decent family and no one has told me f*** before. I know it's nowadays popular, but still there are some people who are offended by it (aren't there any rules in Wikipedia that prohibit insulting?). I had a conversation with him once in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 12#Category:Russian expatriate footballers in Belgium where he/she avoided my comments or didn't read them. I had to explain him 1 thing 5 times. And now after the deletion a bot has missed adding 1 cat. I opposed the nomination and explained why. But it has been ignored...  :( Pelmeen10 (talk) 10:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You may want to see also User talk:FkpCascais. Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Use of curse words is generally not frowned on too much here, it's just part of the language. If you'd prefer an editor not to use such words around you in future then try asking them to refrain; I'd expect any reasonable editor to agree to a polite request. As to the comment itself; it's a bit snappy, I can't see the root of the problem but your comment on the Wikiproject page was a bit snappy too and it may have caused (unintentional) friction. The best approach in these situations is to take it on the chin and move on, however I'll drop JM a note :) --Errant ^(chat!) 12:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Woah. Massive over-reaction, this could have easily been solved by a quick post on Jmorrison230582's talk page's informing him that you don't appreciate such comments, and both editors getting a ood night's sleep. No need to bring this to ANI, and certainly no need for accusations of racism. GiantSnowman 12:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't dish it out if you can't take it. Pathetic. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful advice. Closing now as we have reached the apex of wisdom. Jehochman ^Talk 13:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

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

User:GHcool engaging in blatant vandalism

Resolved

This edit is IMO so blatant that it's enough to warrant a perma-block, especially considering GHcool's previous sanctions:

• Changing Haaretz article title from "Palestinian PM: Jerusalem terror attack contradicts our plan for freedom by peaceful means" to "Palestinian PM: Jerusalem terror attack we are proud of and commend those perpretrating resistance"
• Changing "Fatah Prime Minister Salam Fayyad condemned the attacks" to "Fatah Prime Minister Salam Fayyad praised the attacks"

I am involved in the topic, and cannot act on this myself, so I am bringing this here. Rami R 14:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) POV-pushing vandalism was actually committed by an IP editor, whom I have warned. Others have reverted the changes to accurately reflect the cited sources. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, checking the history it looks like the software FUBAR'd an edit conflict merge again. I suspect GHcool was edited the vandalised version and while he was doing so that vandalism was reverted. It has happened before; marking this resolved because the rest of the edit seems acceptable. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Troll

Ordinarily, I would hesitate to label any Wikipedia user as a "troll". That being said, ladies and gentlemen, I draw your attention to TrollificusMaximus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Perhaps this bud should be nipped before it does any real damage? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Reported at WP:UAA. I note two edits in their log; one vandalizing, one on their Talk page to remove the uw-vandal entry. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Forget that, I'm blocking. Also  Confirmed:

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

–MuZemike 16:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

We have one clue to its identity. Apparently it's left-handed. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

User:93.97.194.200

What's to be done about an editor who refuses to sign their comments? There are 20 SineBot messages in the last year on this editor's talk page reminding about signing, plus a couple from editors complaining about rude comments. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ummm, nothing? SineBot is there for anons who don't understand the rules. That is blatantly a school IP anyway. Perhaps you'd like to email the staff? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Scream4fan2011

• Scream4fan2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This one doesn't seem to be here for anything constructive. It doesn't seem to be a case for AIV. Would an administrator kindly have a word with them? I will notify the user of this thread. Thank you,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive user is disruptive. Even if it's just on their Talk page. Just my 2p worth. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously not here to help build our encyclopedia. Heas been at least up to warning3 with no change in behavior or response other than to delete the talkpage comment. DMacks (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Racist userpage

Resolved

 – Blocked indef as suspected sock

Lootsucker (talk · contribs · count); remove and warn, or just block? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Every one of his contribs appears to be blatantly racist. I'd say block. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 19:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

He looks like a returning user to me, ringing all my spidey bells. Off2riorob (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The user is now at three reverts trying to undo the redirect at Gang rape. Their edits certainly show an agenda. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Based on his edit history, I strongly suspect that he's a sock of Giornorosso (talk · contribs), who was blocked not long ago for the same behavior. Block him. oknazevad (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If you don't like my userpage, its purely your personal problem.--Lootsucker (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"Famous last words." Looking at the page, though, it was so over the top it was almost like a satire of a racist's user page. The scary part is the possibility that it was for real. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I know it's been resolved already, but just ROFLMAO at Lootsucker's response to this. His userpage was absolutely ludicrous... waiting for his next sock to cry about "free speech" on the interweb now. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 20:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Being against communism and against a free Tibet? Idiotic. Doc talk 20:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Support indef, even apart from the sock issue. The userpage content was egregious; there is no reason for us to put up with this sort of thing. Compare Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support from me too for indef block and ignore -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support—Last thing we need is some KKK apologist like this driving off editors. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 20:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support - nothing good can/will come of having this user on Wikipedia. GiantSnowman 20:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• One might consider RevDel'ing all the edits to the userpage except for the latest and then indef-protecting it, so no other socks come back to mess with it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 20:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

  Someone just RD'd it. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 20:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

  Yep, that was me. I was going to suggest it, and when I saw it had already been suggested, I went ahead and did it. --RL0919 (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Stupid admin calling for rangeblock

Resolved

The IPs 71.191.11.102, 71.191.7.125, 71.191.2.38, 71.191.1.240, and no doubt more, don't seem to tire of adding colourful "The Earl of Oxford was the real author of Shakespeare's plays" edits to Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. For the flavour, here is the latest. Compare the recent arbcom case on the subject. These edits are patiently reverted by other editors. And, oh yes, even I can see the IPs are the same person, but I don't know what to do about it. Can the range get a good long block, or would that take out the entire Arab Emirates, which is what usually happens when I meddle with ranges, or indeed with IPs? Bishonen | talk 00:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC).

The IPs belong to Verizon and are all based out of their District of Columbia subnet. You could probably get away with blocking a narrow range considering that the IPs all appear to be operating out of one smallish block and you won't be preventing the entirety of the capital from editing. Just Verizon subscribers.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Actually, I meant "Will somebody please do it", not so much "Please tell me how to do it". That's where the "stupid" part comes in. Bishonen | talk 00:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC).

Why not semi-protect the article for awhile? Monty₈₄₅ 00:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's just the one guy. And I'd like to take him out for a longer time than it would be appropriate to semi. He's been doing this for months. Bishonen | talk 00:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC).

I already asked for it, it was declined. LiteralKa (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I've semi'd it. The range is 71.191.0.0/20, which is not too big to block, but on that range, we seem to have petty vandals and good faith contributors whose edits outnumber those by our one IP-hopping friend. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Good, thanks. I don't really think any collateral damage is acceptable, but I don't know how to find the other contributors. Please feel free to explain in words of one syllable on my talk, HJ. Bishonen | talk 01:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC).

User account created specifically for a personal attack

User:GeeGeeAllen appears to have created an account specifically to create the page Paul David McDonald (which has been speedily deleted) as a personal attack based on a discussion at Facebook [165] using the facebook ID "Freeman Montgomery" -- a direct link to the page is given as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_David_McDonald.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Blatant user talk page abuse by indef-blocked user

Resolved

 – Cork inserted in orifice HalfShadow 00:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Could someone with access to the block button please shut down the talk page access of blocked user How many usernames can there be (talk · contribs)? After the block was placed, the user attacked the blocking admin, then made an unsuccessful attempt to post a clearly frivolous unblock request. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed:

• How many usernames can there be (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• DestinyKeyboardWarrior (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• AAARONBS (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Heyther (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ViKtORrezNOVAgas (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Savagedogg-999 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Schincter (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Iatecheese (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

 IP blocked –MuZemike 01:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Miamosa

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

This edit seems to be a clear violation of Wikipedia:NOTFORUM#FORUM. Maybe this is not the right noticeboard but i don't want to delete the comment w/o approval.--Severino (talk) 10:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It starts a little bit forum-y but Miamosa does state that s/he was making some referenced edits to the article (I've not checked the references) as evidenced in the edit history. Assuming good faith, s/he's venting a little while commenting on the subject of the content, but otherwise I don't think it's actionable. Also, you should notify Miamosa of the ANI report as stated in the big orange box. struck out as I see you have done so --Blackmane (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Since the user discusses specific changes to the article, this does not seem to fall in the WP:FORUM category. However it does look like it is a user that is in the risk zone of having neutrality-issues regarding this particular subject. Removing a table from the article, just because the participating countries were a "Bloody bunch of hypocrites" is not official Wikipedia policy. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

with respect to this, maybe someone can have an eye on this talk page cause composing comments which consist of one third commenting on the subject, one third bemoaning wikipedia and (maybe) one third reference to the article/changes, is hardly in line with wikipedia policy.--Severino (talk) 09:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Malleus Fatuorum 25 March 2011

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

See this diff I think that it is a clear breach of WP:CIVIL by User:Malleus Fatuorum, but as I am an involved editor I would appreciate it if an uninvolved administrator would take a look and decide if they think administrative action is appropriate. -- PBS (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Convenient of you to ignore Moonraker2's insinuations in the same thread. Nev1 (talk) 01:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ha, is that thread for real?! Nearly woke my housemates up laughing... GiantSnowman 01:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

No, Nev1, I did not ignore what Moonraker2 wrote, but I do not consider what Moonraker2 wrote to be a clear breach of WP:CIVIL. Are you defending User:Malleus Fatuorum use of words under the defence that two wrongs make a right or are you suggesting that administrative action should be taken against both of them. If so what specifically did Moonraker2 that breached of CIVIL? -- PBS (talk) 01:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Taken within the context of Moonraker2 blatantly trolling, the reaction seems perfectly understandable. Right? Perhaps not. Yet you still gloss over Moonraker's actions because there was no swearing, or perhaps it's just inconvenient for you. Just to be clear, yes I am accusing you of double standards. Nev1 (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

So you do think that two wrongs make a right. I disagree. -- PBS (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a diff where I said that. What I find disappointing is your one-sided handling of this affair. Nev1 (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This sort of behavior is exactly why this thread needs to simply be removed. Restoring it, as you did PBS, is simply going to cause more disruption and more drama then it purportedly attempts to fix. Prodego ^talk 02:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This does in fact warrant a public "For Shame" to Malleus (but no more). That said, Moonraker2 was far worse overall and gets a written warning on his talk page (headed over there now) for assuming bad faith, personal attacks, and taunting. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I have only one comment to make. I have no "shame" in using an intensifier that is routinely seen in prestigious publications around the world, including The Times. The real issue here is yet another out of control administrator. Malleus Fatuorum 02:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Everyone should take a week off from this article and come back when cooler heads can prevail. Clearly this conversation spiralled out of control resulting in this ANI. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 01:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I do no think it appropriate to delete this ANI section. If nothing else it should be kept and archived. I have no opinion on whether the section on the talk page of the article should be deleted. -- PBS (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Prodego made the right call here. Not every f-bomb has to have its own AN/I thread. 28bytes (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Not every fucking use of a naughty word is a personal attack. Malleus could have chosen his words better, but you can;t poke a bear and then complain when said bear gets annoyed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, but Malleus is immune to civility sanctions. Article 59, Section Q, Sub-Paragraph XVIII of the Giano Defense Code. Tarc (talk) 02:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Breaking news: Malleus mouths off. Somebody go get the stock film. PhGustaf (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Malleus and Giano are both immune to sanctions, which is simply more proof that wiki is totally jacked up and can never be fixed.137.246.199.200 (talk) 06:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the comment that got MF some attention here today, I wonder about this: If the vulgar suggestion were replaced by "go away", would it still be a personal attack? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I reported MF for a "clear breach of WP:CIVIL": "A single act of incivility can also cross the line if it is severe enough: for instance, extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor" so "go away" would not be a clear breach of civil (although it could be part of a personal attack it would depend on context). -- PBS (talk) 08:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Opinion

I'd like to a general opinion. We generally hold that if editor A asks editor B to not post on their talk page, that should be accepted. But if editor A uses his talk page to talk about B, making comments about B's edits etc, is it really acceptable for A to say "I told him not to post here". Should that request be honored? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It would depend on the situation, on who's saying what. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'd prefer to be general, not specific. ?For example, Editor A posts things implying B is using an IP sock. Or maybe he uses titles of sections on his page to make uncivil remarks to people he has asked to not post there. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Check your e-mail, Niteshift36... Doc talk 08:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Godzilla (2012 film project)

The Godzilla (2012 film project) article has been proposed for deletion twice. An editor is proposing to change this to a redirect, without starting an AfD. An admin's advice would be welcomed on how to proceed. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you need an admin's advice (or why this is even on ANI) so I'll just ignore that part and say just let the RFC proceed and go with whatever consensus is reached? Feel free to notify all contributors two the 2 previous AFDs in a neutral fashion if you desire (to avoid controversy you may want to discuss the wording of any notification on the article talk page) although from the look at the number of comments at the RFC in a short space of time this doesn't seem necessary. Nil Einne (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

AfD is not necessary for a redirect or merge. Even if redirected (as it appears that it has been, based on the discussion), any appropriate and appropriately sourced information from the original article can be added to the redirect target. A key difference between deletion and redirection (and one reason why redirection does not need AfD) is that all the original information remains available in the article history, and thus can be easily accessed for improving the redirect target or if the subject becomes appropriate for a standalone article in the future. Rlendog (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

User talk:24.233.99.119

Temporarily blocked (one week, March 22-29) user has placed Template:BMW cars, a wiki table used at BMW, onto their talk page with this edit.

I thought at first this this was under AIV's jurisdiction, but the instructions there imply that ANI is the proper forum. Shearonink (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I am unsure what your looking for in this pposting but, the block looks totally correct to me, the IP has been editing for a month and looking at their edit history it reveals a cacophony of various disruptive style contributions such as altering other users comments etc, their talkpage has enough warnings. Off2riorob (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree the user is properly-blocked. It's all been fixed at this point. TNXMan reverted the blocked user's edit here. (My original post above has the edit diff where the blocked editor had placed the Template/Wiki-table from an article onto their talk-page.) Shearonink (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

IP editors using bad formatting

For the past few days, I have been dealing with an individual in the Philippines who has been reformatting several dozen pages in a single topic area. His edits solely entail reformatting lists of items in these articles into having line breaks after the item name (replacing formatting along the lines of ;Foo: Bar with *'''Foo'''<br>Bar). He has used at least five IPs to perform these edits, and often he hops IPs between edits and I cannot roll them back easily (or other individuals edit the page and I cannot undo the edits other than reverting everyone). I have left messages on at least two of the IPs' talk pages, but as is the case with IP editors, it is never going to be read.

The IPs involved are:

• 202.57.34.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 202.57.34.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 202.57.34.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 202.57.34.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 114.134.82.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

And the pages involved would basically be every single page in Category:Power Rangers series and Category:Zords.

Obviously, blocking the IPs would be best, but there is no way to know if they will use other IPs due to the nature of the Philippines' IP allocation. I also do not know if an edit filter would be useful in blocking these edits, although I am fairly certain that <br> entities are wholly unused on a regular basis on this project. Semi-protecting all of the articles affected for a period of time would be of some use, as only two pages are currently being updated regularly as they concern a season currently being broadcast.

I am looking for input and assistance into what should be done next.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'd suggest a request for semi-protection on those two pages. A block may not be necessary if the anonymous IPs aren't able to change the page for a week+. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 18:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not two pages. It's around 30 pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I see, my apologies, I misunderstood. Requesting 30+ page protections would be cumbersome and in that case, wouldn't resolve this issue.Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 18:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat issued in the edit comments at Palinca

User:Ali.sweet has been blanking the redirect at Palinca. He's been reverted by a couple of different users, including me. I directed him towards WP:RFD as the more proper location to go to try to accomplish his goals. Instead, in his latest blanking, he's now referring in edit summaries to "legal responsabilities" of those reverting him, myself included. Appears to be pretty much a legal threat, at least to me. Maybe not a "I'll sue you", but a definite attempt to warn of outside consequences in order to get his/her way. Given that I'm one of the targets of the threat, it's not really appropriate for me to issue a NLT block myself. But would one or more uninvolved admins please look into it and deal with the situation as they feel appropriate. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussing the issues with Ali.sweet would be the first step here -- mentioning WP:LEGAL and WP:3R is also a good idea. Although the talk page message at Talk:Palinca is certainly a warning about legal consequences, it does not necessarily mean those consequences are coming from the editor. There does seem to be a legal dispute about the names Palinca and Palinka in the EU to which they are referring (see [166]). I'll leave a message for them. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. I was highly annoyed at the legal threat, and posted here in the heat of that annoyance. Another good reason for me not to have acted myself. We've both now given personal responses at the user's talk page, we'll have to see what he/she does next. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. We can hope that they will react. I've just spent some time reviewing the Palinka article and archived talk page -- the Romanian-Hungarian issue goes way back. I actually think it can be resolved with a light rewording of the intro that might clarify this and eliminate further edit wars. Otherwise I expect this will only happen again in the future. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Subject of article advertising AfD on Wikipedia

User:Marine 69-71 is the subject of an article, Tony Santiago. I've nominated it for an AfD. He has just posted a note on the talk page of the Puerto Rico Wikiproject, where I believe he is active, asking members to "vote" on the AfD.[167] First of all, an AfD is not a "vote," as such things are determined by strength of argument and not by sheeer numbers. Secondly, I think this notice is inappropriate. This user is an administrator. I think that he should steer clear of this AfD debate totally, unless he feels that the article has BLP problems, which seems unlikely. I also think that this editor should be cautioned not to make edits concerning himself, such as this[168], except to correct BLP issues. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Asking people to participate in an AfD is absolutely fine, as long as you don't attempt to sway their decision. However, given the obvious COI here, Marine 69-71 should be staying well away from any article which relate to/mention him. GiantSnowman 22:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd also ask that he not participate in AfDs and articles in which he is named, such as the current AfD on Association of Naval Service Officers, which he expanded by the diff above. I don't believe this edit[169] re the renaming of "List of Puerto Ricans" is appropriate, as he is on that list by dint of the article on him. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

He said in his message, "Since, I am having computer troubles, I am unable to actively participate, plus I believe that it would not be the ethical thing to do." So I'm pretty sure he understands the whole COI bit. I don't get the issue; I don't see any real canvassing going on. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You think it's OK for the subject of an article, who is also a Wikipedia administrator, to solicit AfD "votes" in a Wikiproject in which he is an active member? There's no COI in that? That's perfectly appropriate? ScottyBerg (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

He just solicited my delete vote. The message was neutral enough to me and it's suggested that people notify related WikiProjects. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see his notice as violating WP:CANVASS, but as presenting a COI issue that needs to be dealt with. I disagree with you that he appreciates the COI issue here. If he did, we wouldn't be seeing edits like this[170] (inserting himself into South Bronx) and this[171] (reverting removal of a picture of the building of his birth from South Bronx). That photo, of a non-notable building, was prominently displayed in the article until just the other day, when I removed it. He needs to stop that kind of COI editing. I became aware of the Tony Santiago article because there was a listing on him in South Bronx, in the list of "notable natives," that was bigger than Al Pacino and Sonia Sotomayor [172]! In fairness, that was added not by Tony but by one of his Wikifans. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Your title for this thread deals directly with Tony's advertising of an AfD, which he is absolutely within his rights to do. However, if your actual issue is with his COI, then I'd suggest you head over to WP:COIN, which is the more appropriate forum. Regards, GiantSnowman 23:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but my concern was COI, not canvassing. Also I'm concerned about the fact that this editor's son, User:AntonioMartin, created this article on his father and just voted on the AfD (to keep, naturally). I was under the impression that ANI deals with this kind of thing, but if not I can go to COIN. I disagree with you that he was "within his rights" to solicit opinions on the AfD. On an article about himself, that presents an obvious COI, as you correctly pointed out just above.ScottyBerg (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see, notifying a WikiProject about an AfD in which you are the subject does not violate anything listed at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#What is a conflict of interest? - however, his other edits are a little more questionable, and so WP:COIN is the place to be. GiantSnowman 23:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

ScottyBerg, have you made any attempt to contact Tony about this on his talk page? Have you just asked him to refrain from editing about himself? Anything like that? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I think that asking an administrator who's been here as long as he has, and who has edited/added stuff about himself as much as he has, is a job for another administrator, which is why I came to this noticeboard. I also think that his son needs to receive the same instruction. I may pursue this to COIN, but I'm frankly a little stunned at the indifference that has greeted the COI issues I've raised here.ScottyBerg (talk) 03:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I notified him about this discussion, and he has edited since then, but not participated here. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

No one shares your concern because there is no concern and because you have no previous attempt to engage in discussion with the user in question. Regardless of whether he is an admin, crat, arb, etc. you need to try to talk to him before hurrying off to ANI. There is no excuse for not doing so, unless you are in some sort of interaction/topic ban that forbids you from posting to his talk page. No one here will do anything if you haven't initiated communication with him as well. There's a little notice in the ANI header saying as much. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Furthemore, our rules on COI do not and AFAIK never have prohibited users from registering any interest in the state or development of articles of which they are the subject. Better that it's done openly and ideally neutrally rather than through folk hiding behind IPs and the like. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I get your point. I've posted a note on the editor's user page. [173] You can close this thread and I can bring this up again (here or on the COI/N) if necessary, or keep it open as you wish. However, Fetchcommss, I disagree totally with your statement that "there is no concern." There is one, and the fact that he is an administrator makes it a big one. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood what I meant by "there is no concern". Yes, I see a potential COI mess here, which is a concern, but I meant that there is no real concern for admins patrolling this noticeboard because prior discussion has not taken place. If you had already talk to Tony about the COI and he did not stop or something like that, then there would be cause for concern. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. The article has been deleted, which removes the major but not only source of problems. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive refactoring at RFC/U - Reblock needed

User:Rschen7754 and User:KnowIG are two major advocates seeking sanctions against another editor User:Racepacket. Although the RFC/U started as a discussion of his reviewing US highway articles, User:LauraHale quickly turned it into a discussion of a GA review of Netball and made a number of false accusations which I have repeatedly asked her to back up with "diff links." Several people have made comments and endorsed the views of others. Today, Rschen7754 and KnowIG have been refactoring these items between the project page and the discussion page in an unfair manner that seeks to place Racepacket in a bad light and makes it difficult to follow what is being said. I moved one other outside comment from the discussion page to the main page, sought to endorse it and to leave my own further comment clarifying my outside view in light of LauraHale's outside view.diff. KnowIG is mistreating me and starting an edit war over this. He has said in his edit summary, "An admin moved this one. I suggest you don't move it from the talk page" diff Any claim that Rschen7754 has some special administrator rights is a clear violation of WP:INVOLVED. I suggest that you appoint a disinterested admin to police the refactoring of this RFC/U and require LauraHale to either post "diff links" supporting her charges or have her withdraw her accusations.

I believe that KnowIG's edits today, coupled with his earlier racial slurs against me in connection with my GA review of Netball diff1 "stupid indian" diff2 (KnowIG was indefinitely blocked, but allowed back here on the condition that he walk way from disputes). His provocative conduct both at RFC/U and my talk page justify the return of his block. Bill william compton^Talk 18:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

They are not racial slurs but this is from Bill and then tried to justyfy himself by saying his national quiz champ. No one gives a monkeys about that. Not my fault but Rschen is an admin and he moved it (he is not invovoved), I then realised what I did and undid it. Whilst Bill went removing stuff from the talk pages of an RFC and put comments in that wanted disussing which should be on the talk page. I do the sensible thing and move it. Hang on what is this about as all of what his complaining about is nothing to do with me and then turns round and accuses me of being racist as he has no evidence, especially two of the diffs which are not racial slurs at all. Gee wizz. Looks like another user who does not understand wikipedia KnowIG (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Folks, I suggest you both calm down a moment. KnowlG: Rschen7754 is an admin, yes, but he's also a certifying party to the original RfC/U, so he is involved. Please don't make claims or statements on his behalf. Bill: we don't need to appoint someone. The RfC/U guidelines are pretty clear on how to handle the formatting. "Other users can endorse a view, by adding their signature to the list after that view. Along with their signature, they may wish to offer a clarifying comment of one or two sentences, for example if they agree with all but one particular part of the view. Longer responses than that should probably go into their own "View" section". If you wish to dispute what LauraHale has written, please do so the proper way. We value your opinions, but honestly, a lot of the Netball-related drama is secondary to several of the original issues raised by us parties that opened the request for comment. Imzadi 1979 → 19:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I have participated in a number of RFC's (this is my 8th? I don't even remember?) and in every single one, the same formatting is always used. I have seen user (not even just admins) refactor things when people violate the simple instructions given at the top of the page. Not sure what the complaint is here. --Rschen7754 19:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Bill william compton that KnowIG was out of line, particularly when KnowIG called Bill william compton a "stupid Indian." KnowIG has violated WP:CIVIL. As I read the condition of the lifting of his block, that is grounds for an immediate reblock. I have also found that KnowIG appears to be more interested in spreading discord than solving problems. For example, while I was the GA reviewer of Netball, I found that the game rules were closely paraphrased in the article and recommended using a quotation instead. In response, KnowIG said such a recommendation was POV pushing. I hate to reduce the number of active Wikipedia editors, but Know IG was given one last chance, and he blew it. I concur in the recommendation of a reblock. Racepacket (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Please re-block KnowIG. I've never interacted with any involved party that I can recall, and I don't even know which articles or subject areas are under dispute. But the ability to say, as KnowIG did, in effect, "No one's being racist except you, you stupid Indian" definitely calls for a re-block. Note to KnowIG: If you still can't see the ridiculousness of your statement, let me help. It was racist. What you said is like shouting at the top of your lungs, "The only one shouting here is you!". It's committing the very act that you're protesting against.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

More important than the specific words used are the meaning. Yes, no specific racist slurs were used, but what you said was very hurtful. If I said "all you stupid (insert race/ethnic group/religion here)", that would certainly be offensive, even though no racial slurs are in that phrase. Kansan (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Only beacuse your British Do you think that's acceptable. That's racist. When I complain tis blah blah blah. He has been just as bad in bringing it on himself. mean I wasn't even invovled then. If you ban me for that then Bill should be banned as well cause that is just as offensive. If you don't you've proved a great example of allowing subtle racsim to go unpunished. KnowIG (talk) 10:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not want to start a separate back-and-forth here. Rschen7754 started the RFC/U and therefore he is involved. Both Rschen7754 and KnowIG have been refactoring between the project and discussion pages in a biased manner. I moved the "Outside view by Cptnono" to the project page only because Cptnono said "he didn't know where to put his outside view". I want everyone to contribute to Wikipedia, but instead of walking away from disagreements as promised, KnowIG has been stirring the pot for the past week. I had no intention to tell him that i'm quiz competitor or champion, i did because he compared my knowledge with my age, which was quite strange to me. Please apply: "further difficulty, regardless of good intention, should result in another block." and "violations of WP:CIVIL are out of order, and can result in an immediate reblock." I think that "stupid Indian" alone was more than enough grounds. Bill william compton^Talk 04:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

There has definitely been some incivility. I haven't looked into it as there's not much I can do anyway, being an involved admin. But if what you say is true, then the quickest way to actually get a block (besides writing super long posts that won't be read) would be to message the admin who unblocked and give him/her the diffs and ask for a reblock. --Rschen7754 08:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Note its from both sides hence why his now complaining. If you look at my first diff you realise that I was not racist but was provoked into that response. KnowIG (talk) 10:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I've referred the incivility accusations off to WP:WQA - I don't want to sort through it. Let's keep things on topic here, please. --Rschen7754 10:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Based on this and the stupid indian/keep your gob shut diff, coupled with my unblock conditions and warnings I see more than sufficient ground to reblock indefinately. It seems KnowIG is simply unable to control his reactions and keep things civil, despite his best attempts. I simply don't see that his positive contributions on the tennis-related articles outweigh his temper and inability to treat his fellow editors with civility when he is in disagreement with them. I have reblocked KnowIG indefinately. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Request temporary block of citation bot

A new feature to find & use bibcodes for the Citation bot has lead to some quite serious problems, as listed at the end of User_talk:Citation_bot#Bot_replaces_book_reference_by_journal.27s_book_review etc. Can I please request a temporary block of Citation bot, Citation bot 1 etc. until the operator can resolve the issue. I've already had to revert ~75 of the bot's edits and have another ~500 of its recent edits to review, a similar number again will need to be reverted I expect. I'm sure we'll be able to get the bot operating normally quite quickly, I just want to prevent generation of another large set of edits requiring review before it's sorted. Thanks Rjwilmsi 12:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The place you want to file this is at Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval. This gets the attention of the Bot approvals group who will be able to help.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Is the Bot approvals group talk page really that active? It doesn't look it. This would suggest to me in an emergency reporting here for an admin to block (as the bot page says an admin should do if it's malfunctioning) would be the appropriate course of action. If the owner later disputes the need for the block, then it can be taken to the bot approval group. Alternatively if the owner fixes the problem there's probably no need for the approval group involvement at all Nil Einne (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I've looked into the reports at User talk:Citation bot/Archive 1#Bot replaces book reference by journal's book review and checked the recent contributions. The only bot that is currently running is the one called User:Citation bot, which is run by *user request*, and is not automatic. The trouble reports are all for User:Citation bot 1, which has made no contributions since 23 March. The operator, User:Smith609, seems to be away since the 23rd, but I see no need for a block at this time. If Citation bot 1 restarts then it should be blocked until the operator returns. EdJohnston (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Howardnug

new user, seven edits, reverted the Gang rape redirect back to the blocked users version and reverted RolandR on another edit - user self identifies as a racist on his userpage, appears to be a reincarnation of the blocked users User:Giornorosso and User:Lootsucker Off2riorob (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Read the discussion first!--Howardnug (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The Gang rape redirect was removed and the article created in this diff by User:Giornorosso on the 10 March, the user was blocked indefinitely for racist vandalism on the 13 March. - Off2riorob (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked; block evasion. NW (Talk) 17:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

"Original" userpage deleted, and replaced by one with an indef block notice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Socking confirmed via checkuser; other confirmed accounts include User:Lootsucker, User:Giornorosso, and User:Killtheniggur, all already blocked. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Brad. Any chance you could hardblock the IP? NW (Talk) 17:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for the swift administrative actions. Off2riorob (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Dekkappai's abusive edit summaries

Dekkappai, who claims to be retired, has returned to issue a string of abusive edit summaries in connection with a long-running content dispute over the notability of Japanese pornographic films [174] [175] [176]. Since he's deliberately trying to provoke a block ("I'll leave now before I'm blocked - which I've come to enjoy" [177]), to say nothing of this one [178]), may I suggest instead that his edit summaries be RevDel'd. His most recent block was for a profane personal attack in an edit summary [179] (also a potential RevDel), and he responded by baiting the blocking admin [180]. His comments go well beyond "ordinary" incivility and the standard blocking process hasn't been a deterrent. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

He seems upset and venting a little, he has contributed a lot but seems to have become disgruntled about policy updates and the changing editing environment. Without commenting on the rev-del of some of the edit summaries, imo we can afford to cut him some slack and hope if he comes back he is in a better frame of mind, any repeat of such would change my mind as he did almost appear to be trying for a restriction. Off2riorob (talk) 13:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

He's upset that his favored non-notable Japanese softcore movies are getting tagged for notability. I'm sorry, but boo-fucking-hoo. Articles get prodded for deletion all the time, it is a simple matter to remove it and fix the problem if it can be fixed. Why can 99 out of 100 editors deal with prods maturely and without dickish edit summaries, while 1 cannot? As for "Women at a Secret Meeting: From Wives to Coeds", is being named the 9th-best porn movie of the year really a notable achievement? Tarc (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

How come you're allowed to used naughty words without User:PBS raising an ANI against you? Malleus Fatuorum 16:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Depends on if a notable source gave it that award. If it was a major source, of course it's a notable achievement. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Can't wait to see the slew of pages created for "AVN Best Anal Sex Scene, 9th place" finishers. Tarc (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Dekkappai has been "venting" for quite a while, now. If he cannot refrain from taking snipes at others in the manner in which he has, then I support another block. –MuZemike 20:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi MuzeMike. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz coyly hides his long, long history of stalking, harrassing and edit-warring while deleting sourced material, of course. A block is moot now, since the only "contributions" I've made for nearly a year have been contributions to the noise-factor which is detrimental to the encyclopedia, I believe. HW seems confused that I consider this "Retirement", because noise factor, harrassment and deletion of sourced content is the only work he has done here.

If there is any doubt that Hullaballoo has made a practise of baiting me, look at this bit of chest-thumping made after his latest "success":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/The_Big_Bad_Wolfowitz

("The Big Bad Wolfowitz" is a name he applies to himself when he thinks he's baited a victim into a victory.) Also consider that immediately after any encounter with me he invariably begins mass-deletion of sourced material on articles on which I have worked. You can check his edit-history after his notifying me of this ANI post for the latest ones. Whenever I've attempted to discuss, or revert, he instigates an edit-war. You can read some of this history here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FHullaballoo_Wolfowitz&action=historysubmit&diff=395261235&oldid=395237543

I'm sorry for getting passionate and worked up about these subjects-- it causes me no pleasure either-- but if you check my edit-history before my being harrassed and baited by Hullaballoo, you can see that is because, unlike him, I've been a dedicated and passionate contributor of sourced content. Note that it is not ALL in the Pink genre which is so easily condemned:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Dekkappai&oldid=377776235

(As a side point-- since actual article content is a side-point at these discussions-- I've been extremely frustrated by culturally ignorant and biased comments towards the Pink film and the Roman Porno genres, made at AfDs, and here, by a few editors. Naturally, the more the lack of knowledge of the genre, the firmer their belief that their opinion is correct. There is no English equivalent to these genres. They are being wrongly equated, by these editors, with low-level US porn, such as the "anal sex scene" winners mentioned above. Pink films are the softest of erotic entertainment, often not erotic at all, but just films-- horror, comedy, sci-fi, drama, etc.-- containing a partial/censored nude scene every 15 minutes in their 60-minute running time. Pink films from the '60s might rate a PG here (in the U.S.) Current ones an "R" or "NC17" at the most. Note also that mainstream Japanese critics (Kinema Jumpo) have placed several of these films on their lists of greatest Japanese films of the last century. So censoring these articles under the fig-leaf of "GNG" is censoring a real, unbiased coverage of world cinema.)

Not that my opinion counts at all here, but personally, I feel it is to the project's disadvantage that it encourages the type of behavior in which Hullaballoo engages, while discouraging editors who make real contributions. Wrongly tagging an appropriate image for deletion is OK, calling the tagger incompetent is not. But it's a fact I've accepted, and I've moved on. In the few months I've been working at another project I've created over 1500 short articles on mainstream Japanese cinema-- yes, many "Pink" as well-- 1500 articles on the output of major studios-- I mean Daiei, Toho, Shochiku, etc.-- and winners of major Japanese awards which could be deleted here if some editor with a cultural/moral/national bias applied the English-centric GNG literally. Even Japan Academy-Award winners do not often meet GNG-- much less older Korean films--, so how often do award-winning indie-produced (Pink) films?

I am happy and productive at the other project, I am harrassed and frustrated at Wikipedia. I would hope this would cause concern to those who claim to care about Wikipedia, but I have come to the conclusion that, unfortunately, it is the way those in charge feel things should be.

Finally: To Off2riorob: You and I have had words in the past, and I would like to thank you for expressing some sympathy here. You show far more class than HW ever has. Dekkappai (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. A message from a productive, passionate editor driven off the project by a non-productive bully is posted to the Admin incident board, and results in... silence. Fine. This is the type of leadership that has made Wikipedia an unfit place for contributors such as myself, and a haven for non-productive bullies.

Besides many other obvious bad points (some of which have been exploited and paraded by Hullaballoo), I have a passion for research, for hard work, for finding obscure facts, and for SHARING that information. This, of course, makes me the sworn enemy of Wikipedia culture. This is why my career here has ended in dismal failure. Fine. But at the other project at which I am now working, I need to hunt information on Japanese cinema. Often I find some of that sourced information at Wikipedia. (Wiki-culture being what it is, out of the thousands of potential contributors, that sourced information is almost invariably information that I myself added. Fine. I was happy to do so.) I have to check the article's edit-history, of course, to find a pre-bastardized, pre-vandalized version. And in doing so, I usually come across edits such as this one from Hullaballoo: "anachronistic and unreliable; early 1990's data applied to field 10-15 years later" Note that the linked article was printed in the Tokyo Journal and was authored by author and TV & newspaper journalist Kjell Fornander. Dubbing this source "unreliable" is child's play to Hullaballoo, who has also removed citations to the Los Angeles Times if they support something he doesn't want to see at Wikipedia. As for "anachronistic", lead of the article states, "Eri Kikuchi (菊池えり / 菊池エリ, Kikuchi Eri) is an early Japanese AV idol of the 1980s...." Well, if "consensus" says the 1980s were 10-15 years after the publication date of this article (1992), then that is that. That's how it works here. Again, fine.

But that personality quirk of mine makes me want to revert this removal of reliably-sourced information. Hullaballoo will then instigate an edit war. Having first had my intelligence insulted with the blatantly dishonest edit-summary with which HW removed the content, and now further goaded into warring, I will react with invective, and he will report me. So, to prevent this happening in the future, will someone please block me permanently?

Also. I fully expect Hullaballoo and like-uh... "minded" editors to eventually mis-tag, bastardize and delete everything I've contributed here. Fine. That's what goes on here. But I do not want their notices cluttering up my talk pages, which should now be considered dead. I don't want these vandals dancing on my grave. I consider this unnecessary taunting. I get it: This is not a place for content, it is a place for battling. I am good at battling, and have beaten Hullaballoow and thugs like him every time I've taken a stand, but I didn't come here for this, and that is why I have left. I came to work on articles. So please protect my talk pages. The banning and talk-page protection go for: User:Rizzleboffin, User:Otis Criblecoblis, and User:Dekkappai. I think someone made a rule against banning users upon their own request, so if I need to be insulting, make further personal attacks, etc., to earn these bans and page protections. I will be happy to oblige, but I hope we can cut through the red tape. Dekkappai (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the Big Bad Wolfowitz isn't the one doing all the huffing and puffing today. Dekkappai's recycling a lot of his old invective, virtually all of which relates to accusations he's made in the past that have been rejected by the community, and none of which can justify the level of personal abuse he directs at users he's in disagreement with. To cover, briefly, the stuff that's not warmed over: "The Big Bad Wolfowitz" is my login at commons, where I don't do much, and I don't quite understand why it turned up here, when I had logged in under my regular en-wiki ID. It's hardly a "identity" suitable for "chest-thumping" and such, but a bit of self-deprecation, as anybody familiar with the ending of the story about the wolf and his porcine nemeses might recognize. The edits involved, which Dekkappai had no connection to, involved the uncontroversial deletion of an unlicensed image of a Japanese porn performer, uploaded by an SPA as the public domain creation of the "Environmental Protection Agency."

Dekkappai's problematic sourcing practices, particularly with regarding to incorporating porn advertising into BLPs, have been at issue for years (see [181] and [182] for another example), and he simply rejects consensus and policy in lieu of his own preferences, teeing off on users who try to implement BLP requirements. His I-am-no-longer-editing-Wikipedia-because-of-malignant-editor-X has been going on for even longer (see here [183] for a 2008 example, noting in particular the edit summary). At some point this "farewell tour" needs to come to a stop, and I believe that removing his petulant, well-beyond-ordinarily-uncivil edit summaries would be appropriate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Probable sockpuppets

I believe that users Info1111 and Dragondevil are the same person. They are both single-purpose accounts involved in editing Ivana Herak. After Dragondevil was reverted on March 24, the new user Info1111 appeared and began making nearly identical edits. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 17:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I've notified both users. GiantSnowman 17:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:SPI is that way. lifebaka++ 18:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It would probably be declined on the basis of the duck test. The one ID created the article, the other one re-posted some of the same stuff (such as links to twitter) that the other ID had previously entered. He/they is/are obviously fans of this model he/they are writing about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm seeing different (but similar) edits, so I think Bugs is right. Maybe a short-term full protection will get them to look elsewhere? Just my 2p worth... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Are links to blogs and twitter appropriate external links? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I tried Google and the most prominent things that turn up are facebook, linkedin and blogs. In short, all self-promotion. I tried Google Images and this supposedly locally famous female model doesn't even turn up. This article looks destined for deletion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

User:K22UFC personal attacks

K22UFC (talk · contribs) received his only warning for telling another user to "fuck off" a few days ago, but has continued to attack other users. Today, he told a group of editors "You guys must be blind", told another user "You make [wiki records] look like shit", and proceeded to systematically undo that user's edits. —LOL ^T/_C 20:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

also user:K22UFC tried to remove this entry [184] noclador (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Check this out. He says he wants flag icons added to MMA records for fighters. So I added some to the "opponents" a fighter has faced here. Then, without even looking at what he's doing, he reverts my change out of spite (thereby removing some flag icons in the process, the very thing he's fighting for) here. With an edit summary that states, "do you honestly think it looks better your way?". Then, on top of not realizing that he's just reverted a change he'd actually be in favor for, he goes to the project talk page and begins complaining that removal of flag icons looks ugly, here. Either he has no clue what he's doing when editing Wikipedia, or he's simply just disruptive editing out of spite. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 21:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Johan se

76.91.62.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Johan se (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

... is at it again. Time to block him and his (?) IP that did the previous edit? Using that same photo again. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I posted that guy to AIV twice last week and the admins wouldn't take action. Maybe they will now? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Note his IP "companion", who's also been at this for awhile. It's still awaiting action at AIV. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Johan se was given another warning at 01:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC), and the IP then reinserted the problematic image at 04:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC). Assuming that the IP and the user are the same person (which I think is reasonable) I've blocked Johan se indefinitely, as we really need to get some communication from him before we can let him continue, and the IP for a week. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC) (updated -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC))

Thank you! I have requested lengthy semi-protection for the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

...which was denied. I had thought copyright violations were a major issue? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it is pretty serious - I'll keep it watchlisted and I'll semi-protect it if we see more of the same from IPs -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The user Johan se is not blocked on the Commons, but I have watch-listed the name where he most recently uploaded the pic and will keep an eye out for further uploads over there. They have a shortage of admins over there. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep an eye on the IP as well. Believe it or not, the user (as an IP) actually spoke to a Commons admin[185] after the latest deletion. He then had a few words with Johan in Swedish, which according to Google translate works out to be: "You did not hear from you, though I also had told you at one: User talk: Johan se # Repeated edits to Helena Mattsson. You should write to COM: OTRS to convince them that it's your image (if it is your image). Greetings." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

User impersonating an administrator

Resolved

 – Anon blocked, apology issued to user. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 09:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The following interchange has been left on my talk page: 1, 2, 3.

This seems to be an unregistered user (the giveaway) impersonating an administrator (I believe strictly prohibited and enforced). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 09:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the exchange of the IP and the user above and replaced it with direct diffs of the IPs actions. This shows exactly what happened, but doesn't clog up the page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 09:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've reverted the IP's disgusting comments, and it's been blocked by Lear's Fool (talk · contribs). Thanks to Neutralhomer for replacing the interchange above with diffs. The image was, um, rather disconcerting. Goodvac (talk) 09:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I have issued an apology to Punkt for the anon's behavior. With that, I think we can mark this resolved, but I would like to get some eyes on Punkt's talk page in case the anon comes back or IP jumps. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 09:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Would a checkuser be effective in this case for determining who did it? The use of template substing and their comments seems to suggest that they have an account.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, round up a checkuser and see if they can track the person down. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 19:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, nada. –MuZemike 23:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks Mike. Appreciate you takin' a look. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 01:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Max Cream

Resolved

A few days ago I tidied up the article on Max Cream - adding a better infobox, adding in-line citations, and removing any and all unreferenced information. This morning, my edits had been reverted by 188.141.120.224 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - so I changed them back to the more appropriate version. The IP continued to revert my improvements, I reverted back, and after I had issued a final warning to them, Whatupfool909 (talk · contribs) appeared and reverted the page back to the IP's version (I haven't touched the article since, for fear of breaching WP:3RR). Now, here's where it gets interesting - Whatupfool909 claims to be the subject of the article. Because this doesn't quite fit either WP:AIV or WP:COIN, I thought I'd bring it here for some help/advice. Thanks in advance, GiantSnowman 19:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looks to me like two different users. The IP seems to have some ownership issues, and I'm not seeing where they're getting the info they're trying to put in...although I'm no expert on footy. As far as Whatupfool909 goes, I'd say it's either an issues for COIN or they're an impostor/troll. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Immediately after giving a final warning to an IP regarding edits to an article, a user edits for the first time since November 2008 to make the EXACT same edits? You're telling me that isn't suspicious at all? GiantSnowman 21:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm I've been known to make mistakes... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Haha, no problems! Either way, it looks to be (eventually!) sorted now - the editor seems to have finally acknowledged that Wikipedia has certain methods/guidelines, has stopped editing about himself, and is happy to allow other editors to edit the article about him. He has found additional sources, listed them on his talkpage, and I have been adding any appropriate ones to the article. GiantSnowman 23:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Block request for User:82.34.156.44

Resolved

 – user blocked for one day. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

82.34.156.144 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been warned already for disruptive editing back on March 7th and since then has continued his disruptive editing ways no less than 46 times. He never provides an explanation for his changes, never provides a source or reference for his changes, and I've had to request a page protection for his little escapades twice today at UFC Fight Night: Seattle. I admit I haven't asked this user to stop his disruptive edits, but someone else already has almost a month ago, and he barely even slowed down. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 22:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Funny enough, as soon as I filed this ANI and went to go alert the IP to it, the User Page and Talk Page were removed resulting in red links now. I'm not sure how this happened, but I might as well report it now. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 22:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The diff in your original post is for 82.34.156.44. Tiderolls 22:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

User(s) blocked.. Normally I like to see more recent notifications in the case of an ip but this is obviously the same user, and they have never edited a talk page, apparently believing they could fly under the radar forever. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

IP 86.154.21.51

Resolved

 – for now anyway, user blocked for 31 hours by Materialscientist (talk · contribs). Beeblebrox (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

This editor made some gross remarks on my talk page [186], [187]. I expect more later, because I keep having to revert more stuff like this, and I don't want to deal with it. Can someone please block? Jsayre64 (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat gross, and mostly incomprehensible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Idh0854

The user repeatedly removed references from Gimbap. [188], [189], [190], [191], [192], [193], [194], [195], [196], [197], [198], and [199]. I checked the sources. Even a Korean source says it's originated in Japan, which is one of the sources the user removed and other sources support the Japanese origin. Well, the Google translation is terrible. Putting it properly, it says "Gimchobapeseo is derived from Japanese food norimaki and it is assumed that in our country the food started to be eaten a lot in the modern age." I asked the user to provide RS that the current references are not correct. But the user did not provide any source. See Talk:Gimbap#The origin of Gimbap and the user's talk is not polite enough, other user tried to talk with sources though. The user removed the warning I posted. Now the user reverted his/her edit three times. As far as I know, not a single editor is able to find any historical records of gimbap before the annexation by Japan. This is not a content dispute but it is clearly the blind removal of RS by a point of view pusher and disruptive. Please block the user. Oda Mari (talk) 08:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, sir. I'm having a big problem with this request. One, you are relevant person about dispute of the document. Two, I am rollback last version about warrior edit, after that conduct a discussion. And I keep the 3RR. But user:Acuwer not keep 3RR. Also, you supported him, saying that he was right. Therefore this request is no "neutral point of view". Thank you. --Idh0854 (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Look at the this edit. I am finding internet source, because the user want to it. I will write about source in the talk document, soon. :( --Idh0854 (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Add London cuts protest to ITN template (with the code that needs changing :))

Resolved

 – Posted by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs). Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 09:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

If someone could add it to the ITN template that would be great. The story was marked as being ready nearly 8 hours ago, and there appears to be good consensus to post

The code that needs adding to the template is as follows:

{{*mp|March 26}} 250 thousand people '''[[2011 anti-cuts protest in London|protest]]''' against [[United_Kingdom_coalition_government_(2010–present)#Public_spending_cuts|government spending cuts]] in London — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eraserhead1 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Before any admin posts, please review the link above to determine if the blurb given here is adequate or if an alternative blurb which I've suggested there would be better, to avoid leading with a number. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 09:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to update my listing here with your blurb :p. To add that you'd use the text below:

{{*mp|March 26}} A '''[[2011 anti-cuts protest in London|protest]]''' against [[United_Kingdom_coalition_government_(2010–present)#Public_spending_cuts|government spending cuts]] in London draws 250,000 people, making it the largest protest in Britain since [[protests against the Iraq War]].. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

95.8.144.160/85.107.240.253/88.253.113.96

IP user, which I believe is using these three IPs, is keep editing the Mongol Empire page even though adds no new reference. I keep reverting it back to the correct, like other users but the IP continues to change size of the Empire from 33,000,000 km2 to 34,000,000 km2, even though the reference has not been updated. --SuperDan89 (talk) 11:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Page protected. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! --SuperDan89 (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Mokele

Mokele has blatantly violated Wikipedia's rules against canvasing during an AfD discussion about the Herping article thereby thoroughly contaminating the process [200] He's also been rude, but I'd rather fellow admins focus on the canvassing problem and the result disruption of the AfD process. Rklawton (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, and I participated in the discussion, but I think this is clearly a bit rude, but not a violation of rules against canvassing. Mokele only posted to a WikiProject, and looking at Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification this looks fine. —innotata 23:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

How is notifying the project overseeing the page any sort of violation? As for my behavior, let's talk about the behavior of tagging a page for deletion on the flimsiest of grounds, never so much as asking on the talk page about the issues, never stopping consider that your premature deletion notice might be wrong before proceeding to yet another level of deletion procedures, and ignoring the advice of experts on the topic (namely myself). Mokele (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Notifying a relevant project about a deletion nomination is fine. However such notifications are expected to be neutrally worded, which this obviously was not. I don't see any need for any administrative action, just consider yourself informed as of now to be sure to provide a neutrally worded notice in such situations in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Mokele, you don't even have your Ph.D. yet and you think of yourself as an expert? Wikpedia has a long standing policy against allowing experts to publish original research. Articles require verifiable, reliable secondary sources - the article you are defending has none - and had been tagged as such for two years. Rklawton (talk) 01:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

His baiting continues.[201] Rklawton (talk) 01:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Non admin/non PHD holder here. So don't take the bait? Anyway, the canvassing has already been addressed. Just go through the process in good faith...or take it to the WP:NORN board if you think it's an issue. In my experience, admins don't normally get involved in pissing matches. David Able (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You know, I had a whole long reply posted, but frankly, screw it. It's pretty goddamn clear nobody cares about information, just rules. Mokele (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. I don't see where rules have gone before information you wanted to add. If you ask me, you should just avoid continuing your dispute; personally, I can't see why you could be concerned about the article now. —innotata 02:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

(wrote this before above comments) I don't know if anything should be done about this, and I'm not entirely neutral and uninvolved, but this is a rather nasty dispute between both of the two editors. I would think Rklawton shouldn't have brought this to ANI without mentioning what he's been doing. In last these comments, Mokele probably doesn't need to be told that Wikipedia doesn't allow OR, and Mokele's qualifications are likely irrelevant here. —innotata 02:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the actual complaint here is justified. Unless somebody is going to claim that

“ The article herping has been nominated for deletion here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Herping, for extremely poor and primarily bureaucratic reasons. Given that is a Mid-Importance article representing an extremely widespread practice, I think we need to all show up on that page and prevent the deletion. It's been neglected, but that doesn't mean it needs to get the axe. ”

is an acceptable format for notifying a WikiProject? --RexxS (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not neutral. "I think we need to all show up on that page and prevent the deletion" makes that clear. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Nevertheless, we're basically done here: Mokele has learned a little more about process, Innotata has learned what does and does not count as neutral wording on a notification, and there are new eyes on the topic. If it survives its AfD it'll be due to the work done to improve it rather than because the AfD gives a misleading impression of consensus. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Goodness, I knew this wasn't neutral; it just looks like it's a dispute and not just on Mokele's part. I was going to comment on the neutrality of the phrasing at AAR, but I was mostly thinking of the AfD; that this was indeed of obvious notability, which should probably be the main factor in the AfD. —innotata 17:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfair tagging in Mdvanii article

A person named Legalpower continually tags the Mdvanii article with a COI tag because one of the contributors made the mistake of using a name related to the subject by newbie error last year. He explained clearly with many senior wiki editors that it was because he had written for info to the source for copyright and for additional source info to use in citations.He also wrote to a source related to the source for info. He changed his name and the article despite this error is fine and has a grade B level with the LGBT studies on wikiprojects. The article has anumber of contributors and is very well documented. He claims to have checked sources but he has not done so correctly. Citation ten for example is in French and is for the INPI and you have to enter the inforamtion carefully to get the desired information, which he did not do. Other citations are just not uup on the net but checkable in the library of congress and other sources which require more difficult checking. I and others apparently have all checked these sources and they all check out. I have read the books mentioned as well. I think this person Legalpower has a hidden agenda and i want the article protected from him and other which do not justify themselves or use the error of the one person who worked on the artiocle last year. The article is completely correct.ALphaWord (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Tags are not supposed to be assumed to be badges of shame. Dispute tags such as {{COI}} are supposed to be left in place while discussion takes place on talk; readers are supposed to evaluate what the talk page says if they have any doubts as to the veracity of the allegations. If nobody else agrees with Legalpower's position, the tag will be removed as stale in due course. No adminstrative action is required here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, a bit was; OP blocked for abusing multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Gullah Gullah Island episode list addition

I have an episode recorded: Miss Ella Mae Breadsticks. This aired 12/25/1994 and is not on the episode list. I cannot edit the episode list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3polarbearz (talk • contribs) 15:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I could find no protection on the page so I've responded on the user's talk. Tiderolls 15:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Roman Catholic IP edits

Resolved

 – Blocked for a week. Repeat offender, unthinking POV-pushing creating multiple issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

71.50.28.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly changed the term "Roman Catholic" to "Catholic" on various articles without consensus. Other users have tried to discuss with this user but they insist that Roman Catholic church procedure trumps Wikipedia policy: [202] This has even gone to the extent of editing other user's comments to remove the word "Roman": [203]. On the user's talk page, there is also something that appears to possibly be a personal attack calling a user an "apostate", but as it seems to have been a copy-paste from somewhere I can't find the specific diff from which it probably originated. Kansan (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that was definitely a personal attack, and I've warned the editor. He's got a bad habit of changing RC->C regardless of location in the article -- he's broken wikilinks and categories with his changes, as well as book titles. Might be worth keeping an eye on his contribs until he gets the clue... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Since I guess you could say I'm involved by opening this, I'm going to steer away from even the appearance of edit warring, but might the next best thing at this point be to look at his edits today and restore "Roman" where appropriate? Kansan (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

No -- we should only reverse them when there's a reasonable possibility of confusion, as with Apostolic Catholic Church last week. Otherwise, Edit Warring Is Bad. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

As a self identified member of the community I will concur that "Catholic" and "Roman Catholic" are used interchangeably, except in company of people who may be Eastern Orthodox (as the wiki is) in which case the more specific term is used. IP editor claims both religious training and subject matter expertise, yet demonstrated behavior very counter to the principles espoused by their claimed profession. I would recommend the IP be reminded to not make changes against consensus and to move the user along the disruptive/tendentious editing scale (up to and including semi protection and IP blocking) Hasteur (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean "Eastern Greek Catholic", right? Because the major problem here is that in many situations he's removing "Roman" in places where we are trying to differentiate between Latin and Greek rites (as in diocese names). This has absolutely nothing to do with Orthodox Christianity - Eastern Catholics are absolutely not Orthodox. This is much, much touchier and prone to misinterpretation than US editors may realize - the idea that Eastern Catholics aren't really Catholic, which is what this wholesale change could imply, has triggered wars. Can we please stop this editor? --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: "I will concur that "Catholic" and "Roman Catholic" are used interchangeably" - in some circles, yes, but there are more circles than just Eastern Orthodox Christianity in which they're not. My local C of E (Anglican) church, for example, bills itself as part of the "Holy Catholic Church", but is neither RC nor Eastern Orthodox. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

What Boing said. The word "catholic", whether capitalized or not, simply means "universal". Take a look at the Apostles' Creed, which multiple mainstream denominations subscribe to. Despite their respective liturgies' recitation that adherents believe in "the holy catholic church" or "the Holy Catholic Church", you won't find many Methodists or Presbyterians who take the Pope of Rome as their spiritual leader, I believe. And while the Oxford English Dictionary does acknowledge the informal use of "Catholic" to mean "Roman Catholic", its first definition of the phrase "Catholic Church" is "the Church universal, the whole body of Christians".

So, yes, someone needs to block this IP if he changes "Roman Catholic" to just "Catholic" again.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

There's two issues here. Firstly, the IP editor's intrasingence. It is unacceptable for him to display such a dismissive attitude to Wikipedia's policy of consensus. Especially when he introduces factual errors into article related to the church he claims to be clergy in, as shown by his quasi-signatures on his talk page.

The second is more general. The term "Roman Catholic" is not always appropriate for all things related to the institution headed by the pope. "Roman Catholic" is the common name for the institutions and members of the Latin Church only, and does not properly apply to Eastern Catholics, who are members of the other 21 sui juris churches in communion with the pope. It's a complex issue, as Eastern Catholics aren't members of the "Roman Catholic Church", that is the Latin Church, but are part of the "Catholic Church" as defined as those in communion with the pope. So sometimes removing the "Roman" is correct when referring to all Catholics, eastern and western.

However, the IP hasn't shown that is his concern at all. Indeed he seems dismissive of those concerns, showing a lack of understanding of these matters that is simply incorrect, and un unwillingness to listen at all. oknazevad (talk) 04:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• One should also note that if left as just "Catholic", it could cause even more continued confusion as "Catholic" doesn't mean just the Catholic Church, but can mean the entire Christian Church, as noted fourth paragraph of Catholic. So, this definitely needs to be reverted else we will have a ton of people thinking we are meaning the entire Christian Church and not just the Catholic Church. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 05:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

  The fact that he is even editing other users' talk page comments shows the disregard he has for accuracy in this regard. Kansan (talk) 05:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Please note that this editor is a repeat offender – you can see a list of the IPs he's edited under here – who has been told repeatedly that his edits are disruptive, and has been blocked for it under most of those IP addresses. His edits should, in my opinion, be reverted on sight, since it's been a long time since he conrtibuted anythying useful to the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked for a week. If it were a userid I would have blocked indefinitely, but there's no point here, he'll just find a new IP, as evidenced by his history. Since this is effectively an editor evading many blocks, I would recommend just reverting all edits on sight. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Sexual abuse allegation?

Resolved

 – via oversight  Chzz  ►  18:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I just erased this edit. I suppose I'll also email to the foundation emergency address too, but I think the edit's visibility should be changed as well. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 05:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the report, we're on it. Oversight may be a good option here. Thanks for the report. Christine, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted the revision visibility.   Will Beback  talk  06:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

As for Oversight, you can report that at WP:RFO, check for the email link at the top. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 06:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Neutralhomer. I'll do that. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

All addressed, thanks. Risker (talk) 07:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Roman Catholic IP edits

Resolved

 – Blocked for a week. Repeat offender, unthinking POV-pushing creating multiple issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

71.50.28.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly changed the term "Roman Catholic" to "Catholic" on various articles without consensus. Other users have tried to discuss with this user but they insist that Roman Catholic church procedure trumps Wikipedia policy: [204] This has even gone to the extent of editing other user's comments to remove the word "Roman": [205]. On the user's talk page, there is also something that appears to possibly be a personal attack calling a user an "apostate", but as it seems to have been a copy-paste from somewhere I can't find the specific diff from which it probably originated. Kansan (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that was definitely a personal attack, and I've warned the editor. He's got a bad habit of changing RC->C regardless of location in the article -- he's broken wikilinks and categories with his changes, as well as book titles. Might be worth keeping an eye on his contribs until he gets the clue... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Since I guess you could say I'm involved by opening this, I'm going to steer away from even the appearance of edit warring, but might the next best thing at this point be to look at his edits today and restore "Roman" where appropriate? Kansan (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

No -- we should only reverse them when there's a reasonable possibility of confusion, as with Apostolic Catholic Church last week. Otherwise, Edit Warring Is Bad. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

As a self identified member of the community I will concur that "Catholic" and "Roman Catholic" are used interchangeably, except in company of people who may be Eastern Orthodox (as the wiki is) in which case the more specific term is used. IP editor claims both religious training and subject matter expertise, yet demonstrated behavior very counter to the principles espoused by their claimed profession. I would recommend the IP be reminded to not make changes against consensus and to move the user along the disruptive/tendentious editing scale (up to and including semi protection and IP blocking) Hasteur (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean "Eastern Greek Catholic", right? Because the major problem here is that in many situations he's removing "Roman" in places where we are trying to differentiate between Latin and Greek rites (as in diocese names). This has absolutely nothing to do with Orthodox Christianity - Eastern Catholics are absolutely not Orthodox. This is much, much touchier and prone to misinterpretation than US editors may realize - the idea that Eastern Catholics aren't really Catholic, which is what this wholesale change could imply, has triggered wars. Can we please stop this editor? --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: "I will concur that "Catholic" and "Roman Catholic" are used interchangeably" - in some circles, yes, but there are more circles than just Eastern Orthodox Christianity in which they're not. My local C of E (Anglican) church, for example, bills itself as part of the "Holy Catholic Church", but is neither RC nor Eastern Orthodox. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

What Boing said. The word "catholic", whether capitalized or not, simply means "universal". Take a look at the Apostles' Creed, which multiple mainstream denominations subscribe to. Despite their respective liturgies' recitation that adherents believe in "the holy catholic church" or "the Holy Catholic Church", you won't find many Methodists or Presbyterians who take the Pope of Rome as their spiritual leader, I believe. And while the Oxford English Dictionary does acknowledge the informal use of "Catholic" to mean "Roman Catholic", its first definition of the phrase "Catholic Church" is "the Church universal, the whole body of Christians".

So, yes, someone needs to block this IP if he changes "Roman Catholic" to just "Catholic" again.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

There's two issues here. Firstly, the IP editor's intrasingence. It is unacceptable for him to display such a dismissive attitude to Wikipedia's policy of consensus. Especially when he introduces factual errors into article related to the church he claims to be clergy in, as shown by his quasi-signatures on his talk page.

The second is more general. The term "Roman Catholic" is not always appropriate for all things related to the institution headed by the pope. "Roman Catholic" is the common name for the institutions and members of the Latin Church only, and does not properly apply to Eastern Catholics, who are members of the other 21 sui juris churches in communion with the pope. It's a complex issue, as Eastern Catholics aren't members of the "Roman Catholic Church", that is the Latin Church, but are part of the "Catholic Church" as defined as those in communion with the pope. So sometimes removing the "Roman" is correct when referring to all Catholics, eastern and western.

However, the IP hasn't shown that is his concern at all. Indeed he seems dismissive of those concerns, showing a lack of understanding of these matters that is simply incorrect, and un unwillingness to listen at all. oknazevad (talk) 04:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• One should also note that if left as just "Catholic", it could cause even more continued confusion as "Catholic" doesn't mean just the Catholic Church, but can mean the entire Christian Church, as noted fourth paragraph of Catholic. So, this definitely needs to be reverted else we will have a ton of people thinking we are meaning the entire Christian Church and not just the Catholic Church. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 05:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

  The fact that he is even editing other users' talk page comments shows the disregard he has for accuracy in this regard. Kansan (talk) 05:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Please note that this editor is a repeat offender – you can see a list of the IPs he's edited under here – who has been told repeatedly that his edits are disruptive, and has been blocked for it under most of those IP addresses. His edits should, in my opinion, be reverted on sight, since it's been a long time since he conrtibuted anythying useful to the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked for a week. If it were a userid I would have blocked indefinitely, but there's no point here, he'll just find a new IP, as evidenced by his history. Since this is effectively an editor evading many blocks, I would recommend just reverting all edits on sight. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Sexual abuse allegation?

Resolved

 – via oversight  Chzz  ►  18:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I just erased this edit. I suppose I'll also email to the foundation emergency address too, but I think the edit's visibility should be changed as well. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 05:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the report, we're on it. Oversight may be a good option here. Thanks for the report. Christine, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted the revision visibility.   Will Beback  talk  06:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

As for Oversight, you can report that at WP:RFO, check for the email link at the top. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 06:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Neutralhomer. I'll do that. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

All addressed, thanks. Risker (talk) 07:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet

Keeps adding probably non-sensical names to New York dialect such as JFK (famous for his Boston accent) and Ottawa born-raised Paul Anka. I've reverted twice, and he or his sock have almost instantly reverted. He's ignored my note on his Talk page. He's also been warned repeatedly before for other acts of vandalism. Bellagio99 (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you give a list of user names that you find problematic? For the record, these are the ones I have found:

• Target Jackson (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
• 71.225.11.126 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Cheers, —mc10 (t/c) 20:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

This is me, Target Jackson. To clear up any confusion, I have had some trouble logging in, thus you will sometimes see my IP address and other times my username. I would be glad to resolve any editing disputes civilly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.11.126 (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive new account

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely by Iridescent (talk · contribs). Goodvac (talk) 01:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

This account, User:Deathblazer, (likely a puppet) started today and has done a number of vandalism only posts, including vandalizing my talk page and blatant personal attacks: [206], [207], [208], [209], [210], [211], [212]. User notified here: [213] Niteshift36 (talk) 01:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Warning him doesn't seem likely to have much effect: [214]. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Glitch?

I just made an edit here [215] but my edit is not showing in the revision history. Is this some sort of glitch? Pass a Method talk 23:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It's showing up now. There may have been a server lag while they installed the new security certificate. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey dont worry, i can finally see my edit in the history. That took around 8 minutes to show up. Weird. Pass a Method talk 23:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I was wondering why my browser suddenly asked for a security certificate exception thing earlier. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I frequently don't see my edits immediately after saving them. I occasionally create a page, and after saving it get a "This page doesn't exist" screen. I've always attributed these glitches to multple servers without real-time updating (it may take a few secinds for all the servers to know about the newest edits). These problems only last a few seconds - when I reload a page after that, everything looks right.

And this is the wrong place for these questions - take them to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Attack

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely by Materialscientist (talk · contribs). Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Jobe457 (talk · contribs) has come back from a 2 year retirement to attack me repeatedly on both his talk page and mine. I think this recent spate comes from my repeated removal of unsourced information he was adding to Music City Mall, but that was back in October 2008. It's odd that he waited until now to attack me, but this is clearly unacceptable. Can someone block him for continuing to attack after a level 4 warning? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• Also, there're these two from 2006 and a third from 2008, all three of which are ad hominem attacks at the same editor. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Jobe be gawn, bye-bye. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Glitch?

I just made an edit here [216] but my edit is not showing in the revision history. Is this some sort of glitch? Pass a Method talk 23:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It's showing up now. There may have been a server lag while they installed the new security certificate. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey dont worry, i can finally see my edit in the history. That took around 8 minutes to show up. Weird. Pass a Method talk 23:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I was wondering why my browser suddenly asked for a security certificate exception thing earlier. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I frequently don't see my edits immediately after saving them. I occasionally create a page, and after saving it get a "This page doesn't exist" screen. I've always attributed these glitches to multple servers without real-time updating (it may take a few secinds for all the servers to know about the newest edits). These problems only last a few seconds - when I reload a page after that, everything looks right.

And this is the wrong place for these questions - take them to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Attack

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely by Materialscientist (talk · contribs). Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Jobe457 (talk · contribs) has come back from a 2 year retirement to attack me repeatedly on both his talk page and mine. I think this recent spate comes from my repeated removal of unsourced information he was adding to Music City Mall, but that was back in October 2008. It's odd that he waited until now to attack me, but this is clearly unacceptable. Can someone block him for continuing to attack after a level 4 warning? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• Also, there're these two from 2006 and a third from 2008, all three of which are ad hominem attacks at the same editor. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Jobe be gawn, bye-bye. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

This user appears to be "hounding me."

Note: It appears that User:Gharr posted a comment to this thread just as it was being archived, which resulted in the comment being inappropirately appended to another thread. I've restored the thread from the archive, as Gharr apparently doesn't think the issue is resolved, but I do so being fundamentally unaware of anything about the situation and circumstances of the complaint, just as a matter of tidying up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This section of my talk page describes the situation: User_talk:Gharr#3rr.

I have seen nothing but bad behaviour from aministrators (I include reviewers in that group) I'm far from impressed and I am not happy to see biographies defaced and the reviewers and administrators just ignoring it for far to long--Jacque Fresco article.

I have not contacted this user called User:Sloane and my user page explains why: User_talk:Gharr#3rr. I'm not going to pretend to be nice to a user that is obviously abusive (the defacing of Jacque Fresco article and everyone pretending everying was fine for far too told me enough about this person and the way things are adminstered here) and hounding people is also not acceptable.

(Gharr (talk) 05:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC))--I await to be banned by one of these fine abusive reviewers and adminstrators one day...

See WP:BOOMERANG; you may not have to wait all that long. Damned, Gold Hat (talk) 05:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Jack, the talk page was too long, could you please summarise it? Jammed, --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I didn't read it all. I've no idea what the anon post on the user page means, and the Venus page is passing-strange. Damned, Gold Hat^{off-the-reservation
sockpuppet}06:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Hey, I'm the user Gharr is talking about. First of all, I was not notified by Gharr of this, which seems blatantly against the guidelines of ANI (thanks to user:Gold Hat for informing me). Secondly, pretty much the only contact that I've had with Gharr, is me warning him of the 3rr rule [217][218], as I noticed a small edit war going on at The Venus Project page. This seems hardly like hounding a user. Methinks User:Gharr should learn assume some good faith. --Sloane (talk) 06:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • And methinks this is just another user that fails to understand the difference between "Excuse me, you're violating our policies, here's what you did wrong and how to avoid this mistake in the future" and "Good day. I am Staler Moriarty. I see you're trying to enrich Wikipedia with Truthful content, which I can't allow because I'm evil! See these vicious and spiteful warning messages, they're what expresses my personal hatred towards all your efforts and my desire to see your purely constructive work being undone byte by byte while the administrator cabal laughs at your misery." No, it's not personal, it's a matter of competence from time to time. 212.68.15.66 (talk) 09:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• I'm the person Gharr was involved in an edit war with. User:Sloane is not hounding you, and the links you've provided on your talk page don't even show any evidence of that (and two of the edits don't even point to edits made by User:Sloane, that should be grounds for a ban based on false claims). It seems User:Gharr is the one here with the POV issue. Gharr's personal blog has him as an obvious fan of the Zeitgeist/Venus milieu, and he's become a watchdog of those pages, and lashes out at anyone who dares make edits he's not pleased with (see the case with Sloane for instance, or the case of myself providing a scholarly take on Millennarian movements from Cambridge press, to which Gharr deleted).--Evud (talk) 12:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Also see this on Gharr's talk page where he believes there is a conspiracy afoot as to people editing The Venus Project.--Evud (talk) 12:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Section Missing From This Article

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.

---

I made a complaint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#This_user_appears_to_be_.22hounding_me..22

And nothing has been resoved from what I can so far see on your page...the document simply goes into the archives. Perhaps this page is simply a page for my opponents to attack me...

I'm not even sure if I have the access level to see a archived page? Where is it? What happens if the issue is not resolved? Is this how you greet all new editors here?

I've tried to do what I can, now perhaps you might do your part in informing me on what is going on...

My complaints are still listed on my user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gharr#3rr they have not gone away.

(Gharr (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC))

As noted in the header, any topic without comment for 48 hours is automatically archived. While in a few cases this may be premature, most of the time it means there has been sufficient comment (some times no comment may be sufficient) so it's not worth pursuing the matter further, or at least not at ANI. The archives are near the top of the page right next to the table of contents (on the right). There is also a search box clearly shown at the top of the page although because our search algorithm can sometimes be a bit slow you may not always find what you want if it's only recently been archived (it didn't work for me). If you don't find it in the searchbox or you otherwise know it's recently been archived then checking out the most recent archive or in a few case the one before will do. In this specific case the most recent archive does indeed work, it's at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive681#This user appears to be "hounding me.".

I would note there were several problems with your original post. Do remember if you want people to help you, you yourself should make an effort to ask for help in a way which doesn't cause unnecessary work for others. 1) You did not notify the person you were complaining about. The header clearly says you should. (While this was rectified by someone else, they should not have needed to do so.) There are few good reasons for not doing so, the only one I can think of of the top of my head is if you've been banned from a user's talk page by the community or have voluntarily agreed not to post there after being asked (or otherwise to resolve a dispute). But even in that case you should clearly specify you didn't follow the requirements explaining why and asking someone to do it for you. 2) Several people already mentioned this directly or indirectly and I myself encountered when I first saw your original thread a while back. No one can really tell what your complaint is because you're directing us to your very, very, very long talk page and none of us want to try and work it out. It's possible if you summarise your complaint you may get better help. But I should warn you as others have already said from what we have seen there's a strong risk this is going to WP:BOOMERANG. So I would personally just drop it taking the advice people have already given on board.

Nil Einne (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Good advice, Nil Einne. I started to try to figger the problem, full of good will, but it was just too much work and TLDR, and I couldn't work it out from the user talkpage. Sorry, Gharr, but there's competition for admin attention on this board. You need to present your complaint in a more accessible and less time-consuming way. Bishonen | talk 23:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC).

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

--(Gharr (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

Thankyou for pointing out the archives, it has been most helpful. It shows that there has been not decision made—it has been left to drift into the disposal bin that you call the archives. Obviously the work load must be way too much for you administrators.

Please let me make it easy for you, this short but sweet passage might also be too long for you to read: say it rambles on, boomerangs will return, and you did not really read it before going on to do other more important things…

My long complaint did not only include User:Sloane it also happens to include you: Gharr3rr “User:Sloane has shown no reaction to the state of Jacque Fresco talk page that bordered on slander. The time frames of this archived document shows that the awful state of this document has been allowed to remained in Wikipedia for far too long.

I'm not only looking at User:Sloane or User:OpenFuture here. I wondering why the upper levels of administration allows this sort of thing to go unchecked for so long???

--(13:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)) “

Perhaps the overloaded in work load for administrators explains why a page that clearly is slander against Jacque Fresco (on his talk page) was left unattended for so long. I understand that document might also be too long for you—so let me clue you in: try and search the document for KKK and see if you have time to go through it all…I am not impressed by a whole lot of stuff and that includes the administration here.

As for a boomerang, I believe it’s returning towards you (your own summary of the picture that Wikipedia wants to paint for all editors—one of adversarial contests and weapons. No doubt User:Sloane is a good student of your lessons with a straight out, no warnings vague 3rr notice to me and yes he even appears unconcerned by the slander against Jacque Fresco (and yes the article was one piece when he put his 20 cents worth of comment in)).

Oh by the way, I’m sorry, did I not mention that I missed out on police training on how to track down abusive administrators and make short, accurate, and snappy reports on the evidence at hand.

From the side of the table I sit on I see abusive administrators and what I see as abusive and threatening tags sanctioned by the administrators—that you by the way. It is also my opinion, User:Sloane tagged this article on a Resource_based_economy for speedy deletion (just before he handed out a 3rr notice to me) much too quickly showing little regard for the person who made the article. --(Gharr (talk) 06:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC))

OK, so let me get this straight: Sloane's only direct interaction with you is a single 3RR warning? Stickee (talk) 09:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Dude, us admins are volunteers. And, since we're not really obligated to do anything, we end up having this funny tendency not to help out people that go around bashing admins. If you want help from people, I really suggest you don't refer to them as "abusive." It's not productive. Cheers. lifebaka++ 11:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said last time, (and re: Lifebaka's point) we also don't tend to help people who can't explain what they're actually complaining about brief enough that we don't fall asleep reading it, particularly when what we do read suggests there's nothing worth reading. Also are you trying to complain to us about problems you've had with other editors or carry on a conversation with the other editors? If it's the later, take it to the other editors talk page. If it's the former, avoiding 'you' so much may help. Finally, if you have problems with abusive admins it would be helpful if you would specify who you're referring to. I appreciate you think all admins are bad for not dealing with your complaint but I presume you've problems with abusive admins goes beyond that and of the people you appear to have issues with (Sloane, Evud, OpenFuture) none of them are admins. Nor am I or Stickee or Demiurge1000 or Gold Hat or Beyond My Ken. LifeBaka appears to be the only admin here (and Bishonen who replied above). One more thing, I'm sure some here can tell you I'm a master of long posts myself. Yet even I couldn't be bothered making sense of what you were saying in your talk page. Most people are far more succinct then me. And none of us went to some special school. Take from that what you will) Nil Einne (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

so you checked the Jacque Fresco talk page for this ==> "KKK" <== and feel that the state of this slanderous page is okay. That the presence of User:Sloane(established history between me and User:Sloane) in this "Jacque Fresco "slanderous" talk page" counts for nothing (he/she shows little care about the "slanderous" state of the Jacque Fresco talk page--that much is clear):

• "A merge seems an excellent idea, although it might be best to merge Jaque Fresco and the Venus Project into Zeitgeist: The Movie which seems the only article that's properly sourced. Sloane (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)."

• User:Sloane is currently engaged in extensive edits on both The_Venus_Project (See [219]) and The_Zeitgeist_Movement ([220]). Given his comment, I might wonder why he is bothering—perhaps he is putting up a good old show of wiki-love for you upper admin types?

• I'm not only looking at User:Sloane or User:OpenFuture here. I wondering why the upper levels of administration allows such slanderous talk page articles to remain for so long. From my point of view the system failed really badly.

--(Gharr (talk) 05:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

• Gharr makes reference to an article having been tagged for speedy deletion by Sloane. It is presumably this one, now a redirect to The Venus Project. That was speedy deleted by administrator 2over0 under CSD G12 as an unambiguous copyright infringement. That being the case, if it was Sloane who tagged it for speedy deletion, it was the proper thing to do. I hope that clears up and disposes of part of Gharr's complaint. 86.146.23.51 (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I and another user contributed to the talk page about the resource based economy and I felt the speedy deletion tag might not have given the user who created the article enough time to respond. A tag blanking <--! like this one --> the article out might have sufficed if there was also copyright issues. Such a speedy-deletion tag is aggressive in nature as was the straight out, no warnings vague 3rr notice to me that followed shortly afterwards. --(Gharr (talk) 05:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

The 3RR template you were given is a warning about violating the edit warring policy, and is given everyone who does so. So, do you consider yourself above this usual courtesy of being warned about policies before being blocked for violating them, or do you think that people should be warned about warnings before being warned? 212.68.15.66 (talk) 10:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

And might I add, in terms of rudeness, an ANI report is way worse than speedy deletion which depends on content, not the provider of the said content and the standard warning given to everyone who breaks the 3RR, not just you. 212.68.15.66 (talk) 12:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

For those unable to read the deleted history of the article, User:Sloane nominated it for G12 deletion as a copyvio of this page and it was deleted as such by 2over0. Reviewing the deleted content shows that it is indeed a verbatim copy of the Venus Project website with no OTRS ticket verifying any licensing agreements or releases on the talk page. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I’ll Make the Decision For You (since this looks like drifting to the decision bin)

Okay, this lower section has been slightly less abusive then the first round this article was run through this section (so far), so I should be happy about that at least.

The facts are User:Sloane had history with me via the Jacque Fresco "slanderous" talk page." User:Sloane’s recent edits of The Venus Project have gone unchallenged because his/her show of power using aggressive speedy-deletion tags and straight out, no warnings vague 3rr notice to me , both of which you support from what I can see so far.

Since you (and dude) are going let this ride to the archives a decision device I like to refer to as a bin, I will make a decision here for you.

Obviously people here don’t mind talk pages that are slanderous, and encourage reviewers and administration (both admin level to me) who don’t mind using grenades when gentle words might suffice. So if you give me aggression (and I especially refer to User:Sloane) I will react in kind. Wikipedia policy might indicate I should act as a mouse and cringe, but that not going to happen, so follow through in the style of attack I expect of you and act on that decision that is impending and decide I’m the problem not User:Sloane or the administration here.

No matter what decision (or no decision) you make, I am quite sure User:Sloane will win the day with your backing, but as for Wikipedia, I got really serious doubts about it’s long term viability using what I see as the current model of operation.

New users that don't have the powers you have are not your punching bags, and you administration types better learn that.

I should also thank you--watching User:Sloane's massive edits that are mostly unopposed has been most educational. --(Gharr (talk) 03:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC))

If that's your attitude, I don't see you having long-term viability here. First, you need to be more clear what you believe is slanderous on that page (ie. link to the WP:DIFF in question, not the whole page). Second, if you're going to attack, you'll get blocked, which only means you lose. There's no vindication in that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

But since you support people like neutral experienced (administration level) reviewers like User:Sloane who makes massive edits of Both The Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement and spends his/her time making inputs like this:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Zeitgeist_Movement&diff=next&oldid=420123901 --User:Sloane edit
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Zeitgeist_Movement&diff=prev&oldid=419496148 --User:Sloane edit
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Venus_Project&diff=next&oldid=420086712 --User:Sloane edit

I believe you and he/she will make for rapid rising stars in this type of gig if administration holds to your abovementioned attitude. Since I suspect other editors and even admin know exactly what I'm talking about, I will let you ponder on this: your a dinosaur, I don't think your attitude or symbolism helps one bit. I would instead think about your long term viability here instead--because if you win this, Wikipedia will suffer. People will not respect your symbolism or your message because they know there is a falseness about administration that needs only "yes" men, and ultimately such conceitedness will lead the entire organization into disaster. maybe I should call you the Titanic...bite...

--Wake up for Pete’s sake...there are problems to solve so lets solve them...sharp teeth and boomerangs are not needed; they will not make new people feel welcome. From what I have seen, you don't feel too comfortable when they return to you and "BITE." So shut me down, batten down the hatches because there is a storm of your own making coming straight at you if you continue the course!--(Gharr (talk) 01:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC))

• Seriously dude, maybe you should take a Wikipedia:Wikivacation or something cause you're getting a little hysterical.--Sloane (talk) 03:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• Gharr, there is of course the possibility here that you are wrong. You have made an allegation that you are being hounded based on, it seems, a (correctly) deleted article, a (correct) message about editing warring, that contributors are editing an article/commenting on the talk page, and an allegation of 'slanderous content' that is so vague that no one can look into it. There is nothing here that is actionable. On the other hand, you have been aggressive, unpleasant, and insulting. If you don't like the Wikipedia way, you should find another hobby. 86.146.23.51 (talk) 09:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Some of us here probably don't understand what a conflict of interest means. If you don't know then take a look at Sloane's work because it is the Epiphany of examples to what happens when someone with a conflict of interest works on a article:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Zeitgeist_Movement&diff=next&oldid=420123901 --User:Sloane edit
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Zeitgeist_Movement&diff=prev&oldid=419496148 --User:Sloane edit
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Venus_Project&diff=next&oldid=420086712 --User:Sloane edit

There is certainly more then one way to be insulting and Sloane's work reveals nearly all of them including the ignoring of obvious slander in Jacque Fresco talk page. I think most of the administration here know what conflict of interest is and why Sloane edits are bound to cause problems rather then improve The Venus Project article, The Zeitgeist Movement article and the Jacque Fresco "slanderous" talk page." ---(Gharr (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC))

Gharr, the reason that you're not getting the resolution that you desire here is that it's exteremely difficult to interpret what your complaint is. While things may seem crystal clear to you, it looks like other editors either think some actions are totally valid (e.g. the 3rr warning) or don't seem to understand what you are trying to tell them (e.g. how the Jacque Fresco page is "slanderous" or how Sloane has a COI). For anyone examinging the issue, your diffs are definitely not self-explanatory. Perhaps you could explain how these edits by Sloane demonstrate a conflict of interest? What exactly is slanderous on the Jacque Fresco page? If anything, the vehemence that you defend all of these related pages makes it look like you may have a conflict of interest. What's definitely not helping you make your case is your hostility to everyone who tries to participate in this dispute. Communication is a two-way street: you are sending what other find to be a garbled or incomprehensible message and then getting mad when they don't understand you. I feel that you may be more successful in what you're achieving if you stop accusing others of either ignoring you or using you as a punching bag. Chillllls (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've been reading this discussion for some time now, and I must say that Gharr has very nicely reversed my usual problem of low blood pressure. Gharr, you seem to be ignoring everything people try to tell you. We don't bite the newcomers but since you're so trigger-happy with your accusations, you be ready to face the consequences of such allegations and claims. Let me ask you: do you usually join websites just to attack their policies and ideas? Have you considered joining SourceForge just to complain about the lousiness of open source? You're basically destroying Sloane's reputation by accusing them of being hell-bent on persecuting you - or rather, trying to destroy, because your own lack of competence seems to have resulted in a pile-on against you, created by yourself. As "evidence" to support harassment from Sloane, you give these very same diffs over and over again, while none of them show any trace of what you call "slander". Now, without anything to back it up with, you're accusing Sloane of conflict of interest. Personally, I think you're the one who's got COI, as you seem to be very partisan about Sloane editing the Venus Project article, to the point you're disrupting the encyclopedia (see WP:TE and how many points match your behaviour). That's why I propose you to be topic banned indefinitely from editing content related to Venus Project - it's impossible to collaborate with people who just ignore policies because they're (supposedly) always right and thus above all rules. Zakhalesh (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I hope you are ready to face the consequences of your actions. You currently believe it’s okay to bash new people. That your little “to be topic banned indefinitely” comment will come down without any risk to your-self. You’re little trigger happy trick wont work because there is no substance or proof in the long boring paragraph above that shows you are the one who is “impossible to collaborate” with. And BOOMARANG, your fellow colleagues here know it and you have lost respect among them by trying to “harass” me and your show of very partisan support of User:Sloane. It is you who should be banned from this administration talk page permanently.

Sure, I'm always open to repeating myself because I know you won't answer any hard questions. Your answer is to blame the messenger, to say there is no history between me and User:Sloane, and to defend the status quo. So here it is again, but "You have already made your statement--you think the "Jacque Fresco "slanderous" talk page" is "A OKAY" and the rest of the administration knows your opinion now--but I will repeat the section of interest here in case some of them need a refresher. ==>

so you checked the Jacque Fresco talk page for this ==> "KKK" <== and feel that the state of this slanderous page is okay. That the presence of User:Sloane(established history between me and User:Sloane) in this "Jacque Fresco "slanderous" talk page" counts for nothing (he/she shows little care about the "slanderous" state of the Jacque Fresco talk page--that much is clear):

• "A merge seems an excellent idea, although it might be best to merge Jaque Fresco and the Venus Project into Zeitgeist: The Movie which seems the only article that's properly sourced. Sloane (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)."

• User:Sloane is currently engaged in extensive edits on both The_Venus_Project (See [221]) and The_Zeitgeist_Movement ([222]). Given his comment, I might wonder why he is bothering—perhaps he is putting up a good old show of wiki-love for you upper admin types?

• I'm not only looking at User:Sloane or User:OpenFuture here. I wondering why the upper levels of administration allows such slanderous talk page articles to remain for so long. From my point of view the system failed really badly.

<== Thank you for showing that you care about Wikipedia rules and future; Or perhaps not! --(Gharr (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC))

Yet again, I see no "slander" (why do you keep putting quotes around it anyway?) on JF talk page, nor do I see any in the edits by Sloane. You'll have to be a bit more precise in your claims to be understood. In any case, I'm willing to accept any consequences of my edits, but I severely doubt that I'll get banned from any place on Wikipedia by questioning your self-granted right to persecute people who disagree with you, and I have to admit that I found your "boomarang"-argument rather silly. You're trying to cover behind that WP:BITE card despite you being active in Wikipedia way longer than I have been - you've been here since mid-2010, way before I started editing even as an IP! As for your behaviour: you've ignored vast amounts of advice, made false allegations about other editors disagreeing with you (implying Sloane has a COI without any actual evidence and asking me to get banned) and shown clear signs of aggressive editing. This, combined with everything in this thread makes it clear that you can't contribute neutrally about the Venus Project, but instead have created this huge Wiki-trial because people haven't accepted your POV on Venus Project (see Gharr's blog). On grounds of your hostile behaviour towards other editors and your attitude that you're always right I stick by my proposal to indefinitely ban Gharr from editing articles related to Venus Project as they have shown that they are absolutely impossible to cooperate with unless you agree with their POV. I ask any editors who agree/disagree to voice their opinions here, and might add that people have been topic banned for much less zealotry before. Zakhalesh (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If you actually did a search for "KKK" in Jacque Fresco "slanderous" talk page article and decided that that page is acceptable--your own comment: "I see no 'slander'"--then I rest my case about you. You should not be editing articles here or threatening to ban people here. You are part of the problem and should be banned from Wikipedia. From my check you are not a reviewer or administration--yet you act like you are. I don't think you are acting responsibly and might not have the experience to enter this debate. If you had experience you would understand the Wikipedia rules about putting slanderous material in Biographies. But evidently you don't understand very much at all. All you have come here to do is to threaten me and ignore everything I say. Good luck on convincing the administrators and reviewers to ban me based on you weak arguments. Remove yourself from this talk and don't make yourself look any sillier because you do not impress anyone. I and other editors (including administration) will only feel really embarrassed by your continued arguments.--(Gharr (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC))

Gharr, this sort of uncivil language is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Continue it and you will be blocked. lifebaka++ 04:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I am no administrator and I never claimed to be one. Topic bans are decided by community consensus, not by admin's whim, and I can only propose you to be banned, not ban you myself. Yet again, you provide no reason to ban me apart from disagreeing with you - on the other hand, my "weak" arguments include your absolutely unacceptable behaviour and your total inability to cooperate, as evidenced by this entire thread (especially unfounded accusations against other editors including Sloane and yours truly), so I don't think luck has anything to do with it. And, about the "slander", no, I still don't see any, and I won't even try to look for it anymore because 1. Talk pages are not bios and 2. Slander is not going to appear if I look hard enough. I await for other editors in favour of banning you from editing Venus Project. Zakhalesh (talk) 06:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

To update people on the situation in what seems to be a thread that won't die, User:Gharr ([223],[224],[225]) is now engaged in an edit war with User:OpenFuture ([226], [227], [228]) at The Venus Project page. Despite User:Gharr his claim in his edit summary ("I offered to talk about this on Talk:The_Venus_Project"), he actually hasn't addressed this issue on the talk page, the only discussion is User:OpenFuture, another user and me agreeing that the original version is the best (most NPOV) version ([229]). Gharr's only contribution at the talk page on this subject is a 3rr warning directed at User:OpenFuture, who hasn't technically broken 3rr. Also, note that although User:Gharr is accusing me of hounding him, he seems to be holding some kind of weird log on his talk page about me and other users ([230], [231]) he's come into conflict with. --Sloane (talk) 03:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I am no administrator either. my judgement about you stands, you should be banned from this talk page User:Zakhalesh.--(Gharr (talk) 03:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC))

I call unreasoned judgement bad judgement. Why should it be me, who has not attacked other editors with false allegations, has not behaved aggressively towards people trying to advise, has not edit warred, instead of you who have done all of these things in order to advance your POV? Zakhalesh (talk) 07:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Gharr his edit warring has now been reported. [232] --Sloane (talk) 04:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Gharr's reply is mostly comprised of Ad Hominem (complete with yet another "hounding" accusation!), and Gharr's been warned about attacking other editors with unfounded allegations quite a few times already. I really hope the admin browsing through the report has the stamina to read through this thread as well, as it is here that we see who's hounding who. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Fitting in

WP:BOOMERANG is vastly overused, but I'm afraid in this thread the only behavioral problem I see is on the part of User:Gharr, who does not display a temperment conducive to editing here. It's not impossible to contribute to Wikipedia with a chip on your shoulder and a pugnancious attitude – examples can be found of those who manage it, somehow – but it's certainly not the ideal way to approach a colloborative enterprise. If Gharr plans on continuing in this manner, I would suggest becoming very good at content creation, which appears to be the pathway to obtaining a license to be serially uncivil without suffering the consequences of one's words. He'd better hurry, though, because he appears to be digging a hole for himself pretty darn quickly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you support topic banning Gharr from editing Venus Project? I proposed that a few posts above, but haven't got any replies apart from the angry "no you should be banned" responses from Gharr. Zakhalesh (talk) 07:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I think it's much too soon to be talking about topic banning -- that generally happens after a much longer and persistent history of disruption, which Gharr doesn't have. At this point, if he edit-wars he should get a time out, and if he continues with his attitude adjustment problem still unresolved, a perceptive admin might want to give him a bit of a respite from editing so that he can sort out his priorities and decide if this is really something he wants to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I based my proposal on a somewhat similar case a while ago which resulted in a topic ban for editor that put enormous effor into whitewashing Torsion fields and attacking editors who reverted these edits (some of this war was revdel'd but you'll find some in the page's history). However, if I recall correctly, that banned editor didn't only claim COI but also implied that the editors against his edits were a particular person and his collegues, so the outing factor could also apply. The banned editor also had a clear as vodka COI themselves, if I recall correctly, he a CEO in a company that attempted to sell some product related to torsion fields, which is a bit more severe than the followership implied by Gharr's blog. However, I still stick by my opinion that topic banning Gharr (unless he has some enlightenment on how to behave) would be appropriate, but if you feel that less significant means to prevent them from partisan editing are viable, I won't argue. Zakhalesh (talk) 09:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

Gharr was blocked for 24 hours because of edit warring. May this thread finally rest in peace.--Sloane (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Amen. Zakhalesh (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I read Gharr's request for unblock (in which he ironically wants this thread to stay) and since it is just another collection of personal attacks and unfounded accusations (including some against me who wasn't even in the edit war for which they were blocked), I've notified Lifebaka, the admin who recently warned Gharr about hostile behaviour, of this. Zakhalesh (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)