Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive701

Block of Δ for violation of community inposed sanctions?

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.

I'm sorry some particularly vocal opponents of Delta don't like my compromise; my talk message to Delta tried to convey that the reduction was not a vindication. And I have long felt that it is arbitrary to require consensus to overturn a block for something as subjective as incivility, without requiring consensus to block in the first place. Either way, this is done here; further discussion of Delta, if it is required, must leave this thread behind to get anywhere. Options:

1. Propose a site ban for Delta at WP:AN, providing coherent, well-argued, well-evidenced justification. Either now or in the future.
2. Propose a topic ban for Delta relating to WP:NFCC images at WP:AN, providing coherent, well-argued, well-evidenced justification. Either now or in the future. Moot. Done it myself, at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:.CE.94_editing_restrictions_on_NFCC.
3. Somehow fix the underlying problem with NFCC
4. Start a new thread proposing a longer block for the specific incivility incident, even though there's no way consensus would be achieved for that.
5. Amend Delta's civility restriction to specifically exclude staleness from consideration.
6. Complain about me, in whatever way you see fit.
7. Reopen a thread even though it's far too long, clearly served its purpose and going nowhere. Wikipedia slogan after all is "the free theatre" [I think, maybe I should check that].
8. Other (suggestions on a postcard).

Rd232 ^talk 14:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

---

User:Δ (a.k.a. User:Betacommand) is currently under a community imposed sanction for civility issues.

"Betacommand is placed under community enforced civility parole. If any edits are judged to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked by an uninvolved administrator"

Seeing as this edit clearly violates that sanction (I'm pretty sure "Your stupidity astounds me" and "SHUT THE FUCK UP" are demonstrably uncivil), I believe a block is in order here. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC) [additional info added for clarity]

That was a good three and a half days ago... NW (Talk) 05:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Then make it retroactive to 3 1/2 days ago. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. To NW: So it somehow doesn't count? — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was uncivil, but the comment to which he was responding was an extraordinary accusation of bad-faith editing by someone who was wrong on several counts, and this smacks of forum-shopping, since you participated in the thread on the noticeboard on which that thread originally appeared. Horologium (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me!?! Perhaps you should read the thread cited and not the entire page (which is an amalgam of ANI discussions related to delta). I certainly have participated in other discussions, but not this one. In either case, he's still in violation and needs a block. Honestly, I don't care how long it is. Even a single day (retroactive) for each is fine with me as it logs that this was yet another violation and serves as incentive to not let this happen again... — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It's simply a continuation of the three sections before it, all of which deal with Indonesian banknotes, and you did participate in that discussion. Saying that you didn't participate in one specific section of a long discussion is disingenuous, to say the least. Horologium (talk) 06:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to get completely technical, let's get technical:

1. Yes, I participated in the single discussion prior which consisted of three subheadings. They were not three separate discussions.
2. In that discussion, I only made comments as clarification to copyright law.
3. No comments were made in response to anything said by Δ.
4. No comments were directed toward Δ.
5. No comments ever criticized Δ's contributions.
6. While the last discussion on ANI regarding Δ and the previous were on the same subject, they addressed slightly different issues and were 3 days apart. I did not participate in the latter discussion in any form.

In any case, my involvement is inconsequential. Your accusation that I'm forum shopping is baseless and completely without merit. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

And for good measure, he's also violated "Betacommand must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time."

See his edits on 19 May (from 18:08-18:18): [1] — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the sanctions, I don't see a statute of limitations, e.g. that it has to have happened within the last 24 hours or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

That makes 2 of us. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

30 edits over a period of 10 minutes is less than 4 edits/minute. Seriously, are you trying to look for a reason to get him blocked? NW (Talk) 18:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

How about, blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive? Nothing good will come from a block here. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocks are indeed supposed to be preventative. Blocks with continuously increasing severity should make his sanctions abundantly clear. It should also be noted that the second link I cited occurred less than 8 hours after a previous block expired...for violations OF THE SAME THING!!! By letting it slide, it only encourages more behavior in violation of the community sanctions. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Delta was already blocked for the May 19th edits. That's off the table. --MASEM (t) 06:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

No, he wasn't. He was last blocked on the 18th, and the complaint mentioned above by BQZIP occurred after that block expired. As regards the "punitive" vs. "preventive"... well, he was blocked for an entire year, and it still didn't "prevent" once he was unblocked again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

So he "got away with it" as I assume you might put it. The strange thing is that none of the participants in that exchange reported this; it can therefore be assumed that none of them was sufficiently offended. Now three days later, you, who was not even part of this discussion, dig it up. Seems to me that when none of the participants reported it, that should be the end of the story. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I point to this VPR thread (per his restrictions ) on the 14th Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_73#Heads_up which occurred after the 13th block for the same issue and where he seeks permission to continue the task (per his restrictions). Again, off the table. --MASEM (t) 06:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

So it's OK for him to violate the restrictions? Then what's the point of the restrictions? Just toss them out the window and let him do whatever he wants... which he will anyway, as you well know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

No, given that his community sanctions say that he should engage VPR for 24 hr before starting a bot-like task, he did that after his block on the 12-13th (for not doing that the first time). --MASEM (t) 07:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Lift the sanctions totally, OR indef-block, and these kinds of discussions go away. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Δ blocked

A pretty clear textbook violation of the community-based restrictions. I've put him on ice for 48 hours, if other admins feel this is unduly harsh I'd be open to reducing it to 24 hours. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC).

Thank you. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Pfff... there should be some common sense on having violations expire, lest we get people being hunted down for days and months. Would anyone block for something that happened in March? 2010? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

If it were anyone else, I probably would just tut-tut and let it pass. But in this case, the community has determined that there are certain standards that this person must follow, there is no statute of limitations, and honestly they ought to know better by now. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC).

You have had four (as of this writing) uninvolved editors telling you your block was inappropriate and incorrect, you shouldn't be defending it. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong, and if you knew anything about Beta/Delta's history, you would know why you're wrong: He is constantly "testing" his limits to see what he can get away with. If you enable him, you spit on the sanctions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

And what makes you think I don't? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you admit spitting on the sanctions? Way to go. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

No. Clarification of my previous comment: What makes you think I don't know anything about Betacommand's history? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Because you reached the wrong conclusion. If you knew about his history, you would reach the right conclusion: Indefinite Block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, I strongly disagree. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, Beta/Delta has played you for a sucker yet again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose and Overturn Purely punitive block at this point. N419BH 06:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Agree. Unblock. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly object to block, overturn at once. Clearly punitive. Slap blocking admin on wrist. Bad block. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose block. Clearly punitive at this point. Horologium (talk) 06:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block since the last "preventive" block, for a year, did nothing to change his behavior. Either that, or remove the community sanctions, if you're not willing to enforce them anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support an even longer block If this was a single user on even their third incident, I'd agree that this is harsh. But this particular user was blocked for an entire year for this kind of behavior and was let back in only upon condition that this kind of behavior completely ceased. Given the multiple violations (even a recent one immediately after a block for a violation of the same community sanctions,), this is a clear-cut blockable situation. Also, every block is punitive, by definition. The prevention portion comes from preventing more contributions that are uncivil and/or violate his community sanctions. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC) (Note: I changed a bit of my phrasing which was quoted accurately below)

  Given you're the one who requested the block, it's not surprising you're "siding with the admin on this one". Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

  Since short-term blocks have proven not to be preventive, only an indef will prevent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Overturn - Civility is a two-way street. If people don't respect civility in discussing issues with Delta - and are aware that Delta is under such restrictions, this is simply gaming the system and creates entrapment for Delta - or otherwise he's forced to sit back and take ridicule. Yes, I could say that Delta's response could have been more tempered, but the editor in question has been dogging Delta for a few weeks now over image issues, so frustration is likely high here. --MASEM (t) 06:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm waiting for you to retract the "off the table" comment from earlier, since you got the sequence of events wrong. That's one of two things you've gotten wrong here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per Horologium. Thinking there should be a link to WP:GROWATHICKERSKIN. Yea, Delta/Beta can be rude, crude, and ignorant; but I don't see a personal attack here. @Delta/Beta .. come on dude, think before you post. There are tender ears here, and they are easily offended. Play nice. — Ched :  ?  06:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • So "PLEASE SHUT THE FUCK UP" is not a personal attack? Or is it okay because he said "Please"? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC).
    • No, "please shut the fuck up" is not a personal attack. It doesn't attack the character of anyone, which would be the definition of a personal attack. It's incivility at worst. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
      • That's right. Unless you are from the OMG-the-f-word crowd. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
        • I thought he was sanctioned against incivility? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
          • How about "Your stupidity astounds me"? (also in the same posting) — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I would like to point out that every "involvement" I've ever had with Beta/Delta has been extremely unpleasant. Because of him, I long ago gave up on uploading any images except amateurish pictures I've taken myself, which he can't touch. From where I stand, he's to be avoided like the plague. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Note civility isn't the only player here: he also violated his edits-per-minute restriction. On top of that, he violated his civility restriction less than 8 hours after a 24-hour block for the same thing. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that, based on his contributions; he's limited to no more than four edits per minute, and at no time on the 19th did he exceed that even once. Horologium (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Check 18:08-18:18 — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I see no point in that block on the 19th where he exceeds 4 edits per minute. Heck, it looks like he's operating at 3 edits per minute, at most. --MASEM (t) 07:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support indefinite blockper Baseball Bugs. Clearly a recidivist. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support If this was any other contributor under the same restrictions, this action would be entirely uncontroversial, and that's the standard we should apply here. The user is being offensive and treating other contributors with outright disrespect. It's not a case of "if you have lots of friends on AN/I, you can get away with it". Orderinchaos 07:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

  The comments were made three days ago! Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 07:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

  And that makes it all OK? If I go out and hit somebody, and the police come knocking on my door three days later, I'll be sure to remember that one. It's still a breach of the restrictions. Orderinchaos 07:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Uncivil? Yes. Stale as mouldy bread? Also yes. Unblock.Courcelles 07:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Where are you seeing a statute of limitations in the sanctions? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I just found that line that says discussion must take place prior to blocking. I'm simply assuming this means the discussion must be conclusive... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Which it never is conclusive, because his defenders are convinced wikipedia would collapse without him. So the sanctions are meaningless, and you might as well revoke them and let him do whatever he wants - which he will continue to do anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Bugs, you seem to be under a misconception that those of us opposing this block are some kind of defenders of Delta. As far as I know, I've never said one word about him, anywhere. If this edit had been made tonight, or perhaps even yesterday, I'd have enforced the sanctions myself- it's uncivil, no doubt about it. But just like blocked for 80+ hour old edit wars doesn't actually do any good, neither does blocking for 80+ hour old incivility- it doesn't prevent anything. The sanctions say he "may be" blocked, not that he must be; we still have to filter violations through common sense and fairness, and blocking for one ill-tempered comment from Wednesday on Sunday morning is not the best course of action. Courcelles 07:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
          • I just wonder in amazement that the same arguments are going on here, for the last several years, and always with the same conclusion: The guy breaks rules, and his defenders find ways to be sure nothing comes of it. So why bother with bogus "sanctions"? If he's so freakin' valuable to the project, then just officially trash the sanctions and be done with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• OK .. the Your stupidity astounds me part I'll admit is a personal attack. Look, Delta/Beta is a fantastic "computer" person, and has a ton of technical skills which benefit the project greatly. On the other hand, he does lack a lot of inter-personal skills we like to see here. I have no desire to argue with the blocking admin, (lord knows he'll find plenty of support), I'm just saying that when someone gets poked constantly, they will tend to snap back. And heaven knows that Delta/Beta has been poked plenty during his tenure here. Ya'all do what ya want, I'm way too tired to argue this tonight. — Ched :  ?  07:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Why are you so butthurt? Unblock them for mierda's sake. It's not worth it to block him now, as somebody else pointed out above, blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive, and that's what I'm just seeing. Diego Grez (talk) 07:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - it's worth pointing out that the fact that the incivility is a few days old also means that the user has allowed the incivility to stand for a few days, having had ample opportunity to go back and strike it or apologise. This, given the civility restriction, makes me support a block despite the circumstances that justifiably provoked anger. However, given that there hasn't been a civility block since at least October, 24 hours seems enough. Rd232 ^talk 07:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support Δ has been slipping back to the attitudes and issues that has resulted in him being banned previously, and needs to be made aware that there is little tolerance for this manner of interaction. I recently noticed that for someone who claims that their actions are enforcement of community derived policy, that they are truculent when having the same criteria applied to them. Another unfortunate return to old habits is the manual archiving - the page has an archive bot - of complaints rather than responding further. As of old, when violations of his restrictions are noted to him Δ responds by disregarding the fact and by emphasising the "benefit", even after acknowledging the restrictions earlier. A regrettable return to Appeal to authority" is also apparent, where reference to expertise in policy is substantiated by links to an essay and a guideline, and in an instance where such knowledge has determined that "...consensus means nothing" when it comes to Δ's interpretation of WP:NFCC. However, these issues are nothing to do with the policy regarding Fair Use for copyrighted material but how Δ interacts when his edits are questioned. I have for a little while been concerned that Δ is dropping back into the bad old ways that got him banned previously, but since I am very likely an "involved party" following a dispute over a Fair Use image, which resulted in my concerns being removed as "trolling", I have not brought up the issue - although, as can be seen, I have been keeping note. One last point, in regard to the argument that blocks are supposed to be preventative and not punative; if Δ does not wish to examine the point of whether the previous community ban has never been voided, but simply superceded for a year by the ArbCom restriction, or whether a new one need be put in place, then this block and the other one this month should serve as a reminder that he edits at the sufferance of the community, regardless of the quantity and quality of the vast majority of his edits, providing his communications remain respectful and he does not exceed a certain number of edits per time period. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Good block and, should, in the usual way, double at the next offense, if there is one. Clearly preventative, as the history shows that the user will continue unless checked. It would be very unfortunate for the technical aspects of Wikipedia , a well as for delta, if he were blocked indefinitely, and strong action is necessary to prevent a descent into circumstances that would make this necessary. "Delta's response could have been more tempered"-- I don't really see how it could have been less tempered, and it does not seem appropriate to me to try to diminish the nature of it in view of the record. DGG ( talk ) 14:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn. Stale as hell and none of the participants complained. To dig through days later and use it to stir the pot when no one involved found it offensive enough to complain about is petty, juvenile and borders on wikistalking. -- ۩ Mask 15:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

  Actually, the person at whom the remark was directed DID complain about it, but the discussion was closed before anything was done about it. Moreover, stalking or hounding has pretty clearly defined boundaries...which haven't even been approached in this case. — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, the person at whom the remark was directed at DID complain MOST VEHEMENTLY, saying "Also, wasn't one of the terms of your probation to stay civil?"... er, well, maybe not that vehemently. Rd232 ^talk 15:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment (general) Looking at the discussion here so far, background, and the history, this has been escalating for sometime. Sometimes, moving against simple solutions leads to more complications - which are considered worse (or less preferred) for all involved. I think the make or break point is really going to depend on whether everyone can come to some form of agreement, consensus or compromise on the (ongoing) underlying issues in dispute, particularly in how to handle those issues. If there is no change though, I don't see how this situation surrounding delta will be able to avoid ArbCom intervention. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn. Also, replace the restriction by something more effective (if people feel this is needed). One of the first lessons you learn in Kindergarten is that words don't hurt. In the real world the people who use bad language tend to disqualify themselves. So, I think a sanction that would place a warning on top of his talk page that points out that this user has civility issues, is far more effective. He can then appeal to have such a banner removed after behaving in an exemplary way for, say, a year. Count Iblis (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Also, a little icon of a piece of coal could be added to his signature. No presents for you this year, Delta! Rd232 ^talk 16:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support block This a collaborative project, that environment is damaged when editors act this way. He's under sanctions and no one should be surprised when they are invoked when they are violated. Also support blocks of increasing length if he continues this behavior. RxS (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support, per RxS. We're here to collaborate, not to shout at each other. Either you learn that, or you find another place where you can shout at people all you want. --Conti|✉ 17:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Reluctantly support block, oppose ban I doubt the block will have any power to convince beta/delta that the restrictions matter if it is overturned immediately. And despite my lingering reservations about civility blocks, I'd be hypocritical if I supported them for some vested editors and not others. I would prefer that we somehow find an amicable solution to all of this, as beta/delta is a valuable contributor. Also, "shut the fuck up" is not a personal attack, as those above have suggested. Protonk (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Support block/ban DELTA has been the subject of at least two ANI threads just this month and it appears he's been in similar hot water for a long time, as in years. Deja vu his friend Damiens.rf, who's now the subject of a third thread just on him in the last month. These two users have had multiple chances to learn to work in this collaborative environment and since they obviously seem incapable thereof, I regretfully support banning them both. BarkingMoon (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support block; re-open ban proposal. Crystal clear community sanctions are in place, and the blocks arising from them are meant to be punitive. That's the whole point. We aren't playing a game of cops and robbers here - just like in the real world, people on parole do not get free passes so long as they evade scrutiny for a certain amount of time. Even so, it's definitely not OK that it takes the admin corps 3 days to act on this user in the way the community has already asked them to do so in response to such blatant and flagrant violations of their parole, and it's not OK that the resulting block length in this case is so short as to be meaningless given his past record. The fact we have to even have this discussion shows that community imposed sanctions clearly don't work with this editor. Indef blocks don't work with this editor either, even if it had been imposed as one as it should have - he has made promise after promise after promise. An arbitration case over what to do with this editor would be the 3rd of its kind, which must be some kind of record, and would most certainly see Delta banned for at least another year if not longer, even if the evidence was restricted to his repeat violations over the last 6 months in his new incarnation, many of which seem to have been being ignored just like this latest breach. We are getting to the stage now where editors who have never even heard of Betacommand are making the exact same observations about Delta's failings as an editor, not that this stops them from being attacked as 'harassers of Beta' by his regular enablers. People justifying his violations based on the work he does, or the grief he attracts due to his own failings as an effective communictor, are tired old excuses which wore out years ago, and on basic principle had no real validity even then. Delta is an unreformable editor. It should be game over by now. As the second block for violating his restrictions with a month, a community ban proposal was more than in order, and it should not be within the powers of a single admin to shut it down before a consensus is even remotely able to be reached, even if it turned out to be a SNOW rejection. MickMacNee (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Any ban proposal should be made at WP:AN. A ban of an established contributor is a response to a long term pattern of behaviour and it should not be mixed up with handling a single, minor incident which there is barely even a consensus to block for. Rd232 ^talk 19:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Wrong venue? Don't make me laugh. Minor? Ditto. No established pattern? Unbelievable. Consensus? To ignore a community sanction? Not even close. MickMacNee (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It is the wrong venue (as I just explained), and it is minor: it's a single civility incident. For the rest, you invert my statements, which is good for the dramaz but not much else. Rd232 ^talk 20:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

If it was simply the 'wrong venue', you would have moved it yourself, so please, let's have no more in that regard, unless you are now prepared to move it yourself, or will give explicit permission to the initiator to do so if he disagrees with your unilateral shut down. As for your continued refusal to accept established facts and pretend that this was a "minor" incident worthy of treating in complete and utter isolation, not even blockable apparently, then I will be more than happy to quote you on that in a request for arbitration clarification, to get these apparently worthless community sanctions placed within the purview of AE enforcement, instead of admins like yourself. MickMacNee (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Mick, Mick, Mick. I closed it because it was both the wrong venue and ludicrously disproportionate; and nobody who wants to make a genuine proposal (I don't think the thread initiator actually wanted a ban outcome, seeing as they opposed the block) needs my permission to do so. And I've repeatedly stated that it's a minor incident, because it is; but if you'd pay attention, I did actually endorse the block, albeit suggesting 24h was enough. And I can only echo Protonk's sentiment in this thread - you seem rather keen to fashion precedents which would apply to you at least as much as anyone else. Rd232 ^talk 00:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you've finally admitted the real reason for closing it - you in all your powers decided it was not a 'genuine proposal' and so uniltaterally shut it down. On an editor/issue you've admitted further down below you weren't even familiar with. I don't give a monkeys about Proton's threats, neither you or him seem to have the slightest idea that in comparison to Beta/Delta, my record is that of Mother Theresa. If either of you want to insult me further by suggesting that we are even remotely the same, then I really will start to take it as a personal attack on my reputation as an editor. Also, you can stop insinuating I am blind and have not read the whole thread too, or that I am not making these comments precisely because you have decided to repeatedly wrongly describe this as a "minor" incident. Your personal endorsement of a 24 hour block on that flawed basis is neither here nor there with regards this habit of yours for shutting down proposals on ANI uniltarally. MickMacNee (talk) 11:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how to say this without it sounding like a threat, so I'll just come out with it and you'll have to take my word that I don't personally bear any animus toward you or plan to act on this. If this sort of ban/block etc process becomes commonplace for borderline civility violations you are on a (no so) short list of editors who will see the business end of it. Protonk (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

If and when I find myself in a similar situation to Delta, with 2 arbitration cases behind me, a year long ban and a return only allowed with promises to be civil in the utmost from now on, and with several community restrictions put in place on me to ensure that, and to deal with all my other problems, with administrators advised to block me whenever they see a violation, with no clauses inserted about how quickly they need to notice such violations, then I'd have no issue with the community being allowed to have a ban discussion should I so flagrantly take the piss out of the community in this way by violating said restrictions not once but twice in a month so unambiguously, and on numerous other times recently. As such, I could care less if it was a threat or not, it was pretty much irrelevant. MickMacNee (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You will of course do what you feel is right. I'm just asking you to bear this in mind. Protonk (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I really could care less. If you want to actually threaten me, then come to my talk page and do so, so I can remember the where's and the why's incase it becomes relevant in the future. If you want to make a valid point regarding this user and this incident, then hurry up an make it. Because you're doing neither at the moment. MickMacNee (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Ched: Be nice. Looks bad from the surface, but the 10,000 ft view sees this as ineffective at preventing something that took place several days ago, and is being rekindled for who knows what. Wisely, the section below was closed out. A look at the comments (or egging on) in that section, doesn't seem to instill confidence that this was initially brought to AN/I for the reasons stated. This discussion in itself will give Delta an opportunity to reflect on his civility. A late and long block called for by a third party with an agenda will only fill him with a sense of injustice or punishment being served. 70.177.189.205 (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support short block Oppose longer block. Given the sanctions, the wording choice is clearly a violation. However, I've not seen a convincing rationale for extending the block at all, much less to indef.--SPhilbrickT 20:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

  How about the fact that he's had years to correct this behaviour and failed? We were to use an analogy, he's probably on his 80th strike..but still the crowd calls another shot..--Crossmr (talk) 04:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Unblock short blocks like this do nothing but rile up those who were blocked. Either make it sufficiently long (couple weeks or months), ban entirely, or ignore it. -Atmoz (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support block - uncivil behaviour has no place here, especially when Delta has sanctions against such behaviour. May I add, however, that all this talk of bans etc. is utter nonsense. GiantSnowman 20:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I get what the "it was a stale complaint" people are saying, but lets face it. This editor was given far too much leeway the first time around and ultimately became nothing but a time sink. I see no reason for us to go down this road again. In short, specifically because it is Delta and specifically because of his history, I think this is a good block. Letting him off the hook only wastes more of our time in the future. Resolute 21:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Fuck me, he said the word "fuck" four fucking days ago! Lock him up and throw away the key, I say! Or recognise that people lose their tempers sometimes, especially when faced with flase accusations and assumptions of bad faith. That works too, but it's not as satisfying. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

  Unfortunately for Delta, this is only a symptom of a greater problem. Unless you edited before your account, you only joined us a couple years ago which is more towards the tail-end of the whole betacommand thing. You really didn't get to experience the long thumbing of the nose at the community that some other people involved in this discussion did. Many of them are quite tired of it.--Crossmr (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

  Then those relevant issues should be discussed, not incidents like this. Using this sort of incident to block someone as a stick to settle some other score (that perhaps does needs to be settled in some way), does not lead the editor to accept this sanction, so he will then continue to thumb his nose at us. From his POV that's the natural thing to do. Count Iblis (talk) 00:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

  Except this incident is one of those issues. Betacommand/Delta has had issues with civility stretching back for years. His involvement in NFCC always ends up the same way. If he were anyone else, he'd still be banned or at least on a topic ban. He has had years to reform his behaviour and he's failed to do so. He's been giving far more chances and far more time than any other user, except maybe giano, to turn it around, but he's utterly failed to do so.--Crossmr (talk) 04:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• support indefinite the fact that we need to have this discussion again is all that's needed. It's clear he has made no real changes to his behaviour, and I loathe having to play this back and forth game for months and years on end until he's finally punted again. He was given ample opportunity to shape up and has failed to do so.--Crossmr (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Betacommand...Wasn't he the one who had that bot program and any time someone had an issue with it, his response boiled down to "my bot works fine, you're just a moron"? HalfShadow 00:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn - I see a vendetta pushed by an anti-NFCC crusader, and nothing more. BQZip01 is playing off of Delta's bad reputation to try and remove Delta, a strong voice in the pro-NFCC camp, from the picture. Delta isn't an ideal editor, but lets not for a moment pretend that BQZip01's championing of a block here isn't politically motivated. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn Sven is spot on. Looking through the diffs, I find the following:

• A user opens a discussion with multiple taunts at Delta, taking a final swing at him with this.
• Delta fires back with the offending comment.
• The incident took place on an admin's message board or was moved to one, where there are plenty of adults to handle the situation if it got out of hand. It seems to have ended without any lasting injuries.
• The purpose of that discussion wss to fight another battle in the continuing war between the forces of "Keep" and those of "Delete".
• An editor involved in the battle, but not the recipient of the comment decides to bring the incident here. Is it just me, or does it seem that this 3rd party is playing this forum, (and the communities short patience for Delta) for the advantage of those opposed to Delta's Keep/Delete views? I would like to AGF, but the more you dig into it, the clearer it becomes that this in nothing more than a politically motivated complaint. 12Minutes to 10pm 02:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Block reduced to 24 hours

In view of the failure to achieve consensus for a block here, the staleness of the complaint, and the fact that it was brought by a third party seemingly in furtherance of an unrelated dispute, I've reduced the block to 24 hours, which is 3 hours short of "time served", and is a compromise that makes no-one happy but allows a productive editor to get back to editing. It's a compromise which removes (most of) the punitive element many objected to, whilst acknowledging that Delta was uncivil in a way which breached his civility restrictions. Now, let's argue about that some, because none of us having anything better to do. Like, say, look at the size of Category:Wikipedia backlog and wonder how much smaller it might be if we could just (ahem, I phrase this advisedly) let shit go. Rd232 ^talk 02:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that you've left anyone any choice but to have these community sanctions upgraded into arbitration remedies so that they can be properly enforced, and the community can be assured that admins like you will face sanctions yourselves for so blatantly thumbing your nose at the community, who have been drained by trying to deal with this editor for years now in ANI cluterfucks just like this, and came up with those sanctions as a last last last last resort. The message you've just sent out to this editor, who you acknowledge below you weren't even too familiar with, is nothing short of outrageous. The message you've just sent out to any admins who might still be willing to block this editor for blatant violations is also loud and clear. That's two actual blocks placed for sanction violations in a month, and countless other violations that went unnacted on presumably precisely because of nonsense like this which passes as review at ANI. It's frankly unbelievable that you can remotely claim that the people who objected to a 'punative element' have any leg to stand on whatsoever. It's beyond ludicrous. And the user himself hasn't even commented yet, so we don't even get to see him explain why he decided to be so blatantly incivil (and bearing in mind that such explanations have in the past been rare). Sure, we've had the usual attempts at excusing his behaviour which you have presumably also counted as part of a 'consensus' that this was a bad block, but as I said, in a third arbitration case on this user, those sorts of pleas are going to be worthless, because it's all be seen before time after time after time. We ended up with those sanctions for crystal clear reasons, that you have just completely and utterly ignored. MickMacNee (talk) 10:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, given the false claims made by rd232 below, I honestly see his actions as disruptive and I wonder if he's open to recall. He tossed himself into a highly controversial situation that he admittedly wasn't fully informed on, and then to back up his reasoning he made statements which have been proven false and which relied on a total error of logic. If it takes us a third trip to arbitration to be done with this, so be it.--Crossmr (talk) 10:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I know it is long past the event, but I thought that you needed consensus to undo an admin action, providing it was not egregious or an obvious mistake - i.e. consensus for a change in the status quo? (Of course, the same understanding means that no one should undo your change unless there is consensus to do so.) From a reading of the comments there may have been a slight minority who agreed with the block as it then stood, but that includes those who thought the block should have been longer or indefinite. I have to say, this is not an application of "consensus" that I find persuasive. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Note also that some opposers only did so on the gounds the restrictions are clearly ineffective - a message this block reduction fails to counter in any way whatsoever. The punitive/stale comments could not be more irrelevant - the sanctions have no such clause, and he was left under no illusion that they are binding when they were placed. If admins cannot block for breaking them when violations are brought to their notice, then what the hell are they actually for?. And note RD232 has even had the gall to imply Lankiveil was somehow wrong to block while the discussion here was ongoing, even though no such discussion is even required by the sanctions for such blatant violations like this. And let's not even pretend that had this been reported at the time, that we wouldn't have also seen all the same usual excuses - it was the other guy's fault, Delta does good work, Delta is a victim, it was a "minor" incident, etc, etc, etc. Delta has gone back to editing thanks to this reduction as if this incident never even happened, he's not made a single comment on it or even acknowledged it even occurred. We can all apparently go fish for some sort of explanation or some sign of regret for breaking his sanctions, failing to keep yet another promise he has made to the community for the second time in a month. The targetted user can go fish for an apology also it seems. I cannot think of a more contemptuous way for Delta to signal that he doesn't give a flying fuck to be honest, he clearly has the community's number on this one. And the hilarious thing is, these sanctions were placed in full knowledge that all of this was already the situation, but people thought that sanctions would do the trick inspite of this. But RD232 just apparently forgot to read up on what he was involving himself. Hence, the administration of these sanctions needs to be taken out of the purvey of those admins who do not seem to either know or care that Delta is fully justifiably no longer considered by the community to be just another editor, and the community does not expect these incidents to be treated as "minor" or for the sanctions to be undermined until they pretty much become irrelevant, almost a standing joke just like situation with the other famously unblockable unbannable editor, and we just regress to the situation we were in 2 years ago, as if he had never even been banned for a year, let alone all the rest. If we're not already there already. MickMacNee (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Ban

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.

There is a disturbing tendency for people to rapidly escalate discussion of minor incidents into ban discussions. This must be squashed - it is highly detrimental to adequate discussion of minor incidents, and leads to needless repetition of old issues and much aggravation. Bans should normally be proposed separately, ideally on WP:AN rather than WP:ANI, especially where it's a long-term contributor who has previously been discussed at AN. Remember ANI is for incidents, not for long-term behaviour patterns. Rd232 ^talk 07:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Let's take that cat out of the sack: It's obvious that some people want Delta gone. So let's be frank and discuss a ban, shall we? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support - He will continue to play his defenders like marks unless he's permanently put out to pasture. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Delta does good work around here, even if some people are too thick to realise that NFCC is non-negotiable. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 07:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • OMG, the old "he does good work" nonsense. And apparently sanctions are negotiable? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Did I ever say his sanctions were? They're not. But to act on comments made three days ago which no one, including the target, complained about then, is punitive. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 07:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, you're saying that "good work" override sanctions. And if you make the block indef, then it WILL be preventive rather than punitive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
        • No, I'm not. I'm saying his good work means he should not be banned. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 07:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
          • Yes, you are in fact saying that "good work" overrides sanctions. He's to be blocked if he violates sanctions. He violates sanctions, and you don't want him blocked. Ergo, "good work overrides sanctions." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support Whether you agree or not that Delta does "good work around here", that doesn't excuse his deplorable behavior. Despite numerous blocks (including one lasting a year), his behavior still hasn't changed and he continues his poor behavior. He was let back onto WP under the proviso that he refrain from very specific behavior. He has proven himself incapable of abiding by these restrictions three times this month alone. When is enough enough? — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose As an involved user in this discussion or with Delta, this subsection is extremely WP:POINTY: "Some people wants him out, let's kick him out". The block is puntative at most and preventive at least, the best to do is unblock him and watch him, if he returns with the same immediately come here and do not wait 10 days. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 07:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • • [inject]I basically DID come here as soon as I noticed it. If you'll note, I didn't have any contributions for the past week or so since I was on vacation without internet access (both a blessing and a curse). I noted it as soon as I could. Furthermore, I agree with Bugs that there isn't a statue of limitations on this subject. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • No, there are only two possible "best" options: (1) indefinite block, for permanent prevention; or (2) stop being hypocrites, and remove all sanctions. If you're unwilling to enforce the sanctions, then you have already de facto removed them, so you might as well make it official. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's pointy, so please don't link to "disruptive": Some claim it's a severe problem of personality, then he needs to be out. As it stands, the block is merely punitive which won't have any effect. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Make it permanent, and it will be preventive. You know what the sad part is? That this exact same discussion has occurred countless times here - and Beta/Delta always ends up doing things the way he wants to, with the bedside manner of a scorpion. He's to be avoided at all costs, his damage to wikipedia be hanged. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. No way. Horologium (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Do you support lifting the sanctions? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    • This is not a case of "if you don't want him banned, it means you don't support the sanctions". Don't put words into others' mouths. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 07:46, 29 May 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.

There is a disturbing tendency for some people to try and shut down legitimate discussions. Anything regarding Delta is hardly minor. He has a very long and storied history on Wikipedia, and his long ban was a result of his uncivil behaviour among other things. He's continuing that which is an indication the discussion needs to happen again, since it's clear that the long vacation he had before didn't change his behaviour. Do we really need to play the back and forth game again until he pisses off enough of his supporters that we finally end up banning him again only for someone to have a change of heart a year and a half later?--Crossmr (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not desperately familiar with this, but I've done a little digging. The last time this user was blocked for civility issues was in December 2008 [2], which was just before a year-long ban for breaching this restriction relating to image tagging. It is impossible to overstate how much of an overreaction it normally is to seriously talk about banning for a single civility incident. It is very difficult to overstate how much of an overreaction it is to seriously talk about it here and now for this user - in primary reliance on this single incident. I'm happy to concede that it is possible that Delta should be banned ASAP, and if anyone wants to make a serious case to that effect with the necessary evidence, WP:AN is not far away. But to build a case based solely on what this thread started with is offensive and ridiculous; and frankly everyone seeking to do so should be a bit ashamed of themselves for acting like the archetypical ANI lynch mob. Rd232 ^talk 01:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Then you might want to dig more. Part of the problem that lead up to the banning was several threads being started on AN/I about betacommand's interaction with other users. Yes he was finally banned for violating his editing restriction, but there is a reason civility patrol is part of his restrictions now. One of the other problems in this situation, which makes the whole betacommand issue a poster child for what's broken with wikipedia is that were no end to the amount of administrators who wanted to come in and alter/remove blocks rather than deal with him. As the issue spiralled out of control administrators who had previously lept to his defense found themselves no longer backing him. He's already exhausted the community's patience and he was let in once again on a super duper pretty please ultra mega last chance, and here we are again. He's obviously learned nothing, and neither has the community. I expect the rest of his tenure to be more of the same, because all I'm seeing is more of the same. If he remotely wants to stay here, he needs to stay away from NFCC. It's done nothing but get him into trouble for years, the project carried on just fine while he was gone, and it will continue to do so. Wikipedia didn't get sued into oblivion, it didn't crumble down around us, and if he can't handle NFCC work politely and in the spirit of working in a community, frankly they don't need to be here. He's shown time and time again that this is an impossibility for him.--Crossmr (talk) 04:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

"He's obviously learned nothing..." - well he was block-free for 6 months from October until 18 May, in which time he made well over 10,000 edits [3]. Since 18 May, there is only the block arising from the current thread. For a contributor who was previously so problematic, that seems a decent record. PS If NFCC is such a particular problem for him, how come no topic ban? Rd232 ^talk 06:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Absence of a block is not proof that he's learned anything. It's proof that he didn't get blocked during that time. Many admins are loathe to block him even though they want to or know they should simply because they know it turns into a giant storm of garbage for days on end. We saw it for years previously. As we see here, even though he very clearly violated his restrictions many people insist the block be overturned, or that it should never have happened in the first place. If that was the case would you hold that up as evidence that he's learned something? And as for why there is no topic ban for NFCC? because last time around he just ended up flat-out banned finally. The only thing keeping him in the project before was some people's insistence that he was a special snowflake and that the project would go belly-up without him. Should he be cast out NFCC would have inevitably failed and Armageddon would have been upon us. I'm paraphrasing obviously, but as you can see during his absence none of that occurred. But if you do read up on the full history you'll find that the majority of his issues come from NFCC. Most of the civility complaints came from users he'd interacted with over NFCC issues. The editing restrictions often came from issues he'd had with bots and automated tools. He wasn't properly checking his edits and causing issues in articles, sometimes with NFCC, and of course opposition to this was sometimes met with further incivility.--Crossmr (talk) 08:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

As a previously passionate and prolific contributor, if I had to name THE one thing (out of many) which finally led to my irreparable disgust with Wikipedia, and finally my total abandonment of ever contributing here again, it would be behavior like BetaCommand's, and the community's limitless tolerance for it. For whatever that's worth... Dekkappai (talk) 06:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Delta repeatedly and blatantly violates his editing restrictions

and since RD232 asked me about his editing history during the last few months, on May 17th, he clearly violated his editing restrictions of 4 edits/minute by making 15 edits in a single minute, and 6 edits the minute after, that's 21 edits in 2 minutes. He then made 10 edits at 11:19 the same day, 10 at 11:17,

Example edits
# 11:49, May 17, 2011 (diff

So no, he's violating editing restrictions, and being uncivil again. I don't think he's learned a thing despite his ability to dodge a block. He may not have gotten 40 edits over 10 minutes, but 21 in 2 minutes is clearly against what his restrictions indicate.

• Oh, and on May 12, from 22:44-22:53, he made 53 edits,
• from 22:35-22:43 he made 45 edits. so any way you slice that, that's over the 4 edits/minute rate that he's allowed. That's twice he's violated his editing restrictions (that I've found so far) and once that he's clearly violated he's civility restrictions (that I've found) and you want to claim he's learned something?
• Not to be outdone, on the same day I find that he's made 44 edits at exactly 20:10. I don't know about anyone else..but that seems like more than 4 edits per minute to me..
• 72 edits on the same day yet again from 6:14-6:23. Should I keep going or can we just nail this thing closed finally??
• 6:05-6:13 56 edits, may 12 again. Banner day for him.

I'm refactoring this into a list for readability.--Crossmr (talk) 08:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC) This all happened 2 days before he proposed the task at the VP as noted in the above discussion, and frankly I'm tired of counting editing violations, May 12 just goes on and on, you could easily find over a dozen times that he violated them.--Crossmr (talk) 09:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

If today were 12 or 13 May, then I would have no hesitation in blocking. However, given the section immediately preceding this one there would be no chance of consensus supporting any block for them today. I think at this point we have to say that Delta will not be blocked for any infractions or alleged infractions made before his latest unblock, regardless of merit or otherwise. Personally I feel that nobody who acts in the way that Delta does can be a net positive to the project, but others feel differently and we have to work with consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 10:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Were it anyone else the key would have been thrown away long ago, but even though it is not May 12, or 13th, this is simply just more evidence of on-going and very long-term behaviour issues that simply have not rectified themselves over the years. I'm not seeking a block for a single disruptive incident, I'm suggesting the ban be reinstated for being an utter failure of yet another super duper extra mega ultra right down to the wire pretty please last chance.--Crossmr (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes I agree with you that he has had more than enough last chances. If he violates again (although I sadly think it's more likely to be when than if) then I'm all for a ban, but until that time then I'm not going to reblock for offences prior to the most recent unblock. Thryduulf (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I may not be in a position to be Delta's official biographer, but I do know that Delta has already been blocked (on 18 May) for these infractions. However much Delta has pissed people off in the past, and disrespected or tested the limits of sanctions, it remains the case that this lynch mob behaviour is ridiculous. For those in cheap seats if you think a ban of Delta can be justified, then start a new thread at WP:AN, providing coherent, well-argued, well-evidenced justification. Rd232 ^talk 14:28, 30 May 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.

Twinkle Twinkle Little Script... How I wonder where you went?

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.

Not an admin issue. If you're having problems with Twinkle, please see WT:Twinkle. —DoRD (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Any one know why Twinkle is not doing its thing? I tried to use it on Vandalism but it aint there! The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Nor on welcome templates. I think this may be due to the ongoing merge with t'other script because the dialogs are showing up in a different design also. - Sitush (talk) 00:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the best place to raise problems with this is, either https://github.com/azatoth/twinkle or Wikipedia talk:Twinkle. I've also given AzaToth (talk · contribs) a shout on their talk.  Chzz  ►  01:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I've had an on again off again issue with this for the past few hours. The boxes will disappear for a few minutes and then come back N^oformation ^Talk 01:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I dont understand why we're starting to move tools like Twinkle off Wikimedia onto sites like github.com. I ran into another tool that as doing same thing recently. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I had problems nominating articles for deletion with it. It only completes some of the steps at random. It will add the article to the log for instance, or notify the article's creator, but not do the other steps. Pretty weird, because it worked fine some days ago. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The Resident Anthropologist, I think that's a non-issue, to be honest; any problems raised on WT:TW should get a response, so the 'github' bug logging can just be viewed as another option. For coders, storing the code, docs, bugs and other stuff elsewhere is quite justifiable, as other sites can provide resources that are helpful with specific technical issues - obviously, as long as the on-wiki stuff is sufficient for the wikipedia needs.  Chzz  ►  03:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm also having issues. Twinkle seems to be down completely with no response to the github bug report in 8 hours. Get ready for a huge backup at WP:NPP. N419BH 05:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I unchecked, saved and rechecked and saved the twinkle setting in preferences and it reappeared. Jarkeld (talk) 05:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is relevant or not, but I seem to recall a box at the bottom of the Gadgets page that was something like "Twinkle Developer" and this box is now gone. Also, I am unable to tag pages for the past few hours, I keep getting the error "You must select at least one tag!" regardless of how many tags I selected and I've been having rollback errors on and off all day N^oformation ^Talk 05:10, 30 May 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.

Twinkle has been updated. The new version was deployed in the early hours of this morning (UTC). Please direct commentary to Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle. Skomorokh 12:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Post by dubiously blocked user at WP:IAR

See this diff. The IP admits that they're a formerly blocked user, but not which one. In my view, it isn't clear-cut enough for WP:AIV, so I figured I'd bring it here for wider attention. elektrikSHOOS 03:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The revert was appropriate. However since that was the only edit, I'd consider it to be simply vandalism, and not worry about the self-promotion of being blocked. Unless they are performing vandalism, there isn't much to be gained by a AIV. Tiggerjay (talk) 07:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

User:SDPatrolBot Blocked because of repeat warnings getting out of control

I blocked the bot because it's getting out of control with the repeat warnings and looking through the history it looks like it has a problem with that overall (sticking on a user and reverting all their speedy removals, and then warning them). This has led to issues like UserWicklypickle where the user got 38 warnings in an hour (the article in that case did get deleted) or the more recent User:Tsuchiya Hikaru where the articles were actually good and all he's getting is all these warnings. It is clear that this is somewhat intended behavior but I think the damage being done by it is incredibly large especially for new users (and especially for issues like this when the tags were bad, there is no doubt this is scaring people away). I really think before it gets unblocked we need to get a fail safe in here that limits the amount of warnings/reverts it does (and maybe just dumps it into a noticeboard or something to have a human look at

Obviously any admin is free to undo me if they think it's a bad block and I understand the need to watch for these things but I think the damage that is being caused by this behavior is considerably less then the damage being done by the speedy deletion template being left off for a short bit (especially if we have a noticeboard dump or something). James of UR (talk) 08:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Necessary block, unfortunately, but is there anything that needs to be done aside from throttling the number of warnings per editor per time period? Skomorokh 09:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think the biggest thing is the throttle but trying to find an "escape hatch" for the bot may be good too if we are worried pages won't get looked at because of the removal. I think that concern is understandable even if I have a feeling the articles would get seen in relatively the same amount of time (we actually have a category for recently removed speedies I believe). Perhaps posting on AIV or something asking for a review (preferably with a note that a speedy review with deletion or denial being preferred over a block) credit to User:Courcelles for this suggestion James of UR (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this sort of flood common? From what I can see, the bot was behaving as it was made to do. Pickle got 38 warnings because he removed the speedy deletion template 38 times (I didn't manually count, I'm just going by the history). Hikaru's talk page was already flooded with deletion notices because another user decided to CSD dozens of his articles all at once; the bot was just doing business as usual here as well. Still, if there is a way to get the bot to limit itself to a certain number of messages per hour, and maybe make the last notice more "aggressive" than the others, that would be good. —Soap— 13:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Since continued removal of db tags is a blockable offense, why doesn't the bot simply report repeat offenders to WP:AIV? (Perhaps with an attached note, or in a designated "bot-reported" section like the one at WP:UAA.) It always struck me as how basic this bot was in its warning functions. elektrikSHOOS 13:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Right... I don't really think ANI was the right place for this, or that blocking the bot was entirely appropriate. Anyway, I've spent most of my day getting the bot to work within your suggestions (which seem mostly reasonable, but I would have been happier doing this if it had simply been discussed at my talk page). I've allowed a lot of the controls to be onwiki, see User:SDPatrolBot/configuration, this will allow you lot to squabble over the specifics without having to bother me ;). I would appreciate if the bot was unblocked now. It may get off to a bit of a bumpy start, since I've obviously been unable to test the bot with it blocked. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

As it seems to be fixed, and the reporting to AIV has been speedy approved by a BAG member, I unblocked. FWIW I agree that a block might have been overkill, but in this case there was no soft-stop option provided, so it seems the reasonable approach. --Errant ^(chat!) 9:00 am, Today (UTC−5)

Thanks. I'll be starting it out slow, to allow me to fix any errors with the new version without causing a lot of harm. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you...

Resolved

 – User blocked for username policy violation - Happysailor ^(Talk) 13:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

...keep an eye out for this account, Accountadmin (talk · contribs) please? I want another opinion on if it's a vandalbot. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 13:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It breaks the username policy anyway - Happysailor ^(Talk) 13:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

User blocked by User:Lectonar - Happysailor ^(Talk) 13:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

87.244.124.223

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

This user appears to be the same person as

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

who was blocked before for vandalism.

Here is this user's latest unconstructive edit, which looks very similar to the unconstructive edits which got the other account blocked.

Thank you. —Tommyjb Talk! (13:58, 30 May 2011)

Update: This user has continued vandalising Alternative cancer treatments, and is now vandalising my own pages (1, 2, 3). —Tommyjb Talk! (15:12, 30 May 2011)

If it's likely to be uncontroversial, you can also report the IP at WP:AIV. (In most cases, that's actually the preferred route.) That may also move slightly quicker, depending on which admins are watching it. elektrikSHOOS 15:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. From looking at that page, I see that another user has reported 87.244.124.223 within the past few minutes. —Tommyjb Talk! (15:47, 30 May 2011)

IP blocked, the article is now semi protected for two weeks. MLauba ^(Talk) 15:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

User:FuFoFuEd

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

I added a book source to Star (Unix) and today a "new" editor named FuFoFuEd began trying to add a date qualifier [4] [5] which isn't backed up by reliable sources in order to downplay the utility being the fastest known tar implementation. It is pretty clear from this editor's contributions he isn't a "new editor" and rather than edit war with a sockpuppet, I'm reporting this here. A quick search also turned up several related discussions, including an AN/I discussion and related MfD, along with a stale SPI.

There are already major problems at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star (Unix) with cross-wiki harassment/wikihounding of Jörg Schilling (User:Schily) which appears to have begun off-wiki, spreading to the German Wikipedia, and now showing up here on the English Wikipedia. With the creation date of the FuFoFuEd account, it is quite likely related to this. Given that Schilling is a very well known software developer and somewhat high profile, with the cross-wiki aspects of this with what I found on the German Wikipedia and now what has spread to the English Wikipedia, I'm tempted to contact the WMF if this continues. No one should ever have to put up with being harassed and persecuted/wikihounded. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat

Hi, in a dispute with an ip with regards to edits made to Pacers–Pistons brawl‎. He originally made an unsourced edit to which I reverted. I explained to him/her about rules like WP:V and WP:OR. In his/her reply on my talk page, he/she made a legal threat, see [6]. Because of that, I am asking an admin to look into this and perhaps block the offender. Thanks.—Chris!_c/t 19:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Also he/she made several personal attacks, calling me an "ass" and lazy.[7]—Chris!_c/t 19:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Hi, Chris. When you begin a discussion about an editor, you should always notify the editor and provide him or her with a link to this page so they know exactly where the discussion is occurring. This is especially important for an IP user who may have no knowledge of how Wikipedia works. I've added a notification to the IP's talk page. In the future, you can simply add {{subst:ANI-notice}} --~~~~ to the editor's talk page. Ignore the above - I was having a peabrain moment. --NellieBly (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyone?—Chris!_c/t 21:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done Blocked the IP address for this threat. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 22:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The user has circumvented the block by hopping over to 24.209.249.23 (talk · contribs), and continues to attack Chris at Pacers–Pistons brawl and User talk:Chrishmt0423. Perhaps semi-protection is needed? —LOL ^T/_C 17:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it is block evasion, but I've blocked the second IP per the legal threat block as I don't see any retraction of the threat. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

On the conduct of User:Kumaripriya

I wish to bring to your notice the conduct of User:Kumaripriya who has been indulging in POV-pushing and personal attacks on Wikipedia. User:Kumaripriya had previously removed a well sourced and well-written section on "Controversies" in Devasahayam Pillai article. When I reverted User:Kumaripriya's edits and restored the cleanest and most neutral version, Kumaripriya responded by labelling us "anti-christian fanatic elements".

User:KUmaripriya has also been passing extremely objectionable comments in User:Fayenatic London's talk page.

Some samples:

Invoking a Wikipedian's religious sentiments. By the way, does this statement mean that all non-Christians are prejudical

Kindly go and study sincerely the Christian martyr's history, without any prejudice,if you are a Christian before attempting to poke your nose!

Now, this is a blunt justification of POV-pushing

This is a page written about a Christian martyr. It has no place for character assassination, whatsoever

You might also observe here that User:Kumaripriya has been indulging in personal attacks against a Wikipedian with a good reputation for neutrality. It also appears that Kumaripriya has also been labelling people as "infidels", etc.- The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 17:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You must notify any user discussed here. I've gone ahead and done that now, provided my cheap Internet connection will allow the edit through. elektrikSHOOS 18:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I've given a warning about the language they've been using and trying to block people of other religions from editing a page. The section above the ANI warning on their talk page is about this editor edit warring on another page, so some wider scrutiny of their edits may be in order. Fences&Windows 21:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It'd be good to verify the Daily Pioneer source that is the centre of the dispute. I tried to find it in the Wayback Machine, but couldn't. It's mirrored at [8], different date to the mirror you're using now, and without all the typos. Fences&Windows 22:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

More personal attacks from Anglo Pyramidologist

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.

Anglo Pyramidologist has been blocked indefinitely, with talk page access disabled. Chester Markel (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Anglo Pyramidologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who racked up a remarkable 4 blocks in April for personal attacks, is carrying on where he left off with 'the constant vandalism by the "anti-fascists/anti-BNPer's/far left wingers" (Snowded, multiculturalist etc)' and 'quite clearly they were added by a biased anti-BNPer who is deceitfull linking to stuff that cannot even be accessed and verified'. I think it might be time for another enforced wikibreak? Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

- Vandalism on the BNP page was already posted here less than 1 week ago and i had several admins agree with me that there are disrputive users on the BNP page. I've not personally attacked anyone, all i've tried to do is work with other users in improving the BNP article (yet anti-fascists/far-leftists etc keep vandalising it/reverting edits). Looks like you are just starting up trouble. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

-Please see multiculturalist's history page where he has numerous warnings about vandalising/making disruptive edits to the BNP page. This includes one edit/comment he left calling all BNP members "nazis" - which he recieved a warning on his talk page for. Also look at his name. Do you really think someone with the name 'multiculturalist' is going to not be baised against the BNP (a nationalist party who oppose multiculturalism and immigration?). Despite having 6 or 7 warnings about disruptive edits/vandalism to the BNP page he has never been banned from making further edits. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Anglo, this isn't far from what I've blocked you for before. Assigning epithets to other users is not going to go over well, nor is focusing so intensely upon their possible motives for editing. Concentrate only on content. You'll find things a lot easier that way. lifebaka++ 14:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Labelling and pigeonholing other editors is part of the problem, not part of the solution. bobrayner (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Not epithets, you can view the user pages mentioned where they self label themselves as 'anti-fascists', 'socialists' etc. I don't see how by pointing this out is personal attacks. The fact is there are a whole load of self admitted BNP haters (view their own pages) who have far-left socialist etc views yet they are allowed all over the BNP page. There are clearly problems with neutrality. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

In the same way that you self-label as a British Nationalist and a BNP-supporter? Please take a look at WP:COI. You also seem to not understand WP:RS, per this edit. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

AP also needs to look up the Wikipedia definition of vandalism. Even if the allegations about POV and biased editing were true (just for the sake of argument, I am not saying it is as I have not looked into the matter), that kind of editing does still not constitute vandalism. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

- As i have pointed out view the user 'multiculturalist's page where he has had repeated warnings for vandalism. For the past few weeks on the talk page he has been calling BNP Nazis/racists for which he was reported and recieved warnings. I'm only on the BNP talk page to get the ideology box updated. Currently it is incorrect. The BNP are not fascist or white nationalists. If they were i wouldn't have joined them. The ideology box is insulting to all current BNP members/supporters, its biased and incorrect, and that is why i want it to be updated. Please note: it was me who got the 'holocaust denial' tag removed from the BNP ideology box about a month or so back. I then recieved a message by a mod apologizing that it had been up there for many months when it was a false claim added by an anti-BNPer as a smear. My interest in the BNP article is merely to make it neutral and reflective of the party and their position/policies. If it wasn't for me the holocaust denial smear tag would still be up. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

"While parties such as the National Front or British National Party have attempted to appropriate national symbols to their primarily racist cause..." "British national sentiment". British Journal of Political Science. 29 (01). 1999. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

And, for the record, "Since 1999, under the leadership of Nick Griffin, the BNP has made attempts to modernize and has tried to conceal its more esoteric ideology, such as holocaust denial..." "White Backlash, 'Unfairness' and Justifications of British National Party (BNP) Support". Ethnicities. 10 (1): 77–99. 2010. Serpent's Choice (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

- Holocaust denial has never been a policy or position of the BNP. This is why it was removed from the ideology tag box a month or so back. What personal members believe or write is irrelevant to the position and policy of the party. Several Conservative MEP's for example are personally eurosceptics, but you would have to be mad to then post or claim the position or policy of the Conservatives was anti-eu. We have had problems on the BNP page before where people were linked to facebook posts and other nonsense which has nothing to do with the policies of position of the BNP. I also note in the last week these inappopirate facebook links were removed by an admin (thanks to me again). Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

If Sarek or Serpent's Choice were referencing Facebook, your argument might have merit, but they were quoting published works. Anglo Pyramidologist, if your purpose is to whitewash (no pun intended) topics related to BNP, you may as well move on. As long as there are reliable sources supporting what's in the article, it's going to stay, whether or not it conflicts with your personal beliefs. You very clearly have a conflict of interest with these subjects. -- Atama頭 19:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see my talk page. I have several users agreeing with me that the BNP ideology box needs to be updated. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 23:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Having checked I can see one, along with the IP with who you edit warred. We also have the same pattern of false claims as before (ANI are on my side when a subject has just been mentioned). Personally I can't see this editor ever changing and it might be an idea to try a topic ban for a period as opposed to escalating blocks --Snowded ^TALK 05:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

- Yet it is you snowded who is attacking anyone or their edits on the BNP article. You are a self-labelled "anti-fascist" on your userpage, and anyone who wants to make the BNP article more neutral you call a pro-BNP supporter, while multiculturalist calls them nazis or racists. Looking at your history on the BNP article in the last month shows you have made no contributions, just about 20-30 reverts of other peoples content. I;m not sure what your obsession is with the BNP. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Mods can also take note that snowded stalks my contributions. In the past view days he has posted on 2 or 3 articles i set up and just attacked them. There is no way he would have found those article randomly, he is just stalking my posted articles and attacking them to wind me up. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Indent your posts, please. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

AP, I expect more than one person watches your edits. You've shown no evidence that he is hounding you. Your talk page does show one user who seems to share your political sympathies, not surprising he agrees with you. I'm not sure which articles you claim Snowded is 'just attacking'. I found White Amazon Indians, a not very good article where he added a notability tag, but I don't see that as an attack (and he didn't add it to White Aethiopians which should be 'Ethiopians' by the way, looking at the sources). In fact,he's only edite 6 articles that you have edited, and only one article that you created, not '2 or 3' if by 'i set up' you mean created. Dougweller (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

- Yes, nonsurprisngly both articles concerning white people or race (those are the only he commented on mine). Also viewing Snowded's history shows he only edits the unite against fascism page, the BNP or english defense league. Snowded seems to have an very unhealthy obsessesion with race + and racial topics. I wouldn't mind if he contributed to helping these pages, but he seems to have a political agenda and just reverts peoples edits. Like i said view the BNP article and Snowded's history on it, he's never contributed all he's ever done is revert peoples contributions or criticise posters he thinks are pro-BNP. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That is far from the truth. See Snowded's Top Namespace Edits. His top three articles are Knowledge management, Philosophy and Wales. None of his top hundred seem to be about race, and only four or five about fascism. He is not the editor with a "very unhealthy obsessesion with race + and racial topics". RolandR (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Do I hear a WP:BOOMERANG in flight? Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You mean this? --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

A classic case of the pot calling the kettle black, except in this case the kettle's one of those shiny new chrome ones. GiantSnowman 22:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

- The difference is I add articles or information and contribute on race based or political pages, in contrast Snowded does not contribute, he only picks debates with people who don't hold his far-left wing views and then starts to label them (like multiculturalist) - which might i add is ironically rather fascist. To see a typical example of this view the unite against fascism talk page. Or if you view the BNP history page you will see Snowded has never contributed. All he has ever done is revert people's edits and he calls other users 'pro-BNP' who he doesn't agree with (see the talk page). While the user multiculturalist labels people who want to make the article more neutral as nazis (again view the talk page and his own talk page where he got several warnings). At the end of the day you have to ask why you are here. I'm here to improve articles or add articles, and i continuelly seek to improve the BNP page. Snowded in contrast is only on the BNP page to stop it being updated because he has a biased political motives and views. Again you only have to view the BNP talk page to see Snowded's biased posts against the BNP, yet he never has recieved a warning. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Anglo Pyramidologist, you seem to be under the misapprehesion that there is something wrong with being biased against the BNP. There isn't, in the same way that there is nothing wrong with being biased against the clap. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all. Anglo - I monitor a series of articles associated with the far right in order to prevent them being used as propaganda machines. I'm not the only editor to do that and its all a part of maintaining a NPOV. You have been constantly asked to provide references for your assertions, and in the main all we get are BNP statements and photographs of people at BNP events. Those are not reliable sources. Oh and yes, given your track record I do from time to time check out other articles you are editing. --Snowded ^TALK 07:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I find it quite annoying, that Anglo continues to refuse to indent his posts. GoodDay (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

- what normal people use wikipedia to 'track the far right' and stop them becomming 'propaganda machines'? You self-admit you have a political agenda which when it comes to the BNP article is a huge problem and you have no interest in improving the article. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

'there is nothing wrong with being biased against the clap' , of course not however the problem is becomming obsessed and sitting all day on those wiki articles. Snowded sits all day on the BNP article reverting peoples edits. Given the fact he openly admits he has a political agenda against the BNP and other far-right groups then i think he should be removed from the article or atleast get reviewed. Snowded has no good intentions with the BNP article, he's only on it because he hates them. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I'll repeat what GoodDay said, please indent your posts. Secondly, what Snowded actually said is that he wants to keep the BNP page as fair and neutral as possible - stop trying to twist his words to satisfy your own agenda. GiantSnowman 14:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Many editors track subject areas that interest them Anglo, not sure if they are "normal people" or not but then I wouldn't like to site in judgement. What matters is if they follow wikipedia rules in the way they edit. You have supplied no diffs to support your various allegations here. You have a track record] of blocks of personal attacks and harassment, and from your comments above you haven't learnt from them. --Snowded ^TALK 14:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

- And you have a personal history of labelling/abusing/smearing people on the BNP talk page (mods feel free to take a look). Anyone who doesn't agree with your personal political views you call a BNP 'sympathiser' or 'pro-BNP' while multiculturalist calls them 'nazis'. If anyone should be blocked it is you. The fact you also above admitted you are only on the BNP page to 'patrol right winger posters' further reveals your biased political agenda. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Diffs please Anglo --Snowded ^TALK 18:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

'Many editors track subject areas that interest them Anglo' - so what is your obsession with the BNP, a party you openly admit you oppose and do not support? Is it normal for people to be obsessed with things they oppose? Its seems to be deep insecurity. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The BNP are obsessed by immigration, something they oppose. I guess they're all deeply insecure as well, then... GiantSnowman 17:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Another lie. Yawn. In there last 3 manifesto's out of 80+ pages only 2 pages are on immigration policy. The conservatives, ukip and labour on theirs covered tens more. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Will you PLEASE indent your posts, properly? GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

This section is pointless as its clear my edits regarding the BNP ideology box is never going to be improved. I've wasted enough time with this. The biased far-leftists/UAF/communists/anti-BNPer's/labour supporters can continue to control the BNP article. Truth is truth, most people i know who have read the wiki article on BNP acknowledge that it is a biased piece of propaganda written from a far left anti-BNP perspective. Even more embarrasing is its sources (facebook and other smear sources) The article doesn't fool anyone. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, if most people you know are, like you, supporters of the BNP, then its is not surprising that they agree with your negative opinion of this objective account. Most people I know think that the BNP are lower than vermin, and have a d8fferent opinion of the article. RolandR (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Even your average vermin knows to indent its posts properly. It's ironic that AP's posts continue to lean to the left. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

As AP has self-identified as a BNP member or suporter, these two comments approach being a personal attack.

Roland and Bugs, you're both better than that. Please don't do that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I assume the reason he won't indent is just to be obstinate. So I don't see any issue with ribbing him about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

As i claimed above i'm no longer posting/editing on the BNP article. I tried all i could to get the changes i proposed implemented, but no one wants to update the BNP page more neutrally. Every other nationalist party on wikipedia are not smeared as fascists or white nationalists. What their articles state is that the media label them this, but that they themselves deny the labels as smears. Please see Jobbik. Why can't the BNP page be like Jobbik's and more neutral? Please view the jobbik page open paragraph if you don't understand. Basically the BNP page should open like theirs i.e that their opponents and media call them fascists but that they deny this as a smear. Why is this on every other nationalist page but not the BNP? I would like an admin to answer.Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The answer is quite simple Anglo Pyramidologist: The BNP are fascists. The only people who seem to think otherwise are their supporters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Since when are political parties free from criticism though? In the United States (specifically Florida), where Wiki's servers are located, it's certainly not the case. I am very biased against BNP of course, but I mean some of the company they keep (they apparently also have a relationship with Germany's National Democratic Party who I dislike as well for obvious reasons) makes it so I cannot not be biased against them (though in editing the article I would have to be). This bit right here btw: "Truth is truth" The overwhelming view among the RSs about BNP is that they are fascists or at the very least white nationalists, and so that's how you have to treat it in the article. Wikipedia's about verifiablility, not one's version of the truth, and you should not go against that just because you don't like the article's content. Remember that we are not required, and afaik, not supposed to basically change the info the RSs themselves put out just because we think it will make the article more neutral, rather we find info from the RSs and use it according to the weight of the views. The idea is that so long as we follow the sources as closely as we can, we have maintained neutrality as best we can (because the sources don't have to maintain an NPOV etc etc). Also, if the concensus is against your changes, there's really not much you can do except try a better policy-based argument. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 02:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

AP continually refers to the political ideology (real or imagined) of people who disagree with him over the characterisation of the BNP, a party he claims to support. The party derives from English fascism, its leaders celebrated Hitler's birthday while wearing SS uniforms, they denied the holocaust and now allow non-white members after losing a court case. AP's claim that anyone who opposes them, including the Conservatives, are far left is offensive. AP should rely on arguments rather than personal attacks. TFD (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Seen through their distorted prism, it would figure that most of the British population would qualify as "far left". It's also important to keep in mind that politicians with hate messages (like Hitler's) can be ignored but with perilous consequences. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Typical distortion/lies above from someone who clearly has no idea about the history of the BNP. Briefly to correct the lies: When the BNP formed in 1982, Tyndall was already a small figure of the party and by that time there were no fascist or extremist links to the BNP. Only several years later Richmond Edmonds took over, and later Nick Griffin. You are confusing the national front to the British National Party. Two completely different parties. Furthermore you are also confusing personal ideologies or backgrounds of prominent members with the party policies and stance. Both are different things - as i have already stated. The conservative party for example have MEP'S who are personally eurosceptic and want to leave the EU, yet that is not a policy or stance of the conservative party (instead its BNP's & UKIP's only). Politicians or party members are entitled to have personal views not aligned to the party. Next lie: Holocaust denial. Again holocaust denial has never been a position or policy of the BNP (or even NF). That Nick Griffin once believed in it 20-30 years ago is irrelevant. Peter Mandelson of the labour party used to believe in communism and even served in the Young Communist League. Does that make all labour party members automatically communists? Third lie posted above is about BNP's membership & non-whites. On the contrary the BNP have worked with orthodox jews, egyptian copts, sikhs and hindus since 2001. BNP have never been a racist party and infact poll well in elections in sikh and hindu areas. The fact the membership exluded non-whites up to 2009 joining is not either racist. The National Black Police Association (United Kingdom) only accepts black or non-white members. Whites cannot join it. Why don't the anti-BNPer's then criticise all the black organisations that refuse to accept whites? The answer is because they are anti-white racists, if you view The Four Deuces comments over the BNP talk page his leukophobia and racism against white people is all over the place. What a nerve he calls me biased or personally attacking, when above rant against BNP also breaks wikipedia stance on neutrality and is nothing more than a paragraph of lies and distortions/smears against the BNP. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

...and for that tirade I have indef blocked Anglo Pyramidolgist, as making personal attacks. Review welcome. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

An indefinite block just for the comments is excessive - six months might be more appropriate. However, given new checkuser information an indefinite block for abusive sockpuppetry is justified, according to usual Wikipedia practices. Chester Markel (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

"Leukophobia"? Fear of "white cells", perhaps? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Anglo socking? I don't believe it. Perhaps those are his brother's socks. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

White socks, presumably ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

In contrast with the great majority of Britishers, who he would presumably claim wear Red socks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Just re-reading the discussion above, I'm astounded by the suggestion that Sikhs and Hindus vote BNP - the BNP gets support in such areas (mainly in the less wealthy north of England) precisely because the local racists don't like the Sikhs and Hindus -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That was fun. Do a lot of fellows with such... interesting ideologies come through this spot? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 19:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Erlandinho, edit-warring and frequent inappropriate genre changes against consensus despite repeated warnings

Erlandinho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is what many in the music wikiproject refer to as a "genre troll". They have a long (well over two year history) of picking a band and going through and changing the genres on every song and album. Often they will do this while deleting a hidden message stating to "seek consensus on the talk page before changing genres" (the reason for this being that the current genres are already the result of an edit war that led to a long winded discussion). Despite general consensus being against the use of Allmusic for selecting genres, this user insists on using it,[9] sometimes as the end-all-be-all of sources on genres.[10] They have edit-warred on a number of topics to attempt to insert or remove genres. By the third revert, they occasionally add a requested source, but it is often allmusic as well.[11][12][13][14] The user also has a habit of being told to stop, disappearing for some time, then showing up and taking another shot at it.[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]

This behaviour is annoying to say the least. The user has been at it for two years now with no signs of stopping, despite a talk page filled with warnings from multiple users.[23] Personally, I'd like to see this user banned from changing genres. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The 90% of the generes that I changed had a reliable sources, and the others (10%) also had no . Erlandinho (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You have been told and warned many times not to change genres without discussing it on the talk page, and to not rely on allmusic as a source for genres (allmusic CAN be used, however, as a source for bios). Yet still, you respond by reverting and using edit summaries such as "go home",[24] "accept it"[25] and "fuck u".[26] - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on changing music genres. Sample uncivil edit summary from three days ago. We don't need genre warriors like this, particularly when they use no or poor sources. Fences&Windows 22:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Ghostofnemo

Ghostofnemo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a long history of disruptive editing regarding 9/11 conspiracy theories. For the past year or so, he's been tenditiously pushing for two changes to the article:

1. Inclusion of a petition by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
2. Inclusion of a section on Building 7.

Regardless of the merits of these changes, both have been discussed numerous times and have never gained consensus.

Regarding the first change, Ghostofnemo forum shopped at the Fringe theories noticeboard, Neutral point of view noticeboard, the Neutral point of view noticeboard talk page and also tried to change our policy on WP:OR and then WP:Disruptive editing to make it easier to implement his changes. During these discussions, Ghostofnemo exhibited an extreme case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU:

• 9/11 conspiracy theories 10 March 2010
• 9/11 conspiracy theories 2 December 2010
• Original Research June 16th, 2010
• Fringe theories noticeboard 7 December 2010
• Disruptive editing 2 January 2011
• Neutral point of view noticeboard 1 January 2011
• Neutral point of view noticeboard talk page 7 March 2011

Regarding the second change (inclusion of a section on Building 7), three times he's tried to add it to the article:

• [27] January 1, 2011
• [28] January 2, 2011
• [29] May 23, 2011

Here's the thing that gets me. Yesterday, he asks on the article talk page why his change was reverted.[30] He should know full well why. He was an active participant in the last discussion about it[31][32][33][34][35][36] yet again demonstrating a severe case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Here's a link to the full archived discussion.[37]

Ghostofnemo has been warned regarding the 9/11 discretionary sanctions.[38] He stopped editing the article for a while, but he's back and exhibiting the same problematic behavior as before.

I note that Ghostofnemu has been reported to ANI twice before.[39][40]

To cut to the chase, he contributes virtually nothing to our 9/11 conspiracy theories topic space so at the very minimum, I'd like a topic ban on Ghostofnemo regarding 9/11 conspiracy theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Ghostofnemu has been notified of this discussion.[41] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Procedural note: You say he participated in the discussions and has been warned. Each statement has a cite, but the cite is the same in each case, pointing to the warning. Can you provide the cite of the participation in the discussion?--SPhilbrickT 20:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Sphilbrick: Sorry about that. I posted the wrong link. It should now be fixed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to attempt a discussion with the editor on their talk page. We'll see how it goes.--SPhilbrickT 22:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I was going to suggest WP:AE as a better location than here if Sphilbrick isn't successful. NW (Talk) 23:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I could actually duplicate this report in a topic area that is not under an arbitration decision. GoN has habitually NOTHEARDIT, used OR to make a point, and forum shopped. From experience, other editors have tried to take him in and improve his editing. They stop being nice when their efforts were met with the behavior being repeated. GoN was made aware of the topic area being under a decision a long time ago and has some how gotten away with it. And I believe he will do it again in any other topic area. I would love to see him respond positively to criticism from a neutral mentor. He has had his chances so hopefully Sphilbrick's approach will actually work. Best of luck to GoN but his hardheadedness needs to come to an end. But this comment is not needed because I bet it will happen again. Hope I am wrong.Cptnono (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Care to provide us with some examples, Cptnono? You know, where I posted something completely inappropriate into an article and someone removed it because it was clearly either POV, poorly sourced or irrelevant to the article, and I stubbornly kept reinserting it as an act of vandalism. Be sure NOT to include any examples where NPOV, well sourced, highly relevant material I contributed was deleted for dubious reasons or for no reason at all. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Large number of aparrent copy-paste page moves; possible copyright concerns

This is why we need more people at WP:NPP. Patrolling from the back of the backlog reveals this extensive issue that's been on the Wiki since May 1. It appears as though Looc9 (talk · contribs) began removing the plot summaries from Pretty little liars into separate articles on each individual book: Pretty Little Liars (book), Flawless (book), and Perfect (book). Steamroller Assault (talk · contribs) discovered the plot summary of the first one was possibly copyrighted, deleted it, and warned Looc9. The user hasn't contributed since. A google search of the text reveals several hits on various websites. I'm not sure if these are all mirrors or if one is the original copyrighted source but either way a whole lot more is going on here than I can accomplish, and furthermore I have not fixed a cut-and-paste page move before and don't know how. I'll try and figure it out in the interim but the copyright issues deeply concern me. N419BH 17:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

My God, the revision history of Pretty Little Liars is certainly a mess. In addition to the problems noted above (for which my personal recommedation would be a merge back to the main article and a copyright review), I checked the section on Unbelievable in the main article and found that it's a copy/paste of this Amazon "review", dated 27 May 2008 and introduced into the article here, only a couple of months ago, though there are different plot summaries earlier in the article's history with which it could presumably be replaced. It's all too complex for me at the moment; but it would certainly be a good idea for some actual adults to monitor these sorts of articles, which obviously are largely written and "maintained" by children. Deor (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, at the very least we need to merge the first three books back into the main article, which will require admin intervention. The problem with all this is these plot summaries are everywhere on blogs and amazon, and it seems as though most are likely old revisions of our wiki pages, copied without attribution. I'm still trying to sort out the mess and figure out what to do with everything. I think it's highly likely that these were originally copy-pastes from somewhere, they read like teaser-adverts for the book, not regular plot summaries. But there's so much vandalism on the edit history that finding out for sure is a near impossible task. N419BH 18:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Continuing to investigate, it looks like the copyright concerns are mostly a red herring. It appears as though people are copying text from here into their own personal blogs/facebooks/fansites/etc. without attribution which makes sorting out the mess that much harder. I've proposed all three articles for merger back into the main article, but I'd like to get an admin opinion or two here before actually doing it. I've also undone the copyright deletion by Steamroller Assault as it looks like we are the original text, not the facebook page he references. What a mess. N419BH 19:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. I support the merger of these articles, but I think we may as well be bold and simply turn the book articles into redirects to Pretty Little Liars, as there is really nothing worth saving (no references, no critical reception, etc.). While I now understand that the plot summaries for the individual books were lifted from the main article, which originated prior to the blogs and reviews I found, it's way too duckish for me. I have a hard time believing that much of this book jacket text was originally published here. In addition, Pretty Little Liars is filled to the brim with spam references (direct links to booksellers), and needs a complete overhaul. Steamroller Assault (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The spinoffs by Looc9 appear to have started as unattributed copies from Pretty Little Liars. I can fix the attribution with dummy edits and {{Copied}}s if there's anything worth merging back, but it would be easier and cleaner to speedy delete as G12 and recreate the redirects if desired. Perfect (book) has some expansion of its Plot section, but Pretty Little Liars (book) and Flawless (book) are unchanged. Flatscan (talk) 04:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

If there's any history worth saving Copy-paste back and redirect, otherwise G12 them and create redirects. While we're at it we should redirect the other titles too if they haven't been already. That will solve the page-move issue, which will only leave the gargantuan mess at the main article. I'm still not entirely convinced these plot summaries aren't partially lifted from somewhere. N419BH 05:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

3rr violation by User:Florentyna

moved from WP:AN by Skomorokh 10:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This user reverted 22 edits by another editor (User:JamesBWatson) within a couple of minutes maybe some sort of action is needed? [42]. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 21:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Like what? All those edits are to different pages; Florentyna never edited any page more than once in that span, and a quick glance over other surrounding days doesn't show me any other contributions to those pages. 3RR applies per page, and it's a good thing: it's possible (I say this without having looked at the edits or the reversions) that JamesBWatson made some good-faith but very unhelpful edits to all of these pages and that Florentyna did the right thing by reverting all of them. Unless there's another problem, I believe this should be marked as "resolved, no problem here". Nyttend (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

JamesBWatson removed Wikilinks from "Woon Khe Wei", since the article on that badmitton player had been speedied. Florentyna restored them, thus adding yet another redlink to pages already swarming with redlinks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone actually talked to either JamesBWatson or Florentyna? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a content issue, not something that needs admin attention: making single reverts on multiple articles is definitely not a 3RR violation. By the way, we have a page specifically dedicated to 3RR violations; this isn't a "wrong" place, but the other page is a better place. Nyttend (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I think here is no problem at all. It is a pity, that I have not seen the article about "Woon Khe Wei" because it was speedy deleted. This badminton player is clearly relevant, so there was no need to remove the Wikilinks from "Woon Khe Wei" (as done by JamesBWatson). This 3RR violation notice of user Intoronto1125 is again nonsense, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vietnamese National Badminton Championships. It costs a lot of time for all of the discussing people, nothing else. --Florentyna (talk) 06:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The articles you have written are poorly written and sourced. Reverting 22 edits by another user in two minutes should not be acceptable. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 14:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Do I gather some of these articles are translated? From? By machine or by hand? Dougweller (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It does not depend on the time, it depends on why! So, that was my last statement here, no more time for discussing troll attacks. For me the (never existing) problem is solved. --Florentyna (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The above post was made at 15:02, 30 May 2011. I have no idea why the time stamp was subsequently altered. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not a troll attack, how does one edit 22 pages in 2 minutes? Please remember to indent as well. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 15:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

As in many situations, looking into content disputes may reveal behavioral problems, so I wouldn't be so quick as Nyttend to write this complaint off. Intoronto1125 is indeed incorrect in that 3RR does not apply here, but we do have an editor restoring wikilinks to a non-existant article for a (probably) non-notable badmitton player, and not paying any attention to apparently good-faith comments made about their editing, dismissing them as a "troll attack". That warrants, at least, a closer look at Florentyna's editing behavior, I think. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, back again. It's getting too fancy. Beyond My Ken, I hope you looked at my editing behavior and you found out, that I made around 50.000 edits in de, en and commons. And be sure, after 5 years working with wikipedia I know what a troll attack is. For me it seems, that user Intoronto1125 tests all the functions here in wikipedia, like the already mentioned Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vietnamese National Badminton Championships, where he nominated around 20 articles for deletion within 5 minutes, because there were not working references. Now he tests 3RR without knowing what it is, and also without looking at the reverted changes, he is only wondering about the speed of reverting. Probably after only 6 months working with wikipedia it seems like a very phantastic number to him, but every experienced user is able to do this within 60 seconds. User Nyttend is very right with his suggestion what he made here. You can also ask somebody from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Badminton/Members, if they also would revert the changes made by JamesBWatson. I'm sure that yes! By the way, Woon Khe Wei is very notable, see de:Woon Khe Wei. --Florentyna (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Define troll attack. Of course I am going to nominate articles for deletion if they have no sources to indicate importance! some that has been here for five years should know that, it looks like you just joined Wikipedia. Why, are you turning this on to me, I saw what I saw and reported it. I never mentioned 3rr in my original statement just look above. The title is named 3rr, because it is the closest to the situation. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 18:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody has mentioned that the edits of mine that were reverted were automatic edits made by Twinkle as a result of the deletion of the target of the links. I have no special opinion of the articles containing those links. Whether restoring all those links is good or bad is a content issue, and does not require any administrative action. There do, however, seem to be some other issues with Florentyna's editing, such as describing perfectly good faith edits as troll attacks and nonsense. I will post a brief note about this on their talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Please simply close this debate, again a lot of time lost for nothing. User:JamesBWatson (if I understood him right) agrees, that such reverts can happen, so nothing more to discuss about. --Florentyna (talk) 10:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Island Monkey

Undid all my edits by calling them vandalism, called me a troll. Please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Free or unfree (talk • contribs) 16:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Well lets see. In the middle of several discussions about images a brand new user shows up and start tagging images for deletion. There seems to be an aroma of WP:SOCKPUPPET in the air along with all the charcoal for barbecues. It also looks like the kids are playing with WP:BOOMERANGs as well as Frisbees and lawn darts. MarnetteD | Talk 16:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I would be serious if a real editor accused me of something, but this - LOL! Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 16:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Mmmm lawn darts :) --Tothwolf (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Returning vandal blocked. TNXMan 17:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Lovely jubbly. Now the proper image mafia can do their annoying (but essential) work. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 18:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Look into this commons account:

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hold_and_wave

46.184.211.5 (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Well bugger me sideways, thank you Mr. IP! I've reported him on Commons. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 07:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Scott MacDonald question re verifiability policy

I just queried Scott MacDonald (talk · contribs) regarding an apparent misunderstanding of WP:V, [43].

It was removed with no comment [[44].

I therefore raise it here, as I am concerned that the admin does not understand core policy, and refuses to discuss it.  Chzz  ►  00:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Users are at liberty to remove messages from their talk pages. Chzz appears to be forum-shopping and attempting needlessly to escalate a non-event. Mathsci (talk) 00:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I am absolutely not forum-shopping; this query is unrelated to any other discussion. It's about Scott MacDonald's apparent misunderstanding of V, which I used 2 lines to explain - taken from elsewhere. The 2 lines make it clear that he either fail to understand, or fail to acknowledge, a very simple statement of policy. His refusal to discuss it astounds me. this removal of the ANI notification with edit-summary of "don't be silly" furthers my concern over the behaviour of the user. Of course, he's quite at liberty to remove things from his own talk page - I do not dispute that, at all. But this apparent disregard of a query is not appropriate conduct from an administrator.  Chzz  ►  00:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The "don't be silly" edit-summary adds new dimensions to this non-event. Mathsci (talk) 01:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Chzz, hold on a second. Let's say that you and Scoot actually have different interpretations of WP:V and your reading of WP:V is more correct than Scott's (by consensus I suppose), how is that a matter for AN/I? He's not editing disruptively is he? He disagreed with you at deletion review. I hate to say it but this is beyond frivolous and I recommend you withdraw your query here. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

On the issue of removing comments from ones own talk page, mathsci is right. Users are at liberty to remove anything from their talk pages they see fit except for unblock templates. However, just because someone can do a thing doesn't mean they should do a thing. Removing others comments may suggest that one doesn't give a rat's ass about their concerns. However, on the issue of verifiability and sources, a lot of editors confuse sources that are used to verify information in an article with sources used to demonstrate "notability" at AFD. The latter I like to call supersources. (a redirect to an essay you wrote Chzz) However, a source doesn't have to be a "supersource" to verify that something exists. For example, an IMDB entry can verify that an actor exists but it can't be used to demonstrate notability. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, I take your opinion very seriously, and thus if a couple more people tell me to withdraw this (and if you still think I should after reading the rest of this comment), then I will. Possibly there's some other more suitable venue; sincere apologies if I got the wrong place.

Mr. Ritzman - I totally agree re. user pages, but yes - admins seemingly not giving a rat's ass is exactly my concern. I don't see how the V policy on not having articles with no third-party refs at all can possibly be unclear - that was the specific point I raised. Admins just ignoring a good-faith attempt at questioning them, and just tossing it off their talk with "stupid" - that is NOT appropriate conduct. I believe that admins must be exemplary in their conduct - quite literally; setting a good example. I'm not saying this is a 'blockable' / 'desysop' thing, or anything so crazy - but to ignore my dispute, it ain't 'nice', it's not 'exemplary'.  Chzz  ►  03:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(non-admin comment)I tell you what. When it's time for me to pass out banana stickers, he won't get one. Other than that, I'm not really seeing any action that could/should be done here. - SudoGhost™ 03:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Chzz needs support here, as he has discovered a fairly serious problem of a whole series of unsourced articles about future events in the martial arts. It appears that Wikipedia is being used as free advertising space for unsourced articles about these non-notable pay-per-view events. I have looked at a few of the articles, particularly the contributions made on behalf of K-1. Have a look at {{2011 K-1 Events}}: you will see a series of self-sourced articles about non-notable pay-per-view events that are the property of this organization. Chzz noticed this problem and is hoping to do something about it. So to dismiss his concerns about the lack of sources is problematic. This kind of work is pretty much the opposite of fun, and without the support of the administrative team he is quite likely going to lose interest in pursuing it. We gotta decide here if we want to play web-host for K-1 and others who post COI advertorials, and offer support to editors like Chzz who are not keen to have the encyclopedia used as a free web host in this manner. So I agree with Chzz that Scott's behaviour was inappropriate for an admin. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) I agree with Diannaa here. I don't know if this is the correct venue but I will say that there a way too many articles on Wikipedia that are either not notable or sourced very poorly or not at all and it can be very tough to get them removed if the talk page consensus is to keep even in spite of core policy violations. If this was a deletion discussion I could think of a few reasons why this and similar PPV event articles should be ditched. N^oformation ^Talk 04:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(non-admin comment)Me, too. Trying to keep the weeds out of the garden really is a thankless task, and it actually annoys me that certain people / groups are using WP as free-advertising space. This is not what we're here for, and an admin who seems not to understand the underlying problem could appear to be condoning the use of the 'pedia in this way. It's definitely a concern when the majority of people turning up at deletion-wossnames are fans, and effectively shout everyone down just by sheer weight of numbers. If it's against policy, then it's against policy - and, as they say, "300,000 people shouting the same thing doesn't mean it's right". I think we do need a new CsD criterion to deal with this kind of misuse of the 'pedia. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's take this in chronological order.

1. At a DRV launched by Chzz, Scott Mac endorses a redirect, relying on WP:V ("Remove all unverifiable information." leaving nothing but a substub, so redirect is preferred).
2. Chzz challenges this, drawing on the part of WP:V which quotes the nub of WP:N: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Implicitly, he's saying even a redirect is a sort of article which requires sources, which makes a sort of sense, but poses a bit of a challenge (I've never seen a redirect with sources in it).
3. Chzz technically asked a question of Scott Mac on his user talk page about this, but it either was a rhetorical question or could easily be mistaken for one, and either way it didn't illuminate the nature of their disagreement, and was brusque and somewhat confrontational. There was also no obvious need to do that there rather than carry on discussion at the DRV. Scott Mac's removal without even a reply in the edit summary was unfortunate at best; and most people on the receiving end of that would feel it was rude.
4. ANI post which would have been more suitable for WP:WQA (though there's no obvious alternative home for the "admin doesn't understand core policy?" aspect).
5. Diannaa illuminates the background issue is the serial creation of articles on pay-per-view events without evidence of notability (independent reliable sources).

Conclusion: WP:V is not WP:N. They intersect, but they can lead to slightly different conclusions. Obviously in deletion debates the key thing is WP:N (notability).

1. Somebody should look into who's creating all these K-1 articles. Perhaps some form of sanction would be appropriate to prevent the creation of spammy COI articles. Rd232 ^talk 04:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I am gonna talk to Chzz and see if he wants to pull together a mass deletion nomination of some kind for the K-1 stuff. Then there is the question of people creating self-sourced articles about non notable events. They don't qualify for speedy under A-7 and by the time we get them through a deletion discussion the organizer has already taken advantage of our servers and resources for at least a week of free advertising. Then there is a big obstacle with getting them deleted as all the fans show up at the AFD and make non-policy based arguments for keeping this junk. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 05:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a potential expansion of CSD criteria - A7, or possibly A9. Rd232 ^talk 05:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I somehow doubt it'll happen (much as I'd like it to), but you can take a crack at it here if you think otherwise. I think a mass AfD here would be a good idea; I may take some time to sift through the (s)crap heap here myself. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've been involved with this too, I did not find Scott's advice to be effective at Slammiversary IX.  I think the problem is not just spammy COI articles, it is announcements of future events in general, which is related to "breaking news stories".  Editors keep trying to deal with these at AfD and DRV.  This doesn't work, because the notability of the topic changes at the time of the instantiation of the event, or during the on-going course of events for the breaking news story.  Has anyone forgotten Serene Branson?  You can check on the latest medal totals today for the United States at the 2012 Summer Olympics.  There are two of these cases at DRV right now, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 25 (Winnipeg NHL Team) and Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_May_27 (Slammiversary IX).  Unscintillating (talk) 05:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Point of order: in filing this at ANI, I had no intention of raising the "Future PPV wrestling" issue here. I'm quite happy that it's being discussed, but we've got 2 things going on here, right now. 1 being the problematic articles on future wrestling events, 2 being admin conduct of Scott MacDonald. So may I ask...could some clerky-type-person possibly sort this out into two bits? If #2 isn't appropriate here, that's coolio, and I'll go elsewhere for it, or drop it. Many thanks for all the input.  Chzz  ►  05:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear from my comments above, I think you should drop #2, not least since it isn't admin conduct in question - he was not acting as an admin. Rd232 ^talk 05:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Rd232, you're absolutely correct that #2 is not re. admin-conduct, it's re. user-conduct. The only caveat there being, I expect 'better' conduct from Admins than I would of other users, in as much as, I like to see exemplary behaviour - and thus am more likely to criticise actions of an admin which, if they were a new user, I'd turn a blind eye to. Thus - is ANI unsuitable? (genuine question) ta.  Chzz  ►  05:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, per point 4 in my comments above, though it's not the end of the world. I understand the issue, and particular in terms of communication, we have a right to expect admins to generally set positive examples, and Scott didn't here. But in this instance I set against that the things I said above in point 3. Rd232 ^talk 06:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks. If ANI is the wrong place re. #4, yes, I'll move/drop; that's cool, but for better or worse we're 'here' now, so maybe it's best staying threaded here. Ta.  Chzz  ►  06:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Chzz, I should have offered a more complete explanation to you, and I'm sorry if my comment seemed harsh. For the record I agree with your concerns about these clearly promotional pages and I'm glad that you are tackling the problem, but that is a content issue. When I saw your post what I didn't agree with was the need for an AN/I based on admin or even user behavior. Perhaps WQA would have been a better venue. Sometimes bad interpretations of policy lead to actual disruption, edit wars, and talk page incivility. In such cases I would find AN/I appropriate, but I didn't see that from Scott. You are right to be frustrated by his response to you and I'm sorry that he didn't respond in a more collegial manner. Maybe he will next time. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• It is always a sad day when experienced editors reach such an impasse; especially when one of them outright refuses to discuss the issues. Diannaa appears to be spot-on here, and I agree that Chzz has cause for concern. I don't think we should be looking at any "admin. vs. editor" issues here though, as no admin actions have been taken. However, "experience" should dictate that there would be some sort of understandable communication when questions such as this arise. Anything sanction-able? Doubtful. I'll note that Scott has been in the thick of things lately, and I do commend him for his efforts in the BLP/FR areas, even if I don't agree with all his actions. Perhaps he's operating on a bit of a raw-edge lately, but it's not my place to presuppose his mindset. I'd like to think that perhaps someone could talk to Scott, but I have no idea who he'd be willing to discuss things with. In regards to the "fanboy/cruft" stuff with the wrestling articles, while it's been quite a few years since I followed it, I do agree that these articles being developed before the event happens do seem to thumb their collective noses at wp:crystal. But, meh - I admit that the higher end of the chain (Wrestlemania) meet the wp:v and wp:n policies, so I'm not going to dive into any of that stuff at the moment. In the end, I'm not really sure what, if anything, can be done; however, hopefully someone will be able to have a chat with Scott and find a way to breach this divide. I don't recall having ever interacted with him myself, so it's doubtful he'd care to discuss the issue with me personally. Any takers out there? — Ched :  ?  16:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I will do it. I am also going to follow up on the idea of getting a speedy deletion criterion happening for non-notable future events. I don't know if this idea has been discussed or tried before, so for now I am just opening a thread at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Speedy deletion of non notable future events. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Ched Davis - I never thought of it as an "editor v. admin" dispute, I never would; it's "editor v. editor". But... - honest question: imagine this was the other way around - that an editor, who happened to be an admin, had - politely - queried me, over a policy, on my user talk page - and I'd just removed it ...and then, they'd posted on ANI, and I'd ignored that too as 'silly'. Do you think it'd be the same?  Chzz  ►  05:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)  Chzz  ►  11:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• note - User:Chzz has de-archived this when clearly there is nothing requiring any admin action at all and if as he says in his edit summary he wants an answer from User:Ched Davis he rather go ask him for one on his talkpage than replace this to the administrative incident drama noticeboard when no administrative action is required. IMO User:Chzz was mistaken to bring this here in the first place and is doubly mistaken to have de-archived the thread. As is IMO often the case, this thread says more about the person making the report than the person being reported. All to often there is a pointy, tittle tattle kindergarten playground style mentality expounded in such as this, Johnny who I have a little dispute with didn't answer my question and I demand one or I will stamp my feet, all supported by wiki lawyering at its worst. Off2riorob (talk) 11:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Rob, but I have to disagree with you. On balance, I think this is moving toward a resolution that will be of benefit to the community re these kinds of articles, and especially think Diannaa's participation here to try to deal with the issue surrounding differences of opinion re verifiability has been valuable in that respect. And I hope you'll forgive me if I also observe that the rather personal and belittling nature of your comment probably won't help move this to a resolution, but actually works in the opposite direction, to increase the drama that you say you're objecting to.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Believe me, I'm the last one to want DRAMA. I did say in my edit-summary, sorry if people object, mark it as completed [45] - that still applies. I think it's the first time I've ever started a thread here; ANI might not be quite the right place - apologies for that, I'll know better next time. But being as we were here, I thought it best to carry on. If it's best handled elsewhere though, I'm absolutely happy to move. On four previous occasions in this thread, I've humbly asked if I was in the right place and offered to move/withdraw it [46] [47] [48] [49]. If people think I'm being childish or wiki-lawyering, please, just remove this thread; no worries.  Chzz  ►  13:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Manorathan

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.

User blocked for six hours for disruptived editing. Other editors, please do not extend this discussion and could we use this break to start again with a clean sheet all round please? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Manorathan (talk · contribs), in edit summaries of Tamil Kshatriya (see the edit summary for [50]), in the text of Talk:Tamil Kshatriya (see the section title created here), on his/her talk page, and, finally, on User Talk:Qwyrxian#Dealing with vandals on Tamil Kshatriya page that the edits of User:Sitush and User:Rajkris on Tamil Kshatriya are vandalism. Manorathan also gave an actual vandalism warning to Sitush here. User was specifically told on xyr talk ([51] and [52]) that this is not acceptable and could constitute a personal attack. A lengthy discussion ensued in several places, but came to fruition in the aforementioned section on my talk page. At the end of that discussion, I explicitly told Manorathan that it was not worth fighting about, and that no action would be taken as long as they no longer referred to the edits as vandalism. Manorathan's response, rather than walking away, was to again restate the claim of vandalism. The insistence upon using this terminology, along with the generally non-collaborative attitude at Talk:Tamil Kshatriya makes collaborative editing difficult at best. It feels fairly stupid to me to report this here, because it's not that big of a deal, but this editor is just not listening, and, at a minimum, needs a clear, unambiguous warning from an admin that this just isn't acceptable. Since accusations of vandalism against clearly good faith editors can be considered a personal attack, this could possibly deserve a block. As I stated on my talk page, there is no reason for a block as long as the user agrees to stop attacking Sitush and Rajkris (and ideally act more collaboratively on the article talk page). Off to notify users now. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Personal fights between Sitush and me

The ^ user hadn't read the discussion fully, and neither did the accused editors verify my citations before removing them, as I had to repost everything then and there on the talk page. I am not against Rajkris, as he later accepted in the talk page that it was his mistake. The edit warring by Sitush is indeed vandalism, as he tried removing well cited content that I added, leaving frivolous edit summaries and personal threats on my talk page. Yes, this is funny. All because of personal opinions of a few editors. And it is not nowhere clear that the Sitush's was editing in good faith, as he warned me point blank in the beginning to stop contributing as the page would soon be deleted.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 05:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, a consensus to leave the article well alone while I reviewed sources nominated by two sides to a dispute was agreed on 5 May. It was an explicit consensus, ie: both "sides" actually said "ok, I agree this review is the way forward" or words to that effect. That review has been ongoing on the article talk page and until Manorathan's intervention the article was indeed not edited. Manorathan keeps insisting that his edits etc were not against consensus despite this. - Sitush (talk) 06:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, 1 May - see Talk:Tamil_Kshatriya#Review_of_sources. - Sitush (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That was a month ago, and there was no way forward after that, except his personal intention to delete the page, which he admitted in his threatening in my talk page. Moreover, the sources examined were mostly inaccessible, with only snippet views available on GBooks. Sitush lacks knowledge on the subject, which is evident from his factually wrong addition to the page, regarding Prakrit to be Tamil Brahmi, and his confusion between languages and scripts, and confusion/aversion towards Kshatriyas. the article needed my addition of references in all WP:AGF.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 07:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The review was quite clearly ongoing & neither "side" has raised issues about the time it was taking. In fact, both told me to take as long as was needed, "No way forward" is a nonsense, sorry. Given that your own recent edit is from a book which is missing two potentially crucial pages at GBooks, and you seem unwilling to supply them, I am not sure that your own sources are any better than the ones which I have discounted previously due to snippet views. - Sitush (talk) 07:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You cannot call things unfavourable to you as nonsense, sorry. The page was almost dead, and the article then had citation-needed and citation-notgiven tags. And there is no proven reference that the two missing pages on GBooks are crucial enough. If you regard them as crucial enough to be added, it is your WP:BURDEN to add them. This book's preview provides sufficient and referable coverage on the content to be added as a WP reference.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 07:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:DEADLINE - Sitush (talk) 07:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, things got better for this page only after I took the initiative yesterday, in adding references after a month long vacationing by the contenders. I was and am totally for WP:AGF. WP:DEADLINE also has a section where it talks about editors halting their work due to incompetency on the subject or religious/ personal opinions. Help yourself.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 08:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

How is a huge row "better" ? You have ignored consensus, period. - Sitush (talk) 08:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The huge row was basically due to you, making me repost everything n number of times, as there was one editor who couldn't find time to view the references himself and hence straight away wanted its removal, and there was you who initially failed to understand my content with citations, missed a few sentences, and later added your own version of the subject, misunderstanding the source, which is the current version of the page. I have been telling from the beginning that this fight was totally unessential, if you had apologised for removing well cited contents from the page.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 08:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Mandrathan has now refactored content here at AN/I in at least three different places today. It has been discussed at User_talk:Manorathan#refactoring others comments, This cannot go on, surely? - Sitush (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have modified only my comment now, after going through the WP:TALK page. My comment was anyways modified by Shitush in the act. Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 10:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Sitush. Sorry for the typo in the above comment.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 10:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The bolded comment above - "Personal fights between Sitush and me " - is a refactoring by Manorathan. -Sitush (talk) 10:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ofcourse it is a part of my comment, which you refactored to make it appear in a way that I didn't intend to.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 10:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Show me the diff where I added and bolded it, please. - Sitush (talk) 11:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You had removed the enhancement that I made to my comment in one of your reverting tasks. Check the history for yourself.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 11:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

But why did you "enhance" after others had replied? That is what people have been complaining about (amongst other things) on your talk page. Here's your original. - Sitush (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

And now you have ignored two clear warnings on your talk page and have hit your fifth revert to Tamil Kshatriya. If I can figure out how to cite this then you'll be blocked. for now, I have just added a formal warning template to supplement the two text warnings issued previously. - Sitush (talk) 11:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not a reversal as you complain. And placing a warning for adding a valid reference is disruptive. And there is no reason for others to complain for my enhancing my comment. I hadn't backtracke/ contradicted my original comment. Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 12:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have protected the article for two days. I'm not personally convinced that Manorathan has actually reverted five times, but there is certainly edit warring going on (and I'm not at all qualified to comment on who's information is better). I am convinced that Manorathan is calling other good faith editors 'vandals' and other such terms, and I predict that if he does it again he will be blocked for it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

@^ How can you say that they are good faith editors when all they are doing is ridding the page of references, citing their own personal opinions on the authors of the books cited as references, for instance, Sitush was not satisfied with an NCERT History textbook cited as a reference citing the author's potential bias. He had infact left a warning on my talk page asking me to stay away from the article adding that the page would be deleted soon. And there was no valid ground for his removing the references that I added. Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 12:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussing references is generally an acceptable activitiy when deciding how much WP:WEIGHT to give to any particular source. This does seem to be a conflict relating to how much weight to give particular views on or aspects of history. I recommend all the editors concerned try not questioning each other's motives, or throwing terms like vandal about, but try discussing on the talkpage what they are trying to achieve and how it will benefit the article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Manorathan has been quite difficult to work with. he either doesnt or doesnt want to understand wp policies. he seems to of the opinion that just having a reference for something is enough. besides, his arrogant comments and attempts at insulting me can be seen here and here. --CarTick (talk) 12:38, 31 May 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:Manorathan removing sockpuppet tags

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.

It is permissible for sockpuppet tags to be removed after any block relating to them has expired. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

---

The user User:Manorathan continues to delete the sock puppet tag that was placed on his user page and user talk page, claiming that it expires. From the wording in WP:DRC it says nothing about about sock puppetry tags expiring. He also blanked the page of his sock removing the tag from before, but so far has not undone my edit to restore that tag. The diff for the last removal is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Manorathan&diff=prev&oldid=431773372Inks.LWC (talk) 05:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Inks.LWC's addition of expired sockpuppetry notices to User:Manorathan's userpage

The above user is behind me for long, and he insists on what I should keep on my talk page. Sockpuppetry notices are valid only during the notice period as it was said during that period. Why can't he just move on?Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 05:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe the tag should be removed. User page should not be a page of shame. The socks are blocked, and according to only 24 hours block of the sock master they were not so abusive. --Mbz1 (talk) 05:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Inks must read WP:REPU, which clearly states anyone can remove the template, and stop his activities, and he nevertheless, deserves a warning for stalking me, which he had been doing from the beginning.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 05:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have read WP:REPU. However, you are failing to read WP:DRC, which clearly states that users should not remove confirm sockpuppetry notices from their own user pages. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Also. I have not been stalking you. I had your sock on my watchlist from when I created the talk page for it, and it popped up in my watchlist when I was on earlier. I then noticed you had removed the tag from there, and came to your talk page and noticed the same. Please do not accuse me of "stalking" you, when you have no evidence to support that claim. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You had already received a warning for stalking me by an another user for wrongly putting up my articles for deletion, all of which resulted in strong keep, check your talk page. And better read WP:REPU before accusing me of anything. You should also be reading ther other guidelines of WP, going by the number of speedy deletions initiated by you getting declined. Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 05:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:REPU appears to state that non-blocked users can remove sockpuppetry notices from their pages, since they still are available in the page's history. Dayewalker (talk) 05:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Inks.LWC, I agree that you appear to be very closely following Manorathan. Care to explain? Manorathan appears to have legitimate discretion at WP:REPU to remove the sock notice from his own userpage. In any event it's in the page history and the sockpuppetry case page is also archived. I believe the two of you need to stay away from each other. N419BH 05:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, I created the talk page for one of his socks, when I made the first post on the page, so it showed up in my watchlist when I got back from work today. I looked at the diff and noticed he had removed the sock tag. Other than that, I haven't paid any recent attention to him since the last time I dealt with him. Also, WP:REPU is an essay, not a guideline, and UP#CMT is somewhat ambiguous on whether or not sockpuppetry tags expire. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

(ecx2)Since both WP:REPU and WP:DRC are essays, it's hard to tell which "applies", if either. The guideline in question, WP:USER, is unclear to me. It says, in section WP:BLANK, that most information cannot be blanked, but lists a few specific items which cannot. One of those things which cannot be removed is, " Sanctions that are currently in effect, including declined unblock requests, ban, ArbCom-imposed edit restrictions, and confirmed sockpuppetry related notices." The reason why I find this unclear is that a SOCK notice doesn't have a time of effect; a block for sockpuppetry can be said to be "in effect" only for the duration of the block; however, my guess is that it works the same as the unblock requests: they have to stay up for the duration of the underlying block, but can be removed after the block expires or is overturned. Is there precedent that clarifies the meaning of this sentence? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I never entertained Inks, but he still is behind me. I don't want him around. Please check the edit warring we had on my talk page. WP:DRC says nothing about the removal of sockpuppetry notice, while WP:REPU does, and hence it applies here. It makes it very clear that edit history alone is permanent and hence they alone would serve to preserve the incidents.@Dayewalker, WP:REPU goes on to say that the notices can be removed even by other users, as the edit history would anyways be there.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 06:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Not that I'm trying to be argumentative, but WP:DRC does say something about the removal of sockpuppetry notices. It says There are only four types of messages that a user should not remove and that confirmed sockpuppetry notice is one of the four. However, it is only an essay. WP:REMOVED, however, is a guideline. It states Sanctions that are currently in effect, including ... confirmed sockpuppetry related notices' should not be removed by the user. Unless I'm misreading it (I invite whoever reads this to check for themselves and offer their opinion) I believe the wording currently in effect means that since the SPI block is no longer in effect, the template can be removed. However, this is just my interpretation, and should probably be looked at by someone more familiar with WP:REMOVED (I'd also suggest the wording of WP:REMOVED be clarified to avoid confusion like this in the future). - SudoGhost™ 06:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Since both are essays, and neither are policies (something I overlooked on both at the beginning, and was wondering why the 2 policies contradicted each other), and UP#CMT is ambiguous, I've asked for input on the userpage talk page. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I am 90% sure the tag could be removed from a user page, if the user is not blocked, but why to continue discussion here? It should not have been brought to AN/I at all. You could have asked an admin, who should now a policy. --Mbz1 (talk) 06:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

@SudoGhost As per WP:REMOVED, it is very clear that the notices shall not be removed only during the notice period. I don't think you can interpret it in any other way. And essays represent the views behind a policy. Inks seems to be overlooking all cases concerning me. Earlier he overlooked the notability policies and had to withdraw all his nominations of my pages for deletion. I was about to initiate WP:ANI against him, he has done it himself and saved my work.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 06:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

If it were very clear, this thread would be much shorter. That WP:REMOVED itself links to WP:DRC, which states that confirmed sockpuppetry notices should not be removed by the user, makes it unclear. Your statement that essays represent the views behind a policy doesn't help, because there are two different essays being discussed here, one saying you can, and another saying you cannot. - SudoGhost™ 07:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:DRC is ambiguous as it doesn't say anything about the time limit for sockpuppetry notice, while it does for unblock requests. So, WP:REPU alone applies here, and also the wording in WP:REMOVED is very clear. I found from the discussion initiated by Inks in your talk page requesting support on this, a link to a talk page about the earlier ambiguous wording in WP:REMOVED, which was edited recently after a consensus. It is very simple to remove this discussion with a warning or a block administered to Inks for his questionable contributions : long list of declined speedy deletes, prods and AfDs, and above all, stalking me.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 07:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I also bring to your attention the edit wars this and this by Inks in my user and talk pages.

I have summarised the posts, including lengthy and self contradictory posts which try to cloud this dicsussion with ambiguity, as below.

Keep the tag  : User:Inks.LWC

Ambiguous  : User:SudoGhost

Weak remove the tag : User:Qwyrxian

Remove the tag  : User:Manorathan

                           User :N419BH
                           User:Dayewalker
                           User:Mbz1
                           User:MichaelQSchmidt
                           User:Boing! said Zebedee

Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 09:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Remove the tag per guidelines governing such. The tag was in place during course of investigation, is available in the page hoistory, and may now be properly removed as the case is closed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• My take on this is that an ex-sockpuppeteer can remove the tag from their own page when any block has expired. At least, that fits in with my reading of the policies, fits in with the general ethics of the project, and seems to match actual practice - sanctions are intended to be preventative, and we don't permanently brand ex-offenders once any sanctions have expired or been lifted -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense to me; I wonder if we might want to consider rewriting that guideline for clarity; I'll look over at the talk there later. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

@^ The existing policy, WP:REMOVED is very much clear on the removal of an expired tag, which had earlier been discussed in the article talk page and later edited. It was totally negligence or personal motives on the part of User:Inks.LWC to initiate an ANI on me.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 11:01, 31 May 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KinoSearch

Resolved

 – AfD now properly listed. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

without contacting a specific admin, this AfD has existed since December 2010 and never been closed... surely it's time to! LibStar (talk) 07:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a notification of the discussion was not added to the article [53], it wasn't listed in the AfD discussions for that day [54], and the creator wasn't informed [55]- ie, the person who nominated it for deletion discussion made the AfD subpage, but didn't do the rest of the steps. So, it's probably only fair to start again (if you want) - list it for deletion afresh, to give people a fair chance to find references etc.  Chzz  ►  07:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have closed the AfD, and will inform its creator. Anyone who wishes to start a new AfD is, of course, free to do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

On second thoughts I will reopen it and list it in today's AfD listings. There is no reason for the couple of comments made in the original AfD to be lost. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Neptunekh2 - long term competence issues

Although user:Neptunekh2 is probably a well-meaning contributor, their extreme lack of competence appears to be detrimental to the project. I noticed this edit which categorized an actor as an atheist because, as Neptunekh2 states in this post at the Help Desk, "it says in her personal life: Powers does not adhere to any religion". That post to the Help Desk followed the additiion of the category. Note that this same editor had previously categorized the same actor as a Scientologist and had been reminded of WP:BLPCAT.

Looking through Neptunekh2's contributions, I came across this edit where they copied the text of another editor's answer to a question they posed on one of the help desks. Yes, they posted another editor's answer into an article.

I asked someone who had experience with Neptunekh2 to see if they could get anywhere, but their message was deleted without comment. I suspect that unless someone is willing to do some very close monitoring and mentoring, a block will be necessary. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I've also tried to work with the user, and see her messages pop up on various talk pages I watch. Another problem that Neptunekh2 has is that she tends to post the same question to more than one place; for the most recent example, see the same two questions on the Help desk and Elen of the Roads's talk page. The other recent concern was the creation of categories about living people of highly dubious need, particularly category/ethnicity intersections where the intersection may number only a few hundred people worldwide, and thus the list of those notable enough to even appear in Wikipedia might be as low as zero. Elen of the Roads has probably done the most to try to help this user in terms of clear explanations. The problem is, Neptunekh2 has never, as far as I know, responded to any message any user has left her, except for one that Elen left, and that result was quite unpleasant: see Elen's friendly warning, followed a few days later by a stronger statement from Elen, to which Neptunekh2 responded on Elen's talk page with this threat. Then, less than 10 days later, Neptunekh2 was back to asking Elen questions on her talk page.

The underlying behavioral problem is presumably connected to Neptunekh2's self-identified Asperger's syndrome (indicated in a userbox on her talk page). I've previously asked Elen whether or not she feels Neptunekh2's problems cross over into WP:COMPETENCE area, and she, like I, seems uncertain. It's certainly the case that asking in multiple places is irritating to other editors (I got annoyed a while ago after writing up a big explanation to one set of questions only to find another editor had already taken care of it); and the excessive creation of categories, along with improper categorization, certainly costs other editors' time. But some of Neptunekh2's work has been valuable, I think, as some of the categorization does seem to be accurate. This is a very tricky issue, because we (I think) never want to invoke WP:COMPETENCE on a well-meaning editor unless we're really sure that there's no way to help him/her achieve a minimum acceptable standard of interaction on Wikipedia. I know I have no answer here. I'm going to go notify Elen since I've now discussed her extensively. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I, too, have seen much of these events; and I, too, am baffled regarding how to resolve the issue. This really looks like a situation of the immovable object/irresistable force nature. It needs some sensitive handling but, on that score, I cannot fault Elen - has been very, very understanding over a prolonged period. - Sitush (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

If the medical condition is making this user behave poorly, I think WP:CIR is relevant and a block is needed. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I should mind my own business, but if hypothetically Bill Gates were editing Wikipedia, would you propose to block him for having Aspergers' as well? FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

If it made his behavior disruptive and he didn't show adequate competence, yes. I know several editors with Asperger's and they do fine. But I also have seen one or two that have been unable to work in Wikipedia's environment and have thus been blocked. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe medical condition is the problem here in-and-of itself, but rather if that is providing a problem with WP:CIR then yes, it would be an issue for him as well. For my own, limited interaction with this user, it is frustrating to interact with someone asking for help, but failing to engage in the resolution. I would suggest reaching out for mentorship before enforcing a block.Tiggerjay (talk) 03:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

To clarify to FuFoFuEd: I would never say we should block/ban anyone for any medical condition, age, lifestyle, or personal opinion (with the one known exception). We can, however, block someone for being generally disruptive, refusing to communicate with anyone, and causing a drain on the resources of other users disproportionate to the value they bring to the project. For example, I think Tiggerjay's suggestion of mentoring is great. However, assuming Neptunkh2 does the same thing she does with every other talk page message, and simply deletes it without response, and then continues the same behavior that's frustrating other editors, then what? Note for example that today Dismas told her to stop double posting; the comment was blanked about 5 minutes later. Yes, blanking means that she's read it and acknowledged it; however, since the behavior never changes, we're starting to get to the point where we're running out of options. If she won't accept or is unable to accept criticism/suggestions for improvement, we either have to decide to put up with that irritation forever (as long as she wants to use Wikipedia) or start the unpleasant but potentially necessary work of stop the disruption via blocking. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed some of this going on at the RefDesk periodically, and I understand why it's annoying. I think a mentor, should she want it, would be a good idea (I wouldn't mind doing it myself). However, she'd have to agree to it first; until there's some positive response to that, we're faced with the choices directly above. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC) And god knows, FuFoFuEd, a lot of users would have been blocked if we followed that logic; I myself have PDD-NOS, and a relatively high percentage of users here show various signs of being on the spectrum. This is the sort of activity that attracts our kind, for various reasons.

It's certainly not just the Aspergers that is an issue. I blocked Neptunekh a while ago for copyvio, and we had a few conversations by email before I unblocked her, in which she did expand a bit on what caused her problems with the project. The effects (as they affect wikipedia) are no patience - so she asks the same question in half a dozen places; a desire to categorise to the nth degree, a failure to understand existing categorisations (on her talkpage, you'll see that she has both "this user is a christian" and "this user is an atheist" userboxen. This is not some deep philosophical statement), feels she can't to write prose (she's said this herself, feels she has poor english skills and it makes it difficult to interpret information and rewrite it for the encyclopaedia, hence the copyvios, the copypaste of Marco Polo's response on the reference desk, and the endless requests for other users to clean up articles), and a fascination with poking around in odd corners (hence the current Inuit/Nunavut/Grise Fiord questions that resulted in Looty Pijamini and the addition to Canadian English that was fine once SlimVirgin had found a source and rewritten it.)

I'm sure if one met her in real life, one would really like her. She's passionately inclusionist and against discrimination, and she takes delight in finding out information. However, at least 75% of everything she does gets reverted, deleted, or it's a duplication. I have tried to explain. I have asked her not to remove the messages from her talkpage, because I think that 'out of sight, out of mind' is a big problem. If a mentor could get her to compile a list of "things I have been asked not to do" in her own words, I think that would be a start. I'm all for The Blade of the Northern Lights giving it a go, but I think someone may have to block her to get her to pay attention, and I'd rather it wasn't me as I just feel way too involved. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

See this. I have asked her to respond to us. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's give her a chance to respond; she hasn't edited since you left her a message, and she's probably logged out at the moment. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

No reason not to wait. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi all, I think that most of the people in this discussion have tried to reach out to Neptunekh2 at various points, or repeatedly as is the case of Elen, and, as is noted above, the continual deletion of talk page messages and lack of response makes it difficult to make headway. Everybody seems to want Neptune to accept mentoring and transform the 75% delete / 25% keep ratio into its opposite (wouldn't that be great?)

Apparently Elen managed to have an e-mail discussion with her before, but, in general, I get the impression our posts to her talk page (to encourage or try to help) are taken as a "telling off".

You can lead a horse to water ...: unfortunately, unless Neptune decides to open up to some sort of dialogue this is going nowhere, and I understand Elen's preference for someone else to take over. Is a block necessary to get this person to enter into communication? A real shame, I will post to her talk page too, to ask her to please come see that people want her to continue on Wikipedia and transform her enthusiasm into something positive. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

We have User:The Blade of the Northern Lights offering to mentor. Why not just relax? I don't think there is any rush to address any pressing issue. Bus stop (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Er, Bus Stop, I don't see the point of your comment, in fact I am relaxed to the max and about to go take a long poo! Please see the user's talk page and the comment I posted there, I (like all the above concerned editors) would like for Neptune to engage in dialogue and not get blocked. BTW, what are you doing here? I have never seen you involved in any discussion involving this user, if you're following me around because of debates on DSK and Jewishness then I would like to inform you that this is frowned upon at Wikipedia, thanks. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 21:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Lets take this down a notch. No-one wants for Neptunekh to get blocked if this can be sorted out another way, so lets everyone assume good faith of each other and wait to see what she says. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Our approach is eliciting a response, which appears to be the response hoped for, engaging with Neptune and resolving to edit positively! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 22:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

CaptainScreebo—you say, "…if you're following me around…"

I posted here earlier but I reverted myself. Bus stop (talk) 23:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Just an FYI, she's accepted our offers, and hopefully we can figure something out. I have a feeling I might need to use e-mail for some of this, but I'll do my best. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

So glad this is working out. You go good now :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Bus Stop, my bad, recently I've had some minor stalking on my talk page due to people getting heated over DSK and, despite asking people to keep the discussion over at the relevant talk, still got posts on my talk page totally unrelated to the subject being discussed there. As I had just replied to a converstaion over at DSK in which you're involved, I couldn't understand what you were doing here, especially concerning this user.

Shame you reverted your comment, seemed like a useful suggestion and I wouldn't have been surprised to find you in the thread after all. No offence intended. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 11:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

A cute block

Resolved

 – Block evading IP blocked. T. Canens (talk) 12:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me posting as an IP, but it is surely wrong for one administrator to block for socking when another has just said he is checking whether there was any socking or not. (I have not registered any accounts for more than a year, since I discovered that editors are not at liberty to contribute under any name but must use the name they first thought of). At the time he went away to check, the administrator (Hersfold) said I had evaded my block by editing my talk page whilst logged out. This was simply forgetfulness on my part - I am sure we have all forgetten to log in at one time or another, and anyway the terms of my block specifically allowed me to edit my talk page. A year ago the community decided that I should not be banned, but nobody has yet implemented that decision by clearing my block. Daniel Case said he was blocking me because I had put forward no new argument. If that was true, why did Hersfold go away to check the information I had just supplied? Daniel asked me whether I thought Vote for Change looked cute - completely the wrong approach since I believe Jimbo has commented that editors pay more attention to customing their signatures than they do to what goes above them. Can a more experienced editor please notify this post to any party required to be notified under the rule? 156.61.160.1 (talk) 08:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

As this is, apparently, about Vote (X) for Change (talk · contribs), I've put a note on that user talk, and notified Daniel Case (talk · contribs) and Hersfold (talk · contribs).  Chzz  ►  08:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, whether the talk page edit was or was not an innocent mistake due to forgetting to log in, the edit to this page was block evasion. If you wish to be unblocked you may request an unblock via your account, and otherwise you may not edit anywhere. The IP has now been blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The IP appears to be stable for the indef'd user, and this is at least the third time he's pulled this stunt in the last year. I've asked for a lengthier block.[56] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The admin is concerned about collateral damage. My guess is that it's all the same guy, who has repeatedly ignored the rules against block-evasion. But we'll see. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you please unblock my talk page to enable me to file the unblock request? It probably won't be in the near future as I want to demonstrate that I'm serious about not socking. From comment on some user pages you'd think I was another Bambifan, but I don't vandalise and I don't abuse other editors. My edits have been examined by the community who have seen nothing there which merits a ban. 62.140.210.158 (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocked this IP as well for block evasion ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 17:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Verbal abuse by IP

Resolved

 – IP range blocked for a short while. Pages semiprotected. Abusive comments removed.

Hi, a series of IP's were vandalizing the Mohammed Rafi article. See this. Consequently, the article was semi-protected by Cirt. Today, i was verbally abused by another IP at my talk page. See this. Furthermore, i was abused at the Mohammed Rafi talk page as well. (Math chad means Motherfucker). See this and the talk history page as well. The following edit summary was a bit scary, given that there is a history of attacks in Mumbai against non-Marathi speakers. See 2008_attacks_on_Uttar_Pradesh_and_Bihar_migrants_in_Maharashtra. I can't help wondering whether he really means it.

"You are opinionated. You suck the blood of Maharashtra and simply are thankless. I'll take my avenge in my own way to people like yiu in Mumbai."

I request the following:

• Semi-protection of my user page and user talk page for a month or so.
• Semi-protection of the Mohammed Rafi talk page.
• A block of the IPs as can be seen in the history page and this fellow who abused me.
• A delete of the abusive edit summaries in the talk page.

Thanks. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 09:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't overlook the funny side of this. The outrageousness of the insults reminds me of the French guard in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Better do something about that IP soon, or they may come back and taunt someone a second time... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

As long as he doesn't fart in my general direction..--Blackmane (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have checked the editing history for the IP range involved. All recent edits are either clearly by this editor, unconstructive, or both. I have therefore placed a two week range block. This can be extended if it becomes necessary, but I am reluctant to impose a longer range block as it potentially could cause collateral damage to innocent editors. I will also give the requested semiprotection and deletion of abusive edit summaries. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

@ James: Thanks James. I will create a separate talk page for IP's, as per your suggestion. @ Baseball Bugs: Man, i love that scene! lol.

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V7zbWNznbs

Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 17:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Resolved

 – Fixed, and vandal blocked. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

He must have vandalized a template, but I can't figure out which one. See L'incoronazione di Dario (Perti) Voceditenore (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

{{it}} fixed, and vandal blocked. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

NOBLE2's legal threats on users' talk pages

Resolved

 – Blocked for legal threats.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Can someone else please review the conributions of "new" editor NOBLE2? I'm not sure what exactly is going on there but it's ducky and socky —This lousy T-shirt (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't know about how loud they're quacking, but the commentary goes WAY beyond the WP:NLT line. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

And they've been blocked accordingly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It's obviously User:Kaufman1111, who pops up now and again with this legal rhetoric.--Atlan (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Outing threats

An IP at User talk:123.231.114.171 has made a threat to out me. At first, I thought the user was a sock of a different vandal, now I recognize them as the IP from the range 123.231.64.0/18, who had been involved at the article and talk page at Reporters Without Borders (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch. The user had been edit-warring in the article over POV material followed by edit-warring on the talk page over the restoration of personal attacks (resulting in both the article and the talk page being semi-protected). In the article where they accuse me of abuse, I only have one edit of which I can recall, and that to revert their resumption of edit warring following expiration of an earlier block.

Given that it has now resulted in outing threats, I believe it best if another user investigate to determine if any further action needs to be taken at this time as I plan to not interract with the user any further myself (following notification of this thread). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah..I remember them. Yes, they also caused disruption at Press Freedom Index resulting in the article being protected. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

This is an IP-hopping serial vandal, who has caused disruption in the past too. See the previous AN/I report. RolandR (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

This IP editor seems to have been halted temporarily due to the blocking of a single IP, 123.231.114.171. It is possible they will continue the IP-hopping campaign. Since the vandalism is targeted against Barek and it's quite nasty, I suggest that a block of 123.231.64.0/18 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for one month should be considered, even though there will be a modest amount of collateral damage. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Mentorship Re-Listed

Can an administrator review the situation I outlined in this post [57] regarding User:Hoops gza? This is a tricky situation as the user has done nothing wrong on purpose, but the editing habits are heading in a bad direction. The most serious of which appears to be possible dozens of images uploaded with misleading or incorrect tags. I brought this matter up on the user's talk page with no response, so I am bringing it up here. I stress this is not an attack against the user, just concern for the behavior. -OberRanks (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like OCD or some other behavioral disorder. Might fall under WP:COMPETENCE, but less-drastic steps should be taken before admins step in (unless one wants to, of course). Since no admin commented, here are some suggestions. You might want to try a WP:WQA first for difficult communications regarding the edit summaries and see if that can poke the user in the right direction, or a WP:RFC/U. WP:CCI handles copyright problems with the image uploads and might wake up the editor. Sorry to put you off to other boards, but since it does not appear to be at an admin-intervention level yet, this might offer some help at least. --64.85.217.213 (talk) 03:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

User:WhiteWriter

For the past week User:WhiteWriter has been reverting every edit he doesn't agree with ([58],[59],[60],[61]) and calling the edits vandalism, but when he reverts something he agrees with, he calls it consensus. He doesn't make more than one or two reverts per day, because of the three-reverts-per-day rule, but he was warned not to continue with the same edit-warring pattern about a week ago ([62]) on Duklja. While his edit summary was rv inclusion of unreliable sources, when another user asked for explanation he claimed the opposite (I DONT DISPUTE SOURCES, but their usage). In the meantime the talkpage was used to make remarks about other peoples' edits like Very, very awful editing habits by several editor in here. WhiteWriter is the only editor who has been removing a particular version but when he was reverted by other users he left a message on one of their talkpages telling him that his revert was a blind revert that could be considered vandalism and that he should use the talk page. Of course, the user had used the talkpage and WhiteWriter's reply to his comments (just about a week ago) were School example of the trolling comment... This has been one very long dispute and all editors have at least contributed and discussed despite the occasional reverts, but WhiteWriter's recent behavior can't be ignored any longer.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Also he warned me because i reverted his trolling on vojsava. He left me this message --Vinie007 05:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I have noticed that whenever he reverts he immediately asks for full protection as an attempt to make his version stay longer online. Btw just a few hours ago I was trying to explain some basic guidelines about SYNTH/OR and when I used the word we for the community his response was And who are those "we"? It is only you and me in this discussion, without any meat puppets.. Btw he has been repeating the same argument ad nauseam for about half a year and every time someone refutes it, he waits for a while and then restarts the same issue.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Intel SDK and user:Mustafa1702

An editor unfamiliar with WP has broken the article Intel SDK with a rename and total rewrite. The changes need to be reverted, but I'm raising it here in case there are history log issues that require an admin bit.

Intel SDK was a stable 15k article on an Intel microprocessor development system of the 1980s. user:Mustafa1702 has recently renamed it to Intel Other Products, blanked its content, and started a new 1k article on that topic, under the new name.

• Intel SDK should be restored, as it was since January.
• Intel Other Products, despite being a short list with little context and MOS issues for the article name, appears to be a GF article and can be left under that name, pending cleanup.

Thanks, Andy Dingley (talk) 08:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I've split the two back out. All the history before the content was changed is at Intel SDK, including the move, while the new content is at Intel Other Products. I'm also going to leave a note for Mustafa1702. Cheers. lifebaka++ 10:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

There is also Intel System Development Kit, which is the same as Intel SDK. I've redirected the latter to the former for now, but I don't know if this is ideal, so feel free to make the redirect point in the other direction if it's the more common title. Cheers. lifebaka++ 10:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

user:LaszloBacs

Resolved

Can someone issue a quick block on this Iaaasi sock? It's reported at SPI, as well but at this point it's not really a big investigation, created minutes after the last one was blocked. Hobartimus (talk) 10:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Previous sock was user:nonairt blocked at 09:38, 1 June 2011 by Closedmouth. Compare contributions and creation date with user:LaszloBacs. Hobartimus (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I've got to cook, protected the article in question though - semi for a week. Dougweller (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Account indefinitely blocked. As extreme an example of a duck case as I have seen for a long while. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Manorathan

Resolved

 – Too soon after yesterday's AN/Is for another one. Give this editor some time to demonstrate whether or not s/he can edit constructively.

Manorathan (talk · contribs) who was blocked yesterday for issues related to Tamil Kshatriya stalks me around to post the following messages, I wouldn't find it surprising when the stream of IPs do turn up, for personal motives of such editors should be made public and be dealt with appropriate coverage in all sources of media. in Talk:Nair, I am quite tempted to send his views to the media, with the subject, 'casteism backfires in the 21st century' in User:MichaelQSchmidt's talk page, and mocking my username here There should be no problem for the cart user with his resuming his contributions later ... this may sound silly, but i dont want to deal with him for issues unrelated to the improvement of articles. though, user MichaelQSchmidt gave him an appropriate advice on his talk page, i wanted to bring it to the attention of the wider community. --CarTick (talk) 12:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this is far too early after Manorathan's very short block to send the posse round again. I closed two AN/I discussions yesterday regarding Manorathan and opening this one up is a bad move in my opinion - we will just get more of the same. Give this editor some time to see how they react to the block for disruption; the last few edits noted above may just be blowing off steam after the block. If not - ie if this tone is repeated and contributions of this sort become the norm - then doubtless others will notice and a further, lomnger block will result. Manorathan, I would advise you to edit article pages more and talk pages less. CarTick, I would advise you to step back and not raise another AN/I less than 24 hours after two previous ones. There is no rush here, the encyclopaedia is not in danger. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Obvious sock needs swift blocking

Resolved

 – Blocked 24 hours by Materialscientist bou·le·var·dier (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

An obvious sock (with an unknown sockmaster) is way over 3RR in his first ten edits here in his first half hour, plus has knowledge of our abbreviations, exemption to the 3RR rule, and so on. He is disruptive, so if anyone can block him? I can't, as I am involved (in the first reverts). User:Crows Forever is the user, and this are his contributions so far. Fram (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Please do Yoenit (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for one day by Materialscientist, don't know about the socking though. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

No new editor has that much knowledge of template warnings, rules of 3RR, etcetera: at 14.44 Lerdthenerd reverts and gives in the edit summary a 3RR warning[63] (without explanation of 3RR or a link to the policy): the next minute, this brand new user reverts[64] with the edit summary "rv vandalism. 3RR does not apply to removing blatant vandalism". We have to AGF, but this is quite blatantly some duck quacking. Fram (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no question there's some ducks floating around here (the warnings on everyone's talk pages were a lovely touch), but I'm not sure it would be enough to go CU fishing. There's only a few people involved in the debate who are on the same side as the sock, and I wouldn't consider any of them potential sockmasters. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, that's why I didn't request a checkuser or asked for anyone to be blamed. The sock angle was more to make the distinction that this is not a clueless newbie needing some more warnings and guidance, but that this is an experienced user trying to avoid scrutiny and/or just disrupting the normal editing process. Whether a one-day block is sufficient will have to be seen... Fram (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

See you in 24 hours, then :) bou·le·var·dier (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Erlandinho, edit-warring and frequent inappropriate genre changes against consensus despite repeated warnings

Erlandinho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is what many in the music wikiproject refer to as a "genre troll". They have a long (well over two year history) of picking a band and going through and changing the genres on every song and album. Often they will do this while deleting a hidden message stating to "seek consensus on the talk page before changing genres" (the reason for this being that the current genres are already the result of an edit war that led to a long winded discussion). Despite general consensus being against the use of Allmusic for selecting genres, this user insists on using it,[65] sometimes as the end-all-be-all of sources on genres.[66] They have edit-warred on a number of topics to attempt to insert or remove genres. By the third revert, they occasionally add a requested source, but it is often allmusic as well.[67][68][69][70] The user also has a habit of being told to stop, disappearing for some time, then showing up and taking another shot at it.[71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78]

This behaviour is annoying to say the least. The user has been at it for two years now with no signs of stopping, despite a talk page filled with warnings from multiple users.[79] Personally, I'd like to see this user banned from changing genres. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The 90% of the generes that I changed had a reliable sources, and the others (10%) also had no . Erlandinho (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You have been told and warned many times not to change genres without discussing it on the talk page, and to not rely on allmusic as a source for genres (allmusic CAN be used, however, as a source for bios). Yet still, you respond by reverting and using edit summaries such as "go home",[80] "accept it"[81] and "fuck u".[82] - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on changing music genres. Sample uncivil edit summary from three days ago. We don't need genre warriors like this, particularly when they use no or poor sources. Fences&Windows 22:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
• Bumping unresolved thread. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 10:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Weak Support - I don't see that the level of disruption has escalated to the point where a topic ban would normally be warranted. I also see that Erlandinho has a clean block log, which is unusual for someone who has been disruptive for so long. But it could be that the tactic of taking a break when warned has allowed them to avoid a block. What I do find concerning is the sheer volume of requests from a variety of editors repeatedly making the same request, for almost 2 years now; don't change genres without discussion and/or a reliable source. Then the uncivil replies are what push me over to support a ban on this behavior. -- Atama頭 17:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Blastikus and WP:TALK

Blastikus (talk · contribs) insists on inserting a long screed at the top of Talk:Jewish Bolshevism, in which he links to an external bulletin board posting where he claims to have "refuted this article", makes various not-so-veiled accusations about editors of the page, and then includes an extremely long and difficult to understand series of quotations and links which apparently prove his point that Jews are behind Communism, and, in general, have "a long history of concocting the most bizarre fabrications". I've removed the material as unrelated to actual article content a couple of times, but he keeps re-adding it, and making it even longer. Is a ban in order at this point? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added the {{NOTAFORUM}} flag to the Talk page to try and forestall disruption. I've also read the article and Blastikus' material, and to me it looks like a conglomeration of WP:NPOV, WP:PRIMARY, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR problems all balled up together. That said, I wouldn't call it disruptive...yet. I have also notified Blastikus of this discussion. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense - the items I have linked to are directly relevant to the article and directly contradict the material presented within, there are also a great deal of modern, reliable, contemporary sources combined with primary sources that support each other.Blastikus (talk)

Err... having read it, that looks like Jewish and Zionist conspiracy stuff.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 13:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes - the thing is, if there is sufficient evidence to support your position, then it has to be considered. The word "conspiracy theory" has taken on a derogatory meaning in modern times, usually referring to articles that go against mainstream consensus. To most people, it means a fabrication concocted by a group with little political power in order to advance their ideological agenda. But in my case, the information I have presented is totally authentic. And we have to ask ourselves - was Disraeli (Jewish by ethnicity) an "anti-Semitic" conspiracy theorist? Was Churchill? What about Jewish sources confirming this? Is the fact that Moses Hess was the founder of BOTH Communism and Zionism an anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theory? Was the biography of Trotsky published by the Jewish publication society which said that Trotsky was deeply intimate with the Rothschilds anti-Semitic conspiracy literature? Was Trotsky's OWN admission that the 18th Century Illuminati was the originator of Bolshevism, thus confirming the Judeo-Masonic thesis popular among far right circles in the 1920s, anti-Semitic conspiracy mongering? What about the admission from Churchill and the secondary citation of the American Hebrew that the Bolsheviks razed Churches, but spared Synagogues? Was Volkoganov's biography of Lenin anti-Semitic conspiracy literature? Was the admission of pro-Communist Bertrand Russell about the role of Jews in the Soviet Union anti-Semitic Conspiracy mongering?

Many times, we find that the term "memory hole" accurately describes the predicament. For instance, the 1905 Jewish Encyclopedia article on the Rothschilds clearly shows that the Rothschilds and other Jewish bankers had attained domination of the European Financial scene by 1905: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=445&letter=R&search=rothschild

Yet many will attack you as an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist for bringing up similar points to that article.

Regarding Petrie's comments on "Zionist Conspiracy theory stuff", I suggest he look at the following items, after which he might change his position:

1) 1903 statement of Max Nordeau: long link refactored

2) the admission of Samuel Landmann, secretary of the World Zionist organization from 1917-1922: http://www.itk.ntnu.no/ansatte/Andresen_Trond/kk-f/2005/0036.html

3) The following September 10th 1941 letter from Chaim Weizmann to Winston Churchill: http://oi52.tinypic.com/98rmtt.jpg

4) The following boast of Nahum Sokolow: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F40D13FF3B5D1A7A93CAAB1783D85F468285F9

5) The following "prophecy" of David ben Gurion: http://www.mailstar.net/bengur62.jpg

6) Zohar I, Bereshith 47a: long link refactored

I also suggest reading "The Controversy of Zion" by former London times Correspondent Douglas Reed: http://knud.eriksen.adr.dk/Controversybook/

Truth is stranger than fiction.Blastikus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC).

When one askes enough rhetorical questions (with proper phrasing) to the right people, they can convince them of anything. A lot of this appears to be drawing together your own conclusions from various documents and synthesising info. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 15:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I hate to cause drama, but would anyone care to look at this fellow's contributions? They appear to be almost entirely Jew-related, and done with what appears to be an agenda. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 13:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The contributions are to form a basis for an attempted revision of the article. My central interest on wikipedia is on matters related to that article. Blastikus (talk)

Really? All of them? Dating back to 2010 as well? They all appear to relate to Jews and Communism. Some of your summaries are also quite uncivil, including the tinyurl one that links to a YouTube video removed for "Hate Speech" [83], and [84]. Oh yeah, I'm not entirely sure, but I think if you are here for one article or just stuff relating to it, WP:SPA might apply, but I'm not sure on when and how it applies. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 15:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I was in an extremely bad temper in the Hoffman article, because there were distortions I had felt to be libelous. I apologize and have refrained from uncivil behavior. This is the "hate speech" video, which I linked to as I became interested in the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQ0FGWcj7P8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blastikus (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict) You did not address the central point of my comment, I'm afraid. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That is a holocaust-denial video. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It does not explicitly deny the holocaust, but rather notes that those who question the holocaust are imprisoned, and looks into another holocaust in history.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blastikus (talk • contribs) 17:51, May 31, 2011 (UTC)

I am not attempting to create a propaganda effort, but merely attempting to dispute points I felt were inaccurate. For example, I do note that in the period from 1949 to 1952, Stalin was beginning to attempt to create a pogrom (after he had been crucial in the formation of the State of Israel), but the circumstances surrounding his death are quite interesting: http://mailstar.net/death-of-stalin.html

The cited material above does not fit the article. See WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. If notability can be demonstrated per WP:GNG, it may warrant a separate article. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The cited material above does not relate to an article I was trying to make but rather to a specific point I was trying to make in a tangential area. With the exception of Douglas Reed, none of them would be considered "POV" or "fringe". Reed was actually a widely popular journalist who got into trouble for discussing some of the points I am discussing. Blastikus (talk)

(edit conflict) Most probably because Reed looks like he went off the deep-end... "Reed believed in a long-term Zionist conspiracy to impose a world government on an enslaved humanity.[2]" from his article. Sounds fringe to me. Anyone disagree? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The leaders of Zionism have stated explicitly that their goal is World Government. The New York Times noted that Nahum Sokolow boasted before the World Zionist Congress that the League of Nations was a "Jewish Idea", and that Jerusalem will one day be the capital of "the World's Peace" (rather it it "Peace" or "pacification" remains to be discovered): http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F40D13FF3B5D1A7A93CAAB1783D85F468285F9

David Ben-Gurion also said, in Look Magazine, January 16, 1962, p. 20, "In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a Shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be the seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind.": http://www.mailstar.net/bengur62.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blastikus (talk • contribs) 10:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Based on what's been written here (even by me), I'm really not seeing anything for an admin to do. It all looks like a content dispute, and would best be handled through those channels. Or am I missing something obvious? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess things are fine so long as he doesn't break rules excessively. =p He has an opinion which he is welcome to have so long as it doesn't go into yon article. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not a content dispute at all. There is no content that is disputed at the article. The issue is that he keeps filling the article's Talk page with long screeds about the bad, bad Jews. Does that make it more clear what the problem is? Persistent violations of WP:TALK. And the administrative action required is to delete the Talk page screeds, and block him if he keeps adding them. Unless someone objects, I'll do it myself. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah those (I was playing AC:Brotherhood while looking at the convo so I was more focused on that than the substance of the whole thing). They do seem to be much like the conspiracy hypotheses I'm well acquainted with, and he has posted it quite a few times there on the Talk as both this acct and the IP, 128.114.105.98, though he probably just forgot to sign in there. I think it would be better to cite WP:SOAP and POV-pushing (idk if that has an article) if anything, but I'm just a humble editor so idk what y'all normally do. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 02:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This is an incorrect assessment. I did dispute content, for example, noting that the veracity of the WH King chart was in question, because aspects of it were falsified: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,716624,00.html

And also that authoritative sources give much higher numbers for the percentage of Jews in the Bolshevik regime (I listed 5 that were directly relevant to my argument).

I also noted that the idea that Jewish Bolshevism was a "fabrication" created by the White Russians was inaccurate, for Jewish sources will admit to it, and even Benjamin Disraeli stated in the mid 1800s, in Lord George Bentinck: A Political Biography (Colburn & Co., London, 1852, p. 497):

"But existing society has chosen to persecute this race which should furnish it's choice allies, and what have been the consequences? They may be traced to the last outbreak of the destructive principle in Europe. An insurrection takes place against tradition and aristocracy, against religion and property. Destruction of the Semitic principle, extirpation of the Jewish religion, whether in the Mosaic or Christian form, the natural equality of men and the abrogation of property are proclaimed by the Secret Societies which form Provisional Governments, and men of the Jewish race are found at the head of every one of them. The people of God cooperate with atheists; the most skillful accumulators of property ally themselves with Communists; the peculiar and chosen race touch the hand of all the scum and low castes of Europe; and all this because they wish to destroy that ungrateful Christendom which owes them even its name, and whose tyranny they can no longer endure." (the search function is not working for this book, but if you scroll down, you will see it is an accurate citation): http://books.google.com/books?id=SeA5AAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Lord+George+Bentinck:+a+political+biography&hl=en&ei=A-DlTayNKorXiALnvNjfCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

In a speech before the house of commons in 1856, Disraeli also said:

"There is in Italy a power which we seldom mention in this House ... I mean the secret societies.... It is useless to deny, because it is impossible to conceal, that a great part of Europe - the whole of Italy and France and a great portion of Germany, to say nothing of other countries - is covered with a network of these secret societies, just as the superficies of the earth is now being covered with railroads. And what are their objects? They do not attempt to conceal them. They do not want constitutional government; they do not want ameliorated institutions ... they want to change the tenure of land, to drive out the present owners of the soil and to put an end to ecclesiastical establishments. Some of them may go further...": long link is looong

Edwin Davies Schoonmaker noted:

"Fifteen years after the Bolshevist Revolution was launched to carry out the Marxist program, the editor of the American Hebrew could write: "According to such information that the writer could secure while in Russia a few weeks ago, not one Jewish synagogue has been torn down, as have hundreds-perhaps thousands of the Greek Catholic Churches...In Moscow and other large cities one can see Christian churches in the process of destruction...the Government needs the location for a large building,"(American Hebrew, Nov. 18, 1932, p. 12) Apostate Jews, leading a revolution that was to destroy religion as the "opiate of the people" had somehow spared the synagogues of Russia." (Schoonmaker, Edwin Davies. "Democracy and World Dominion". 1939, p.211): long link refactored, long link refactored

Winston Churchill also confirmed this in his "Zionism vs. Bolshevism" article when he stated - "The fact that in many cases Jewish interests and Jewish places of worship are excepted by the Bolsheviks from their universal hostility has tended more and more to associate the Jewish race in Russia with the villainies which are now being perpetrated.": http://www.archive.org/download/KhaosOdenslandArchiveDocstheMisanthropicMisogynist/1920WinstonChurchillArticle-ZionismVsBolshevism-AStruggleForTheSoulOfTheJewishPeople.pdf

Why would a regime in which Jews were insignificant raze churches, but spare synagogues??

Stalin stated - "In the USSR anti-semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under USSR law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty." (Stalin, Collected Works, vol. 13, p. 30): http://books.google.com/books?ei=g6lYTaDhMonWtQP1rLWjDA&ct=result&id=33EJAQAAIAAJ&dq=under+USSR+law+active+anti-Semites+are+liable+to+the+death+penalty&q=%22under+USSR+law+active+anti-Semites+are+liable+to+the+death+penalty%22#search_anchor

Why would a regime in which Jews were supposedly insignificant exterminate anti-Semites?? Anti-Christians were certainly not treated this way.

Even the Encyclopedia Judaica, Volume 5, p. 793, notes that the Communist International actually instructed Jews to change their names so as to "not confirm right-wing propaganda that presented Communism as an alien, Jewish conspiracy.": http://www.google.com/search?q=%22not+confirm+right-wing+propaganda+that+presented+Communism+as+an+alien%2C+Jewish+conspiracy.%22&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1

The the Hearings before the sub-committee on Bolshevik propaganda notes this name change and independently corroborates the lists of Robert Wilton. See p. 142: another long link

see also pp. 111, 114, 116, 142, 135, 977, 47, 69, 269, 270, 310, 424, 33, 41, and 57

The Report on Revolutionary Activities issued by a Committee of the New York Legislature, headed by Senator Lusk, stated the following, on p. 374:

"There was no organized opposition to Bela Kun. Like Lenin, he surrounded himself with commissars, having absolute authority. Of the thirty-two principal commissars, twenty-five were Jews, which was about the same proportion as in Russia. The most prominent of these formed a directorate of five: Bela Kun, Bela Varga, Joseph Pogany, Sigmund Kunfi, and one other. Other leaders were Alpari and Samuely, who had charge of the Red Terror, and carried out the torturing and executing of the bourgeoisie, especially the groups held as hostages, the so-called counter-revolutionists and peasants.": long link refactored

What all of this suggests is obfuscation and that facts have gone down the memory hole. Victors have written the history, obfuscating facts they find unpleasing.

Regarding the dismissal on the grounds that my argument is a "familiar conspiracy hypothesis", when people intimately involved with a situation, from a diversity of backgrounds, give information that conflicts with a mainstream argument, then we must give it consideration, and consider if there are any systemic flaws in the mainstream. For instance, Bertrand Russell is the exact opposite of a "fascist" or "Black hundreds" adherent, yet he gave conclusions, from his travels in Soviet Russia, that are very similar to those of these now marginalized groups. You find this constantly. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was intimately involved in the American political scene. In a letter to Col. Mandell House, he wrote:

"The real truth of the matter is that a financial element in the large centers has owned the Government since the days of Andrew Jackson" (Letter to Col. Edward Mandell House (21 November 1933); as quoted in F.D.R.: His Personal Letters, 1928-1945, edited by Elliott Roosevelt (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1950), p. 373.: FDR long link

Note that he said "owned", not "influenced". Yet the mainstream argument is that we live in some kind of "pluralistic" or "democratic" society.

What you find is that there is tremendous intellectual inhibition in these matters. Notable Professor Francis Boyle gave the following presentation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5wtE9wd1uU

@0:00-0:36

"I remember once lecturing at NYU Law School about the Middle East Peace Process - the Creation of the Palestinian State- and the whole faculty and student body beat the hell out of me for 2 hours, 3 hours a bout being an "anti-Semite". Then they wouldn't publish my paper in the proceedings, and then they tried to stiff me on my expenses. And this is typical."

@1:10-1:58

"This is organized by the ADL, AIPAC, Dan Pipes, people like that - saying "we don't want this person speaking, we don't want that person speaking, we don't want this person on the faculty, make sure this person doesn't get a job offer, etc.""

@4:50-4:58

"You realize how much hypocrisy is shot through the entire academic world. These people are racists, and they're hypocrites."

quote from a commentator:

"I worked for the ADL in Boston, and what the professor is saying is absolutely true! At the ADL's NY headquarters is a library of banned books, Chomsky is right next to Hitler!

Names and bios, along with PHOTOS, of serious academics critical of Israeli policies regularly came across my desk! We were supposed to ensure that these blacklisted people were harassed wherever they appeared."

So if the situation is that bad with the much less controversial issues he is discussing, why would anybody think that it is not extremely bad with the issues I am discussing?Blastikus (talk)

Pretty clear what we have here is basic anti-Semitic propaganda, masked as "look at all these out of context quotes from famous people!" I'm starting to think WP:DISRUPT applies here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Nothing I have written could in any way be described as "out of context" or "anti-Semitic" or "propaganda". I understand that it might clash with your worldview, and so you respond with poorly researched, knee-jerk reactions, but that does not in any way invalidate them.

I take extreme offense that the previous editor would libel me as an "anti-Semite". I have nothing but praise for the great Jewish individuals who have condemned the atrocities committed in their name. Benjamin Freedman is one: http://iamthewitness.com/archive.php?dir=audio%2FBenjamin.H.Freedman%2FWillard.Hotel.1961%2F

Dr. Oscar Levy is another Jew who deserves immense praise, who stated, in the prefatory letter to "The World Significance of the Russian Revolution" by George Pitt-Rivers,

"We have erred, my friend, we have most grievously erred. ... We who have posed as the saviours of the world, we who have even boasted of having given it "the" Saviour, we are today nothing else but the world's seducers, its destroyers, its incendiaries, its executioners. ... We who have promised to lead you to a new Heaven, we have finally succeeded in landing you in a new Hell. ... And yet we are not all Financiers, we are not all Bolshevists, we have not all become Zionists. ... our last word is not yet spoken, our last deed is not yet done, our last revolution is not yet made. This last Revolution, the Revolution that will crown our revolutionaries, will be the revolution against the revolutionaries. ... when the values of death and decay are put into the melting pot to be changed into those of power and beauty, then you, my dear Pitt-Rivers, the descendant of an old and distinguished Gentile family, may be assured to find by your side, and as your faithful ally, at least one member of that Jewish Race, which has fought with such fatal success upon all the spiritual battlefields of Europe." (pp. x-xi, xiii): http://ia600603.us.archive.org/22/items/TheWorldSignificanceOfTheRussianRevolution/48920297-Rivers-The-World-Significance-of-the-Russian-Revolution.pdf

I do not seek to degrade Jewish individuals or treat them as sub-human. Unfortunately, if we look at Jewish religious texts, we find that exact racist practice, which they accuse others of. The Zohar states:

""living soul" refers to Israel, who have holy living souls from above, and " cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth" to the other peoples who are not "living soul"" (H. Sperling and M. Simon, Editors, "Bereshith 47a", The Zohar, Volume 1, The Soncino Press, New York, (1984), p. 147): long long link

There is a lot more where that came from. A lot of evil hides behind the mask of Judaism. Hopefully decent Jewish individuals, rather than denying it, will condemn it and divorce themselves from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blastikus (talk • contribs)

Sir, this is not the place for you to share such beliefs though. This is where people report problems and such to the admins and editors toss in their two sense. It's not your soapbox to preach something that you are convinced is the truth (a very very badly abused word). The same goes for article talk pages which are meant to be discussion spaces for the improvement of the article, not your analysis of various cobbled together sources from which you synthesise information. Articles are also not for that purpose either. They are to be enriched by material that is added from reliable sources that have reached their own conclusions (we don't reach it for them) and that is (when a concensus is needed) is agreed upon by other involved editors. If you wish to take your message to the people, please keep it on the lawjournal site you were linking in the article's talk. Also, please remember as a sidenote that there is a massive number of jerks (mildest word possible) in every society and culture on every level of the social and political ladder, they are not unique to Judaism. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 13:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I will attempt to attempt to come back in a few months with more modern secondary sources in order to make my point, although the sources I have given certainly are reliable, and I have included secondary sources. I am not really "synthesizing" information, because each of the items I have posted stands alone. Furthermore, the the conclusions I have drawn from them are entirely supported by them. I am utterly convinced that the article being debated is in error. If Jayjg wishes to remove my contribution to the talk page because he feels it is disruptive, I don't really mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blastikus (talk • contribs) 13:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I have refactored about a half dozen links in this conversation in order to stop the ANI page from scrolling horizontally on small-ish monitors. Please take care to pipe external links appropriately. If you don't know how then look up the help page. Protonk (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

A cute block

Resolved

 – Block evading IP blocked.T. Canens (talk)12:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me posting as an IP, but it is surely wrong for one administrator to block for socking when another has just said he is checking whether there was any socking or not. (I have not registered any accounts for more than a year, since I discovered that editors are not at liberty to contribute under any name but must use the name they first thought of). At the time he went away to check, the administrator (Hersfold) said I had evaded my block by editing my talk page whilst logged out. This was simply forgetfulness on my part - I am sure we have all forgotten to log in at one time or another, and anyway the terms of my block specifically allowed me to edit my talk page. A year ago the community decided that I should not be banned, but nobody has yet implemented that decision by clearing my block. Daniel Case said he was blocking me because I had put forward no new argument. If that was true, why did Hersfold go away to check the information I had just supplied? Daniel asked me whether I thought Vote for Change looks cute - completely the wrong approach since I believe Jimbo has commented that editors pay more attention to customising their signatures than they do to what goes above them. Can a more experienced editor please notify this post to any party required to be notified under the rule? 156.61.160.1 (talk) 08:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

As this, apparently, about Vote (X) for Change (talk · contribs), I've put a note on that user talk, and notified Daniel Case (talk · contribs) and Hersfold (talk · contribs).Chzz  08:59, 31 May, 2011 (UTC)

Well, whether the talk page edit was or was not an innocent mistake due to forgetting to log in, the edit to this page was block evasion. If you wish to be unblocked you may request an unblock via your account, and otherwise you may not edit anywhere. The IP has now been blocked. JamesBWatson (User talk:JamesBWatson|talk]]) 11:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The IP appears to be stable for the indef'd user, and this is at least the third time he's pulled this stunt in the last year. I've asked for a lengthier block.[85] Baseball Bugs^{"What's up, Doc?"}carrots 14:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The admin is concerned about collateral damage. My guess is that it's all the same guy, who has repeatedly ignored the rules against block-evasion. But we'll see. Baseball Bugs^{"What's up, Doc?!"} carrots 15:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you please unblock my talk page to enable me to file the unblock request? It probably won't be in the near future as I want to demonstrate that I'm serious about not socking. From comment on some user pages you'd think I was another Bambifan, but I don't vandalise and I don't abuse other editors. My edits have been examined by the community who have seen nothing there which merits a ban. 62.140.210.158 (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocked this IP as well for block evasion ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 17:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Crazytales has blocked all the public computers in this borough for two years! When the community bans someone an administrator is quick to impose a block. Why don't they unblock when the community decides a ban is not appropriate? Not doing so is like throwing someone into prison for life after a jury acquits them. 194.66.226.95 (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Time-sensitive DYK request

Resolved

Please see Wikipedia talk:Did you know#US National Archives DYK collaboration. It appears the main DYK admins are offline, and we wanted to get the hook approved at Template talk:Did you know#Desegregation in the United States Marine Corps on the main page today (i.e., the queue going live in an hour), since it relates to today's date, and possibly even with the image there. I am posting here in the hope that someone will see it in time to switch some hooks. (I think this one might also be considered more interesting than some of the others currently planned!) The National Archives has already donated a high-resolution image for this article, and staff are planning a blog post soon to highlight the article and Wikipedia. Any help would be appreciated. Dominic·t 15:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

BBCForum mass linking to radio shows.

Resolved

 – Editor will in future suggest links on article talk pages and leave it to other editors to decide whether they should appear in articles (per solution suggested at WP:SPAM). Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

BBCForum (talk · contribs · logs)

This new user is adding links to BBC Forum radio shows on users that have been on the radio show Example. This doesn't seem particularly relevant, and bordering on spam (although as BBC is non profit, maybe not). I don't know id this should be allowed or not, but it seems that it should be brought to the attention of admins. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Per instructions at the top of this page: "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You think I should ask the user if he thinks this should be allowed or seen as spam? :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Many new users do not understand what Wikipedia considers "spam". /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 14:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Please note that somebody already had discussed this on the talk page, and that I, as mentioned obove, took it up here as notification to admins and other people with more expertize in this area to look at it. BBCForum is not one of those more experienced users. He/She can not be expected to know more than me about these issues, and I don't know enough. Discussing it with him/her would therefore be pointless. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks almost certain to me that this is a BBC employee making links to material available on their website. Of course in one sense this is unforgivable spamming (certainly very naive and not per WP policy) but on the other hand the links there might actually be extremely useful additions to the atricles in question - see the editor's contributions. Is there a way of making use of this resource without making an exception and saying some spam is good spam? I wouldn't want the alternative of someone wielding a banhammer because the BBC doesn't understand our policies - I think WP would be the loser. Could we agree a compromise whereby the BBCForum editor posts potential links to talk pages, leaving other active editors to make the decision about inclusion in the article? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Have followed up this suggestion with a post to this effect on the editor's talk page. I don't think their relative lack of experience means that posting there is useless - on the co ntrary, it's the way to try and improve editing and editors. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The Forum is an in-depth, flagship discussion programme of the BBC World Service. The links can be extremely useful for users, for research or for general interest. However, having said that I, personally (not the BBC WS), did not fully grasp the spamming policy of WP. I have already gotten some useful tips on how to proceed from the editors. Thank you for your help and concern. BBCForum (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the links should be kept on here.It is educational and not for profit, see no harm in that.Owain the 1st (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

User:AlexJC123 and copypaste and external link issues

AlexJC123 (talk · contribs)

I'm not sure what to do about User:AlexJC123's WP:COPYPASTE and external link issues. Based on this user's edits, he or she is clearly associated with this Montreal lawyer's website. Except in one instance, every article created by the user has been a copypaste from that website. For existing articles, the editor has added materials copypasted from that website. In all instances, the user has been warned and directed to Wikipedia's policies on copyrighted materials. In all cases, the user has ignored those messages and continued with the same conduct.

The user also has a history of adding the website to the external links section for various Canadian law-related articles. The link has been repeatedly removed, but the user continues in such behaviour (although admittingly has not continued in the last few days).

Basically, in a nutshell, the user continues to ignore warnings about copypasting materials from the website he or she is associated with. I believe administrator involvement is required. Singularity42 (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I see no user talk, talk or Wikipedia talk contributions in his history. If the user won't discuss or acknowledge it forces us into a corner. If they are not taking notice of repeated warnings then a block would be in order. One final warning which makes it clear that another infringement will result in a block would be my choice, then block at the first subsequent infringement. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This seems reasonable, SGGH. The editor seems to understand the copyright issue, finally. The latest text the editor has been adding, while based on the firm's articles, is not, as far as I can tell, a copy or a close paraphrase. The editor does appear to be very keen to add links to the firm's online articles, however. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Check the deleted contributions as well -- I deleted one today that CorenBot had tagged, and when I checked, it appeared to be correct. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind then. :( ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It was actually the most recent article (which was subsequently properly deleted by SarekOfVulcan as a copyvio) that caused me to raise this issue here. Like ErikHaugen, I too thought that the editor had stopped with they copypastes (which is the major issue). However, the article today caused me to believe that the multiple prior warnings over the past week or so are just not working. Singularity42 (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat & dissociative socks

Reference this ANI thread for background.

It was previously suspected that User:Victor9876 was User:Subwayjack...both (if they are the same) are banned by Jimbo, who also revealed Subwayjack's real life identity as one John Moore, an associate and former power-of-attorney of Houston McCoy (one of the officers who killed Charles Whitman). However, in this post, Moore (Subway Jack?) has given a legal threat to Victor9876 (who was apparently power of attorney for McCoy after Moore was fired) as well as to Jimbo.

Are Victor & SubwayJack one & the same? Note: After starting this thread, I now see OrangeMike has blocked the IP that SubwayJack was using....so no further admin action may be necessary but this may be worth posting here so that others are aware.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

In any case, talk page access have been revoked from both IP addresses, and both their talk pages have been semi-protected for the remainder of those blocks; they are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while legal action is outstanding. –MuZemike 22:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Erlandinho, edit-warring and frequent inappropriate genre changes against consensus despite repeated warnings

Erlandinho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is what many in the music wikiproject refer to as a "genre troll". They have a long (well over two year history) of picking a band and going through and changing the genres on every song and album. Often they will do this while deleting a hidden message stating to "seek consensus on the talk page before changing genres" (the reason for this being that the current genres are already the result of an edit war that led to a long winded discussion). Despite general consensus being against the use of Allmusic for selecting genres, this user insists on using it,[86] sometimes as the end-all-be-all of sources on genres.[87] They have edit-warred on a number of topics to attempt to insert or remove genres. By the third revert, they occasionally add a requested source, but it is often allmusic as well.[88][89][90][91] The user also has a habit of being told to stop, disappearing for some time, then showing up and taking another shot at it.[92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99]

This behaviour is annoying to say the least. The user has been at it for two years now with no signs of stopping, despite a talk page filled with warnings from multiple users.[100] Personally, I'd like to see this user banned from changing genres. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The 90% of the generes that I changed had a reliable sources, and the others (10%) also had no . Erlandinho (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You have been told and warned many times not to change genres without discussing it on the talk page, and to not rely on allmusic as a source for genres (allmusic CAN be used, however, as a source for bios). Yet still, you respond by reverting and using edit summaries such as "go home",[101] "accept it"[102] and "fuck u".[103] - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on changing music genres. Sample uncivil edit summary from three days ago. We don't need genre warriors like this, particularly when they use no or poor sources. Fences&Windows 22:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
• Bumping unresolved thread. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 10:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Weak Support - I don't see that the level of disruption has escalated to the point where a topic ban would normally be warranted. I also see that Erlandinho has a clean block log, which is unusual for someone who has been disruptive for so long. But it could be that the tactic of taking a break when warned has allowed them to avoid a block. What I do find concerning is the sheer volume of requests from a variety of editors repeatedly making the same request, for almost 2 years now; don't change genres without discussion and/or a reliable source. Then the uncivil replies are what push me over to support a ban on this behavior. -- Atama頭 17:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration policy update and ratification

The current written arbitration policy dates from 2004 and much has evolved since then. It has been extensively reviewed over the last two years, with a series of wide-ranging community consultations. A proposed update has now been posted and is awaiting community ratification. All editors are cordially invited to participate in the ratification process, which is now open.  Roger Davies ^talk 23:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Request block of rather prolific sockpuppeteer

In this case, a previously identified proxy that has again become disruptive: [104]. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked for 72 hours because of that edit. I see it was previously blocked as a proxy but I haven't looked at the other evidence or an SPI to see who this is/was. Obviously once someone does take a look they may extend or modify the block. Protonk (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • SPIs are useless as this person goes through IPs and/or user names almost as often as they breathe. As soon as I get the Check User:TomPhan and here specifically for other examples, but currently active ones where I am clearly being stalked are

    208.85.0.114 (talk · contribs)

    66.87.82.161 (talk · contribs)

    68.68.99.143 (talk · contribs)

  • Thanks. This person has been stalking me for nearly 3 years. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Ok. I've got to step out for a bit so I'll take a look at this when I get back. Hopefully someone will beat me to it. :) Protonk (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Not sure what else I can do with just those IPs. Looking at the SPI I completely agree that the editor cycles IPs and usernames frequently. Someone more knowledgeable than I can look at 187.115.202.178 and determine if it is still acting as a proxy. Other than that the 72 hour block is probably long enough to prevent casual re-use. Protonk (talk) 04:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Continuing to block these as they pop up shows a continuing pattern of behavior. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
        • (Non-administrator comment) Confirmed open proxy (I just left a message on its talk page) on port 8080, but the range looks dynamic so a 1-3 month block is probably the best option. Sailsbystars (talk) 04:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
          • Blocked – for a period of 3 months T. Canens (talk) 04:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
            • gracias! — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Dolovis

Hello,

I was just observing some drama regarding the above user on Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback#User:Dolovis, when I noticed that an IP vandalized meta here. Toddst1 is the admin who revoked that user's autopatrol rights, and if this is going crosswiki then perhaps some further action is required. This request seems to bridge multiple areas, so I'll just post it here and hope that someone knows what to do about it. Please keep in mind that all of this evidence is circumstantial and should not be used to block the user, but there might be something to it. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The IP on the English embassy complaint/submission above is User:67.193.59.152. This IP's geographic location between Oshawa and Kingston, ON, is consistent with the previous sockpuppets of User:Porgers. He has moved geographically from Burlington (which IP 67.193.59.152 now claims to be a "university computer lab" and was the original suspect of sockpuppets for Porgers, although it now turns out he had multiple other named ones—10 discovered all at once—as in Look around 23:32 UTC on 31 May 2011 or at User:Porgers). Another IP was temporarily in Ottawa (maybe visiting the Houses of Parliament) and now sits somewhere in between. Either he is spoofing his addresses or travelling between these locations. The fact that the complainant at the Eng. embassy specifically refers to Toddst1 and "skol fir" (addition here), is perfectly consistent with the behavior of all the socks of Porgers. He also avoids using Caps, I noticed. Furthermore, one trait that is consistent is that in his messages, he will adopt phrases we use, and mimic them (i.e. "nonsense edit" is my wording for edits that make no sense, and he is now borrowing that!). All in all, if this is a response to Dolovis losing "auto-patrol rights", Dolovis may be another sock of Porgers (or a very close ally). Just a thought.

More likely, however, looking at Dolovis' editing patterns, his response to Porgers' comment being removed from his Talk Page may be the only link to Porgers, and the call to the Embassy is not related directly to Dolovis... --Skol fir (talk) 06:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

What is also strange in the "Embassy complaint" is that this IP accuses Toddst1 of failing to follow the policies that s/he upholds, when all the time the reason Porgers and his sockpuppets have come to our attention in the first place is that these editors (aka Porgers and his cronies) fail across the board to follow any Wiki policies. Why else would we feel justified to revert or question their edits? The said IP probably has no respect for community cooperation, which is the driving force behind the success of Wikipedia. If all editors here refused to follow the rules, there would be no Wikipedia. The fact that Wikipedia has thrived despite these "trolls" is a testament to its fortitude and to the integrity of the majority of its editors. --Skol fir (talk) 05:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Note - Wikimedia's crosswiki DPL stuffs is currently down, so I am unable to determine whether or not this is happening on other wikis. Also, reading the discussion on RfP, it looks like this user also has a past history of sockpuppetry. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you have the wrong guy, actually. Dolovis got involved with Toddst1 because the latter removed a comment from Dolovis' talk page that was made by a banned user. That comment was intended to attack skol fir. Dolovis responded poorly to Todd's completely justified removal, but I doubt very much he was the IP at meta. It appears that IP was our banned sockpupeteer. Resolute 04:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you on these points, Resolute (see my comments above). --Skol fir (talk) 06:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, not sure if you were intending to notify Dolovis and I am about to beat you to it, or if you forgot, but I have informed him of this thread. Resolute 04:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Entirely possible - I don't have checkuser access or anything. At any rate, I hope that the information helps with something. Also, forgot to notify him, thanks for doing so. Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Full deployment of Article Feedback 3.0 planned for tomorrow

This may not belong here but it doesn't appear to have a natural home. It appears that there is to be a full deployment of MW:Article feedback tomorrow, and so far as I can see there has been no community discussion about this. I asked about this recently but didn't get very far. [105]. Shouldn't something as massive as this be discussed by the community first? There's been a little discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Article Rating appears immediately after creation?. Dougweller (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Is that the template that has appeared at the bottom of some articles asking readers to rate them? --JN466 14:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That's the one, yes. Skomorokh 14:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure it can and will get tweaked, but having seen it in a couple of articles, I liked the idea. --JN466 14:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I went looking yesterday for somewhere on our project that documented our approach to this extension but couldn't find any central location either. Has this all really been thought up and put into motion without local consultation? A recipe for trouble, if so... Skomorokh 14:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I've spoken to Guillaume Paumier from the WMF who said that he has raised this issue with those driving the project (Alolita Sharma on the technical side, Erik Möller overseeing) and is awaiting a reply, but that a response might not be expected today because it's a holiday in the U.S. Skomorokh 14:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Not a good idea to launch something like this the day after a three day weekend (and thus also during a week when a lot of people may be on holiday). Dougweller (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It is a shallow tool. It won't give much to Wikipedia except a bunch of headaches and stats that won't guide editors to any specific point. People rate what they *like* or *dislike*. This means there is an inherent bias built into such a system that doesn't necessarily correlate with encyclopedic content. Also, such a system usually ends up being gamed by people who like or dislike a particular topic, or by those who simply like to mess with people. All told, the number of people who actually thoughtfully consider their rating based on a whole picture of the article are few. It seems based on the page you linked to, that the creators are primarily looking at this as a tool for engaging more people to become editors. I'm sure once this tool is deployed across all the pages, those working on creating this new feature will be getting a TON of feedback about how it is working. -- Avanu (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree, seems like a gigantic waste of time. I've seen this sort of thing on other sites for years, and watched as they have eventually done away with it for exactly the reasons mentioned in the above post. Since the foundation side seems to be pushing this, doesn't seem like we'll be able to stop such a useless waste of time its implementation.Heiro 03:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Having done a little digging, I've found an announcement on May 9th cross-posted to the technical Village Pump and the Wiki En-l mailing list. So while not an ideal level of community engagement, there was at least a local heads-up. Skomorokh 14:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The mailing list makes sense although it isn't widely read (I think), the technical Village Pump doesn't seem to make sense to me, although there are technical aspects to the implementation I wouldn't call it a technical change. It seems to me to be a pretty basic change in how Wikipedia works, implemented without either a community discussion of the proposal or so far as I can see a discussion of the trial (why a trial if it isn't discussed?). Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Aye; for all the trouble that came with the pending changes trial, at least there was a local policy on its use and local community discussion before and during it. Skomorokh 15:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to add to Avanu's comments above this rating item creates a target for those who have an axe to grind with Wikipedia. I foresee this rating tool being used by blocked, banned etc editors to leave negative (or in some cases positive) feedback on any article that they find it attached to that will have little to do with the actual content of said article. Since, as others have pointed out, that there has been almost no community input on this I do hope that the results are going to be taken with a rather large grain of salt. Just to use one example what is going to happen when a "featured article" receives mostly negative feedback. MarnetteD | Talk 15:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see this postponed until there has been a community discussion. Dougweller (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that community discussion needs to take place, and add my comment on the terrible timing for U.S.-based editors, many of whom are at the beach or grilling hot dogs and hamburgers. (In the interest of full disclosure, I was not smitten by the rating notices when I came across them during the test, and agree that they will probably be subject to gaming and abuse.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

We definitely should have discussion on these sorts of things—I understand maybe the WMF was OK in enabling it without community consensus for a research trial, but if this is going to go on indefinitely and for all articles, we need to postpone it. Unless, of course, the WMF intends to exercise its right of doing what it feels is best, which it is perfectly allowed to do, consensus or not. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

They are just going to turn this on for a day, and at the moment it's not even clear to me that that day will be tomorrow. MW:Article feedback says it will happen "on a date near 31 May". As the people involved don't seem to be reading even the talk page of that Mediawiki wiki page regularly, I am not sure they would have updated the date if it has been moved. Hans Adler 18:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I questioned the other day as to why the feedback template only allows users to issue "good" ratings, and not neutral or bad ratings, but that doesn't seem to be addressed anywhere. 216.93.212.245 (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This page on software deployment says tomorrow. [106] I don't see any reason to think it won't happen tomorrow unless someone stops it. Dougweller (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hans, where does it say it will be turned on for only one day? Dougweller (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought I had seen something to that effect somewhere. But the point seems to be moot now, and with this communication chaos – information spread mostly over various wikis that hardly anyone watches, and discussions happening on those LQT-using backwater wikis and mailing lists – it seems I am unable to check now whether I misunderstood something because I am simply unable to locate the likely source of the information again. Hans Adler 07:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Ehm, if this is supposed to be a community discussion, wouldn't it be better suited at a Village Pump or as an RFC instead of on an admin board ? Just saying, admins are not the community. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion on the merits of the extension, it's an attempt to figure out just what is going on – which, as the OP points out, has no natural home. Skomorokh 21:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The Article Feedback tool's home is here, and a discussion about consensus (or lack thereof) has been started here. --Bensin (talk) 01:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

This needs community discussion in a central venue with plenty of publicity for it. The criteria offered by the poll tool are vague and too open to purely subjective answers to be of any real statistical value. A system for public rating of article quality is a good idea in principle, but this one is open to massive improvement to make any assessment of its results worthwhile. It needs to be re-designed by experts - there are plenty of regular editors here who are grads in stats and info gathering. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I got an answer that indicated the "Software deployments" page was in error. There won't be a full deployment today (Tuesday), but instead an incremental roll-out over the coming weeks, to allow for community feedback. guillom 07:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this a trend?

I have a question for those of you who follow these things. The change being discussed in the above thread will affect articles all over Wikipedia. Just two weeks ago we also had this discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive697#Question about Suggest a Bot about a change where all editors with a user name suddenly started receiving Wikipedia emails without any information about what they were. Thus my question - Is there an upsurge of of system wide changes which either aren't being discussed by the community or which the community is not receiving timely information about? Now I know that it is only two items so maybe I am unduly concerned but my impression is that we used to get those message boxes (which we could turn off after reading) at the top of our watchlists informing us of discussions about, or informing us of, upcoming changes. I don't always follow these closely so if this is SOP then fine but if it is a trend away from allowing community input and/or from keeping the community informed it would be nice to know that this will be the procedure from now on. Thanks ahead of time for any information that you can impart. MarnetteD | Talk 00:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The same happened with the introduction of the new Twinkle menu template yesterday, which incidentally, although basically an improvement, has introduced a bunch of new bugs with it. Twinkly reaction to bug reporting and the need for updating for compatibility with upgrades to popular browsers is notoriously slow. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I certainly hope it's an indication that things are moving away from the ossified "community consensus" model to something at least a little more likely to lead to improvements as opposed to interminable pointless discussion and ultimate stalemate. Malleus Fatuorum 02:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

So what are you suggesting? That's it's fine for developers to just impose something without discussion (even of the trial)? What's your alternative? An elected committee to make such decisions? What? It's a shame that the community wasn't consulted more in the design stages, as some of the objections are to the concept but others are mainly about the design. The trial itself should have been discussed before implemented, but it certainly should not go past trial stage without discussion as to whether it should be implemented t all and if it should be implemented what changes, if any, should be made. I sympathise with the developers, but we all want the best for Wikipedia. I think the question now is how to initiate that discussion. Dougweller (talk) 07:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with systemwide changes made by the devs without a long and unpleasant discussion/trial/etc. My only hope is that devs understand the dual of discussion free iteration is the responsibility to roll back changes if they are problematic or pointless (as I suspect the article rating system will be). Protonk (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

There are some things for which discussion is better (given that there has been significant protest against flaggedrevs in the past, the WMF was correct in not making a unilateral decision to turn it on indefinitely), but there are more minor things for which a discussion would only slow things down. At any rate, it is the WMF (and devs', when instructed by the WMF) right to do whatever they want to the site, so sometimes we just have to defer to their judgment. But I think they know what is and isn't controversial. I just wish there was more advance notice of these things. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

it's their right only in a technical sense. I'm sure they have no intention of making decisions that would impair the policies of any established project. Whether a technical change would do so is a matter of judgement, but the human experience with all central organizations anywhere, is that, unless watched, that power tends to being used more and more expansively, and with progressively poorer judgment. POur role in evaluating it is part of the necessary process. DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that WMF is actively evaluating ways to get information to the communities more efficiently about upcoming plans. I think there's some promising developments in that direction. :) --Maggie Dennis (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Depending on the significance of the plans, considering adding {{CENT}}, Mediawiki:Sitenotice and (in advance) The Signpost to the WMFs possible location announcements would be a lightweight simple first step to ensuring the word reaches a lot of the core community. The evidence suggests that few of us venture off-wiki to blogs and mailing lists. Skomorokh 09:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Local description page established

WMF staffers have re-established Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool as a local description page for the Article Feedback extension; I suggest enwiki-specific discussion of its implementation continue at its talkpage. Skomorokh 09:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

SPA created for paid editing.

• Kcdcchef (talk · contribs)
• A-E-I-Owned-You (talk · contribs)
• 71.236.97.1 (talk · contribs)

This is a unique situation of editing for hire, arguably meatpuppetry as well. Kcdchef has admitted here that they payed A-E-I-Owned-You, a single purpose account, to create an article which was deleted after an deletion discussion. This method of WP:EVASION was well covered in the AFD yet the editor(s) continue to persist to push this article. The article in question was undeleted by an admin who immediately started an 2nd AFD. The puppetmaster didn't care much for the delete !votes that were again posted on the AFD and began Kcdchef's lobbying on my talk page (to use a kind word) to reverse my delete !vote and also made it clear that he/she does not see hiring someone as a form of COI. The meatpuppet A-E-I-Owned-You persists in removing maintenance tags he/she disagrees with (advert and COI). Several attempts and clarifying Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on WP:COI and WP:SPAM have resulted in only arguments.

While not as impactfull as the issue with MyWikiBiz, it still raises some questions. Is editing for hire within Wikipedia policy? I'm not aware of a policy or guidelines covering this in any specifics. I'm thinking this should be covered somewhere, either in it's own guideline (probably overkill) or clarified in WP:PAY to note that paid COI isn't limited to contract or long term employment. A short term business relationship such as apparent in the Kcdcchef example is still employment and still presents COI issues.--RadioFan (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me that anyone hired to edit Wikipedia by someone else, no matter what the subject matter, is automatically running afoul of WP:COI by definition.--Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

hmmmm. yes. though having a COI and editing with one are not the same and behavior/editing are key things to observe. It appears that the editor in question here is showing to much COI. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This is why I hate the practice of paid editing, or as I prefer to call it, "mercenary editing". Block the merc indef for high conflict of interest, block the contractee a long while for same. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 20:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no way of permitted editing under pseudonyms and preventing paid editing and editing with equivalent COI. The only thing we can prevent is bad editing, and, even for businesses and organizations, that's as likely to come from just interested people without formal COI. What we could do is reject editing in the cases where we know it to be paid or COI, but it's hypocrisy to say as we would have, we prohibit paid editing, but of course if you're any good at all and discriminating in your clients you will get away with it. That's not a prohibition, but a challenge, on the order of "don't steal. you might get caught". And what is the point of discouraging the honest paid editors when we cannot discourage the unadmitted less honest forthright ones? DGG (alternate account) (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Paid editing is already happening and has been for some time. When a Wikipedia article is the number one search engine result (or number two after a company's own website) any company in their right mind is going to want their Wikipedia article to be good, and is going to make sure their marketing/web department keeps an eye on Wikipedia. This is not a problem provided the articles comply with policy. What is a problem is when non-notable companies hire someone to write an article on them so they can get a free web host. Thankfully, we already have policies like the five pillars to deal with this. Paid editing isn't the problem, bad editing is. And we already know how to deal with that. Block the SPA, block the sockmaster, move on. If the article doesn't meet our policies, or the company isn't notable, it's simply not going to be on the wiki. N419BH 01:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm referring to this instance, since it appears to be very clear that the mercenary and contractee have an intractible conflict of interest. I would *like* to see all paid editors sent to Tierra del Fuego, but as long as they're editing strictly within policy there's no reason to block or otherwise scold them. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 07:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Disruption to make a point - continued abuse of Wikipedia

See archival of prior discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive701#Outing threats

Continued disruption to make a point from the IP range 123.231.64.0/18, continuing tonight from 123.231.112.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Last time, EdJohnston suggestion a one-month range-block on 123.231.64.0/18. Is there support for this, or is the potential collateral damage too great? The only other options I see is to ask people to monitor activity from 123.231.64.0/18, or to see if a potential edit filter could be devised (but due to the range of articles, subjects, etc, that could be tricky to devise an effective one). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I have issued a short 2-week block on the range. Hopefully, this is enough. –MuZemike 07:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Abuse of Twinkle by User:Snappy and other issues

User:snappy consistently refers to my edits as vandalism in edit summaries, and to me personally in an edit summary as a moron. He continually uses Twinkle to revert my edits. This is despite the fact that I have linked him to WP:NOTVAND and have explained to him that twinkle is for reverting vandalism only. He responded to my explanation by telling me to stay away from his talk page and to take it to ANI.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snappy&diff=432046799&oldid=432046660

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snappy&diff=432045909&oldid=432045832

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snappy&diff=432044323&oldid=432039245

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snappy&diff=431373225&oldid=431372923

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:46.7.72.149&diff=432044603&oldid=432044529

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bearded_lady&diff=432044828&oldid=431924000

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phoenix_Park&diff=431783274&oldid=431746136

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phoenix_Park&diff=431208948&oldid=431208052

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phoenix_Park&diff=430719876&oldid=430676256

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phoenix_Park&diff=430541760&oldid=430426809

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phoenix_Park&diff=429946553&oldid=429945962

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phoenix_Park&diff=429932971&oldid=429902905

46.7.72.149 (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This is related to a content dispute at Phoenix Park article. Myself and User:ww2censor have reverted the IPs edits (I believe its the same person which the other two IP that have edited the page) but the IP insists on adding information for which there is no consensus. His disruptive editing and refusal to adhere to consensus, does imho constitute vandalism, and other think so too. Snappy (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Your so gonna get your access revoked from the tool. - Another n00b (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I repeatedly linked you to WP:NOTVAND, which clearly says "Disruptive editing or stubbornness: Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes against consensus. Edit warring is not vandalism and should not be dealt with as such.". I have also repeatedly linked Template:Vandalism warning warningfor you. You know full well that my edits do not constitute vandalism. 46.7.72.149 (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Dropped a 3RR tag on the IP address for grossly exceeding the 3RR limit on the Phoenix park article. Snappy, if a editor is contesting your usage of Twinkle to undo their changes, follow Bold, Revert, Discuss and discuss it with them on the page before using the tools again.. Seems like a overall WP:BOOMERANG situation with the IP trying to get usage of a toolset as a reason to get their way. Hasteur (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not "grossly" exceed 3RR or even exceed it at all for that matter. 46.7.72.149 (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I honestly wasn't aware that using Twinkle to revert what I perceive as vandalism, was not allowed, I certainly won't be using it for that purpose again again now that I know. As you can see from the talk page on the Phoenix Park, myself and others have been discussing it in detail with the IP, but as of yet no resolution to that issue. Snappy (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I repeatedly explained to you what vandalism is and is not. I also repeatedly told you that twinkle was only for reverting vandalism, yet you continued to use it to revert my good faith edits. See for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bearded_lady&diff=prev&oldid=432047030 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snappy&diff=prev&oldid=432046524 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snappy&diff=prev&oldid=432007016 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phoenix_Park&diff=prev&oldid=431823129 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.72.149 (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected. IP Address is choosing not to hear that consensus is against them. I've filed for Semi on the article based on the IP's continued disruption of the page. You don't make changes to a point of contention untill the discussion is finished. Judging the consensus, I'd say that the community's consensus is not with the IP editor's interpertation. Hasteur (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Until today, there was nobody involved in the discussion bar myself, snappy, and one other user. 2 people is hardly consensus. 46.7.72.149 (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I've got to give Snappy the benefit of the doubt with some of his reverts, including his most recent one to Phoenix Park. The edit he undid had duplicated a line of text and related references in the article. I'd say Snappy acted in good faith by identifying that edit as disruptive and reverting it with Twinkle—though an edit summary of "remove duplicated text" would have helped the situation. —C.Fred (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

That edit is by user:ww2censor not by snappy. 46.7.72.149 (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it was, but I was reported not him. Anyway the Phoenix Park article is now semi-protected for 2 weeks. Snappy (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Semi protected on the basis of "persistent sockpuppetry", which did not happen. Sockpuppetry is "the use of multiple accounts to deceive other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards" I did not commit sockpuppetry, I simply have an IP address which changes. 46.7.72.149 (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's fine to revert non-vandalism with Twinkle, as long as you don't use the vandalism button and use an edit summary. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

From WP:TW "Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback should not be used to undo good-faith changes in content disputes unless an appropriate edit summary is used." 46.7.72.149 (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Snappy is continuing his lack of civility, calling me a "silly IP" because (shock!) I actually took his advice to highlight his behaviour here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ww2censor&diff=432072458&oldid=432014296 46.7.72.149 (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This user's edits seem to be perfectly valid. I'd say we should drop this completely, it's a small complaint. If the two of you could just desist and try not to get in each other's way, everything would be peachy. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 23:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I am staying out of his way, but he is now stalking my recent edits. Its interesting to note that IP claims to have an address which changes but refuses to register. I suspect that sockpuppetry of a blocked user is going on. I think a Checkuser investigation might be in order. Snappy (talk) 06:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You stalked mine first. You get what you give. What's so interesting about my having a rotating IP address? I choose not to have an account, which is my business alone. Besides, this isn't about me, it's about your abuse of twinkle, so don't accuse me of sockpuppetry to distract from that. 46.7.72.149 (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request

Sripsb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is requesting an unblock here but as can be seen has not used the unblock template so it won't show up at CAT:RFU. I blocked as a SPAM only account, and there appears to be issues with further spam [107] apparently. Nevertheless, as the blocking admin it's not my place to take further action so could someone else please review the unblock request. Pedro :  Chat  08:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Even if the user did not know the rules before, which would be reckless, the editor continued to insert spam into the website, which can only be intentional. The request has been regretfully denied. Bearian (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Promotional article creation, probable abuse of multiple accounts, related to Platinum Sports and Entertainment

It looks like somebody associated with this agency is busy creating articles about its clients, minor league baseball players/draft choices who seem to uniformly fail the notability standard, but aren't quite insignificant enough to speedy. Among the accounts involved are User:Zmerkle13 and User:Player3182. Articles involved include Brian Dinkelman, Alessio Angelucci, Rob Wort, and about a dozen more (see the "what links here" page for the agency. [108] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the article as G11 before seeing this; probably an article can be written, but this is one of the clear cases where someone other than the editors mentioned above must do it. DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Am I correct that the pages in question should not specifically mention that they are represented by this company? It seems like nothing but advertisement to me. I deleted one reference but I figured I'd ask what you guys thought before I jumped in and removed them all. N^oformation ^Talk 07:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I always revert "representation spam" when I see it -- as far as I am concerned it is completely unencyclopedic. – ukexpat (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

User U6j65 Canvassing

User:U6j65 was originally involved with now banned user:Anglo Pyramidologist in a slow edit war at British National Party during the last week of May which has resulted in the article being frozen. The discussion has not been easy as U6j6 feels that a NPOV position involves representing all views equally, rather than reflecting what reliable sources say. Attempts to explain this seem to be getting no where and we have speculation on the motives of other editors replacing any willingness to engage with policy on WP:RS. All of that is par for the course on this article which has a long history of editors seeking to use BNP source material rather than third party sources. Consider it setting context, its not ANI material of itself.

On the 31st of May he approached two editors on their talk pages to ask them to be involved. One warned him of WP:Canvass and to avoid any doubt I gave a link to the policy on the 1st June. Several hours after that he made approaches to three other editors here, here and here. He is obviously trawling the edit history of the page to find anyone he thinks might support his view in a clear attempt at vote stacking.

It would help if an uninvolved admin have a look at this, and hopefully make him aware of policy --Snowded ^TALK 06:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I would not call myself uninvolved so I won't act, but I back Snowded's comments here. Dougweller (talk) 10:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I appologies I ddint realise i was breaking policey the second time round, i will refrain from such action in the future, U6j65 (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Newsrooms, User:213.146.159.4 & Olswang

Olswang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

An WP:COI editor is edit warring on Olswang despite a warning placed on his Talk page.

I have reported it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (see [109]) but he continues to edit and I am nor WP:3RR blocked from the page for the rest of the day so can someone else look at it..

Mtking (talk) 08:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Newsrooms has been blocked 24 hours per an AN3 complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Cowboys & Aliens

Resolved

 – Blocked for 48 hours for edit warring. Fences&Windows 01:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

At Cowboys & Aliens (film), the editor Altitude2010 (talk · contribs) provided a writeup for the "Marketing" section as seen here. The section did not meet film guidelines, being indiscriminate in nature by describing details of trailers and posters and engaging in proseline. I had mentioned the article as an example of not following the guidelines at this WT:FILM discussion, and I went ahead and provided a cleaner writeup as seen here. Since Altitude2010 reverted me, I started a discussion on the talk page to request feedback about the writeups. The consensus was to reject Altitude2010's writeup. I tried to engage Altitude2010 on his talk page to acknowledge the consensus, but he has persisted in restoring his writeup against consensus and ignoring discussions. The editor appears intent on restoring his writeup every so often, so it is not really a 3RR-in-24-hours issue, but I doubt he will stop. Is there a way for him to acknowledge the consensus? Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 20:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

He restored it again and even claimed no consensus, despite the talk page showing numerous editors in favor of the more concise writeup. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I too have tried in the last few days to restore the more concise version, with a reason, the user simply reverts it saying it is missing "notable" information. Appears to have a case of ownership concerning the article.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

He may not be violating 3RR specifically - but he is indeed edit-warring. An edit war doesn't need to take place in a short time; it can be a long, protracted affair done slowly specifically to attempt to dodge 3RR. This coupled with the appearance of ownership could be a sign he's got something riding on this film. Block the user for edit-warring; he forfeit any claim he had to consensus the instant he refused to touch the talk page. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 19:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism at Vinegar Hill, New Zealand

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinegar_Hill,_New_Zealand#Index_Of_Reigned_Queens I James Parker have been put as queen 2012. This is false and slanderous. I would like it removed immediately and the person who did it to have their account canceled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.69.135 (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the whole section as unreferenced. It isn't really needed in any case, it is just a list of non-notable names. I do have to wonder why you would think that it refers to you given what a common name it is. I see no reason to do anything to the person who added it. --Daniel 22:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself has a large number of articles about various James Parkers. I can find no mention of this online, but I doubt it was added as a malicious act. - SudoGhost™ 22:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, niether James or Parker are uncommon names, now if it were my real name (which I am not going to tell of course), then there would be an issue as my last name is unique to descendants of my grandfather (he had no brothers) and I'm the only one with that first and last name combo. That's the degree of certainty you need to know it's about you specifically (that or a picture). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 23:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• A few things here - one, I'm concerned that nobody who has acted here seems bothered about the massive amounts of unreferenced information, POV and OR in the article - which I've now removed. Two, you could at least have warned the vandal(s) - as indeed I have just done, as they continue to re-add this information. GiantSnowman 23:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Conflict/Possible Sockpuppet at Chinaman

Vandalism Report (First Thread)

It is my first time posting here. Please excuse me if I make mistakes.

Can an administrator review the vandalism regarding User:Medeis? He repetitively deleted the Ductch/Ductchman entry from List of ethnic slurs without any discussions or consensus-building efforts as recorded in the history [[110]] starting from 3:01 on May 31, 2011. Then today in order to stop me from making further discussions, he posted disruptive warning messages on my talk page [[111]]. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwarm12345 (talk • contribs) 19:44, May 31, 2011 (UTC)

Notified Medeis (talk · contribs) — ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 18:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment) As a note, I've informed the user. However, Dwarm, I'd suggest you to read WP:NOTVAND. Although the two of you are on opposing sides of a dispute, his edits are not considered vandalism. Wikipedia has a strict definition of vandalism, in part (I suspect) because calling someone a vandal tends to inflame things and distract from improving the article(s) in question. As for the warning messages, he wasn't attempting to stop you from making further discussions, but to stop you from making further reversions to the article. Unless I'm mistaken, I see three reversions on the Chinaman article today. This message wasn't intended to stop you from discussing, but to make you aware of a rule that Wikipedia has called WP:3RR. Editors who violate WP:3RR are blocked, even if they are correct. I would advise that the best thing to do in this situation is to not make any further edits to the article for now, and to use the talk page to discuss the content, and reach a consensus before making changes to the article (and considering you've made 3 reversions today, I'd advise letting someone else make that article edit, once consensus is achieved). This way it avoids a back and forth that seems to be happening on the article. - SudoGhost™ 18:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Message taken. Please see below. Thanks. Dwarm12345 (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dwarm, not awesome (see below). Don't do that. lifebaka++ 19:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See below regarding this user's modification of another post I made [112]. I've never had any contact with this user or any of the articles the user is associated with. Yet this "new" user began Wikipedia by launching into a major edit dispute with another editor, has shown knowledge of Wikipedia noticeboards and somewhat advanced editing procedures, and now appears to be modifying comments left by other users. For what its worth, I don't think this is a new user at all....but I could be wrong. -OberRanks (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry that you formed such impression. I am indeed new to WIKI but I happen to be very computer competent. Unfortunately I was not aware of the 3-edit rule until yesterday. As for the three edits made last night and today, it was because I might have misunderstood another editor's comments as a go-ahead. Now the miscommunication has been resolved and we are engaging in open communication in good faiths. I will have the other editor to make to revision this time. Dwarm12345 (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the edit history of Chinaman, but usually if there is an article under dispute, and a brand new user arrives and immediately takes up one of the positions, and this same new user appears to already know some advanced features of Wikipedia (edit summaries, noticeboards, talk pages, etc) it is usually an automatic assumption that they are a second account of someone else. But, on the flip side, we must also abide by WP:AGF unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. So, since I don't know anything about the situation, I can only accept your word. -OberRanks (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I surely respect your right to remain skeptical. As I becomes more familiar with WIKI, I hope to have an easier time here. But at least I am now well aware of that dreadful 3-edits rule. Stay away from it at all cost! Dwarm12345 (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Civility/Sockpuppet Report (Second Thread)

Interesting. Well, the accusation of vandalism can be summarily dismissed per the above comments of no-involved editors. And let me state that I have been nothing but courteous to Dwarm12345, explaining policies at length, addressing his arguments in substance when they should simply be dismissed as out of place by policy and wikipedia style (for instance, a DAB page is not an article, and not the place for POV or statements which require sources to support them.)

And let me commend User:Mr. Stradivarius for his patience with the user, even though he reverted today to edit warring on Chinaman, for which he was previously blocked. And I will refrain from complaining about the user's implicit accusations of racism and editing according to distaste on my part.

But,

I must complain that Dwarm12345 has shown a total lack of disregard for wikipedia policy, and of concern for trying to learn or comprehend it. I will state that the user appears to be an abusive single-use sock-puppet account with a rather sophisticated knowledge of wikilawyering. I note note that the user showed up in conjunction with a concerted web campaign (See ANI) to manipulate this issue at wikipedia.

I highly suspect that the user is a sockpuppet of users User:Mattyjacky and User talk:18.252.5.59, given their consecutive editing histories and the abandonment of those accounts when they were laden with warnings and reports, and given their similar UserPage formats and identical OR arguments regarding the racist nature of the word Chinaman, "because one does not encounter the terms Englandman and Franceman."

Note also the continued Chinese language recruitment at mitbbs.com, (mentioned in the prior ANI) with a post added (here in English translation) Saturday May 28 recruiting people now to edit the existing article Chinaman and that Dwarm12345's user history begins Saturday May 28 with the immediate single purpose of editing the article Chinaman.

I think the facts are obvious, that Dwarm12345 has shown himself incapable at this point of editing according to policy, that the user is emotionally compromised, and that overwhelming evidence links the user to other single-purpose accounts and an off-wiki campaign to manipulate the project. μηδείς (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Topic Ban (Third Thread)

I propose that Dwarm12345 be topic banned for some reasonable period, during which he will still be free to contribute in other areas and learn WP policy. μηδείς (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

While remaining in the realm of WP:AGF, there does appear to be a lot evidence that the Dwarm account is being run by someone who knew a bit about Wikipedia prior to creating the account. The account (so far) also appears to be single purpose, solely created for editing the Chinaman article. -OberRanks (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. First, it's a threat that gets trotted out FAR too often on ANI. Second, Medeis brings up fairly compelling evidence of sockpuppetry. I believe that should take precedence over a topic ban proposal, especially in light of the described Chinaman editing. As an alternative, I'd propose opening a WP:SPI investigation, allowing it to run its course, and only then discuss other sanctions. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I am fine with that, so long as it doesn't mean I have to keep putting up with accusations of dubious good faith as a response to my good faith efforts. I have other contributions I'd rather be making. μηδείς (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't even bother, guys, I am shutting up now, which will surely make some people very pleased. This is way too time-consuming for me. If any of you are true scholars, you ought to know how the scholarly process works. Unless things drastically change from here, Wiki will remain an easily accessible but highly unreliable source of information. Sorry for this assessment. But if you ask any scholar/educator, he/she will say the exact same thing. Dwarm12345 (talk) 02:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Revisted Sockpuppet Report (Fourth Thread)

Something else interesting:

• User MattyJacky created an Edit warring complaint by overtyping another's comment and saving it as his own
• User Dwarm12345 created an Admin, Notice Incident by overtyping another's comment and saving it as his own

Please advise me whether this should be taken up elsewhere. μηδείς (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Medeis, your off-topic tactics seem to be doing its tricks. Isn't it true you deleted the Ductchman entry from the Ethnic Slurs List three times within one hour without any discussion? [Nope. μηδείς (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)] If you are being truly scholarly, please focus on the topics. Oh, well, I have been spending too much time on this. Good luck, Wiki, and those most vocal, most skilled, most connected but unfortunately not necessarily the most knowledgeable and truthful. Dwarm12345 (talk) 01:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Recommend checkuser to confirm/exonerate user per Medeis' evidence. User suddenly seems evasive.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Same violations, different treatments. Dwarm12345 (talk) 05:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I have been involved with this since the beginning, so I think it might be helpful if I give my version of events. First, I think Medeis's claim of sockpuppetry is reasonable given the editing histories of the users he mentions, and I also think a quick checkuser would be a good idea. However, whether the allegations are true or not, Dwarm12345 has shown a quick ability to learn about editing here, and I see the mistakes they have made as due to a lack of experience rather than actual malice. For example, the three reverts on Chinaman yesterday seem to be due to a less-than-full understanding of the nature of consensus here, and also confusion with the language I used on the talk page; I don't think they were due to a disregard of the consensus process itself.

I am a little more concerned with Dwarm's accusations towards Medeis of vandalism (above) and of "newbie mistakes" and "POV" (here) and I think Dwarm should be very careful not to let this continue. It's unfortunate that Dwarm chose a controversial page to be the first one they edited, as the tolerance for their mistakes has been pretty low, but with a little more time here I have confidence that they could become a good contributor. I don't think there's any reason for Dwarm to stop editing Chinaman and related articles, as long as they complete their understanding of WP:CON and WP:AGF and keep discussion calm and rational. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Point of Order Can we change the head of this section to something less presumptuous of guilt on my part "Vandalism by me", perhaps something like "Conflict at Chinaman"? The title itself is a slander on par with Dwarm12345's continued insistence that I edit warred at and vandalised List of ethnic slurs when all I did was twice remove unsourced material. μηδείς (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Someone should also get the sockpuppet investigation started at WP:SPI. -OberRanks (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Created at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dwarm12345 -OberRanks (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

If someone gets to filing an SPI (I will be somewhat busy today and tomorrow) they should also take a look at User:Respecteveryone:

• MattyJacky "New User. Hello everyone in this wonderful community!"

Contributions 03:51, 25 May 2011 - 14:38, 26 May 2011

• RespectEveryone "Hello Everyone, I am happy to join the family of Wikipedia."

Contributions 14:23, 25 May 2011 - 01:40, 27 May 2011

• Dwarm12345 "Pursuing truths. Pleased by truths."

Contributions 10:20, 28 May 2011 - 01:43, 1 June 2011 (as of this post)

and the various creators/edit warriors of the deleted articles mentioned at this ANI. μηδείς (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Per the findings at SPI, the users are not related. Is there a request for admin action outstanding here?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The SPI is not closed, is it? I have not had to go through this process before, and felt it proper to address certain questions there first before bringing them here. My understanding is that the SPI was limited, and provides only negative evidence, and I have queried the administrator involved. I believe that, depending on his answer, there is still plenty at issue. μηδείς (talk) 03:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Meatpuppet Report (Fifth Thread)

Regardless of the SPI results, we have an explicit admission to meatpuppetry by Dwarm12345 who admits his editing was occasioned by calls to do so at mitbbs.com. [113] The article Chinaman was mentioned by url on that bbs on three threads within the last week [114][115][116]. The calli to edit Chinaman specifically was posted on May 28, the day Dwarm12345's account was created.

Per WP:MEAT: "Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate" . . . "whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets."

μηδείς (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I think so long as there is not active disruption of the article, or a visible effort by multiple accounts to influence votes on proposals, it might be best just to move on with this and avoid further drama. I will agree, however, this does look like people getting together outside of Wikipedia and agreeing to edit the same article, but there is not much that can be done about that unless there is flagrant and visible disruption of articles. Since there is none at present, might be best to move away from this. -OberRanks (talk) 02:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

If there is no disruption this moment it is because the articles have been protected, and the user on his best behavior given a block for 3RR, the threat of a second block, and his having to defend himself at this ANI. In the meantime, it is uncontested that we have had meatpuppetry, edit warring, bad faith accusations, accusations of racism and malice, and a blatant failure to understand or to care to understand NPOV and other wikipedia policies pointed by a single purpose user showing up out of the blue fullblown with significant wikilawyering skills. The disruption to established editors and busy administrators has been significant, and there is no evidence of any good contributions by this editor that will be sacrificed if the rules are enforced. If we are going to assume that Dwarm12345 is a truly new editor and will stay at wikipedia and be a productive rule-following contributor, nothing in a one-month topic ban will prevent him from developing in good directions--it should, in fact, encourage him. μηδείς (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

At this point, I would suggest waiting to see if there is another major incident. I think the intensity of this thread has perhaps "scared the user away". -OberRanks (talk) 05:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

British sockmaster? from library IPs

[117] I'm not totally sure what is going on here. I think we have a sockmaster, evading blocks from British library IP addresses but I'm not exactly sure who it is or whether whack-a-mole-ing British libraries is the right thing to do. Argh. ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 16:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there really any other option? It's sad that one attention-starved (expletive redacted) can screw things up for a large number of people, but that's the human condition, I'm afraid. And it's not like library-terminal users won't have access to read, or registered users to edit from those terminals. Just my 2p worth. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That was my thought.... all the IPs seem duckish. But I just wanted to confirm because I am not intimately familiar with that issue. ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 17:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought - British libraries generall keep a log of who's on which computer at whatever time, and also I think their computers keep history of what's been accessed. You could point out the problem to the library/ies invovled, and they could put a Library-ban on that person for computer use. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing disruptive editing and possible WP:COI violation by User:WriterEditorPenn

Resolved

 – indefinitely blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 03:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

At the suggestion of EdJohnston I'm requesting additional examination of the actions of an apparent single purpose account WriterEditorPenn (talk · contribs). This user seems solely interested in editing the article DontDateHimGirl.com, perhaps as part of a PR effort, excising certain sourced content and introducing less-reputable-- or outright fraudulent content-- to move the article from NPOV, towards a positive spin. This user has been warned multiple times for edit-warring, and was previously blocked for such, after blanking content without explanation or discussion. Since I was the principal editor who had added sourced material and reverted WriterEditorPenn's past content blanking, I have refrained from reverting the most recent set of edits made after the expiration of the account's block. The latest edits by this user have created a jumbled mess of the article, and introduce some apparently fallacious content-- as well as injecting a link to what appears to be the user's own site.[118]

Specifically:

• Claiming that "In 2006, to combat the rash of fake blogs and URLs using the DontDateHimGirl.com brand name and purporting to be written by DontDateHimGirl.com staff, the site launched its' official blog located on the DontDateHimGirl.com website" with a citation being the site's blog landing page.
• Claim that "In 2007, the site won a Marketing to Women Award from Future Inc. Now" -- citing a blog in which an online marketer decided to give kudos to "all the companies and marketers who have prompted my happy dances." [119] Not exactly "serious" considering the "award" is "Best Name for a Website" -- and the "winners get a free copy of my new e-book." [120]
• Making a wild claim that "In 2008, the site was hailed by CBS News as instrumental in helping to locate a club promoter who was allegedly infecting women with HIV. ." with a fake citation that linked to an unrelated press release by the site. [121]
• Falsely claiming that, "U.S. production company Reveille has optioned "Don't Date Him Girl" for a possible U.S. makeover announced at the Cannes Film Festival..." -- with a citation to a Variety article that makes it clear that Reveille optioned a Scandinavian reality show unconnected to the site: "Sold by Nordisk Film TV World, part of Nordisk Film, reality show "Girl" turns on three over-confident single men competing for one girl -- despite the presence on the show of their ex-girlfriends."[122]
• Finally, stating that "In 2011, the site announced the creation of its own official Wiki page to combat the constant vandalism, false information and editing wars that continue to plague the site's page on Wikipedia.com." citing a newly created but empty site [123] -- which shows a distinct conflict-of-interest.

I would ask that the article be returned to a version without the newly added questionable content; and that the user be sanctioned, as it does not appear the account is intended to contribute anything to Wikipedia other than remove material from this single article, and introduce false claims. --HidariMigi (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a very blatant effort to whitewash the article. Frankly, it borders on disruption (and steps over that border from time to time). -- Atama頭 00:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This insertion is troubling :In 2011, the site announced the creation of its own official Wiki page to combat the constant vandalism, false information and editing wars that continue to plague the site's page on Wikipedia.com. Cited to this]. Heiro 01:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

A review of Talk:DontDateHimGirl.com suggests there's very little chance that User:WriterEditorPenn ever intends to comply with Wikipedia policy. Usually we give COI-affected editors a fair amount of slack, and try to explain to them what Wikipedia expects. Given the amount of time elapsed and the poor prospects for the future, an indefinite block seems advisable. EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears that 76.108.196.241 (talk · contribs) is also used by User:WriterEditorPenn as recently as 10 March 2011. Toddst1 (talk) 03:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Conflict/Possible Sockpuppet at Chinaman

Vandalism Report (First Thread)

It is my first time posting here. Please excuse me if I make mistakes.

Can an administrator review the vandalism regarding User:Medeis? He repetitively deleted the Ductch/Ductchman entry from List of ethnic slurs without any discussions or consensus-building efforts as recorded in the history [[124]] starting from 3:01 on May 31, 2011. Then today in order to stop me from making further discussions, he posted disruptive warning messages on my talk page [[125]]. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwarm12345 (talk • contribs) 19:44, May 31, 2011 (UTC)

Notified Medeis (talk · contribs) — ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 18:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment) As a note, I've informed the user. However, Dwarm, I'd suggest you to read WP:NOTVAND. Although the two of you are on opposing sides of a dispute, his edits are not considered vandalism. Wikipedia has a strict definition of vandalism, in part (I suspect) because calling someone a vandal tends to inflame things and distract from improving the article(s) in question. As for the warning messages, he wasn't attempting to stop you from making further discussions, but to stop you from making further reversions to the article. Unless I'm mistaken, I see three reversions on the Chinaman article today. This message wasn't intended to stop you from discussing, but to make you aware of a rule that Wikipedia has called WP:3RR. Editors who violate WP:3RR are blocked, even if they are correct. I would advise that the best thing to do in this situation is to not make any further edits to the article for now, and to use the talk page to discuss the content, and reach a consensus before making changes to the article (and considering you've made 3 reversions today, I'd advise letting someone else make that article edit, once consensus is achieved). This way it avoids a back and forth that seems to be happening on the article. - SudoGhost™ 18:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Message taken. Please see below. Thanks. Dwarm12345 (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dwarm, not awesome (see below). Don't do that. lifebaka++ 19:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See below regarding this user's modification of another post I made [126]. I've never had any contact with this user or any of the articles the user is associated with. Yet this "new" user began Wikipedia by launching into a major edit dispute with another editor, has shown knowledge of Wikipedia noticeboards and somewhat advanced editing procedures, and now appears to be modifying comments left by other users. For what its worth, I don't think this is a new user at all....but I could be wrong. -OberRanks (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry that you formed such impression. I am indeed new to WIKI but I happen to be very computer competent. Unfortunately I was not aware of the 3-edit rule until yesterday. As for the three edits made last night and today, it was because I might have misunderstood another editor's comments as a go-ahead. Now the miscommunication has been resolved and we are engaging in open communication in good faiths. I will have the other editor to make to revision this time. Dwarm12345 (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the edit history of Chinaman, but usually if there is an article under dispute, and a brand new user arrives and immediately takes up one of the positions, and this same new user appears to already know some advanced features of Wikipedia (edit summaries, noticeboards, talk pages, etc) it is usually an automatic assumption that they are a second account of someone else. But, on the flip side, we must also abide by WP:AGF unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. So, since I don't know anything about the situation, I can only accept your word. -OberRanks (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I surely respect your right to remain skeptical. As I becomes more familiar with WIKI, I hope to have an easier time here. But at least I am now well aware of that dreadful 3-edits rule. Stay away from it at all cost! Dwarm12345 (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Civility/Sockpuppet Report (Second Thread)

Interesting. Well, the accusation of vandalism can be summarily dismissed per the above comments of no-involved editors. And let me state that I have been nothing but courteous to Dwarm12345, explaining policies at length, addressing his arguments in substance when they should simply be dismissed as out of place by policy and wikipedia style (for instance, a DAB page is not an article, and not the place for POV or statements which require sources to support them.)

And let me commend User:Mr. Stradivarius for his patience with the user, even though he reverted today to edit warring on Chinaman, for which he was previously blocked. And I will refrain from complaining about the user's implicit accusations of racism and editing according to distaste on my part.

But,

I must complain that Dwarm12345 has shown a total lack of disregard for wikipedia policy, and of concern for trying to learn or comprehend it. I will state that the user appears to be an abusive single-use sock-puppet account with a rather sophisticated knowledge of wikilawyering. I note note that the user showed up in conjunction with a concerted web campaign (See ANI) to manipulate this issue at wikipedia.

I highly suspect that the user is a sockpuppet of users User:Mattyjacky and User talk:18.252.5.59, given their consecutive editing histories and the abandonment of those accounts when they were laden with warnings and reports, and given their similar UserPage formats and identical OR arguments regarding the racist nature of the word Chinaman, "because one does not encounter the terms Englandman and Franceman."

Note also the continued Chinese language recruitment at mitbbs.com, (mentioned in the prior ANI) with a post added (here in English translation) Saturday May 28 recruiting people now to edit the existing article Chinaman and that Dwarm12345's user history begins Saturday May 28 with the immediate single purpose of editing the article Chinaman.

I think the facts are obvious, that Dwarm12345 has shown himself incapable at this point of editing according to policy, that the user is emotionally compromised, and that overwhelming evidence links the user to other single-purpose accounts and an off-wiki campaign to manipulate the project. μηδείς (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Topic Ban (Third Thread)

I propose that Dwarm12345 be topic banned for some reasonable period, during which he will still be free to contribute in other areas and learn WP policy. μηδείς (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

While remaining in the realm of WP:AGF, there does appear to be a lot evidence that the Dwarm account is being run by someone who knew a bit about Wikipedia prior to creating the account. The account (so far) also appears to be single purpose, solely created for editing the Chinaman article. -OberRanks (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. First, it's a threat that gets trotted out FAR too often on ANI. Second, Medeis brings up fairly compelling evidence of sockpuppetry. I believe that should take precedence over a topic ban proposal, especially in light of the described Chinaman editing. As an alternative, I'd propose opening a WP:SPI investigation, allowing it to run its course, and only then discuss other sanctions. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I am fine with that, so long as it doesn't mean I have to keep putting up with accusations of dubious good faith as a response to my good faith efforts. I have other contributions I'd rather be making. μηδείς (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't even bother, guys, I am shutting up now, which will surely make some people very pleased. This is way too time-consuming for me. If any of you are true scholars, you ought to know how the scholarly process works. Unless things drastically change from here, Wiki will remain an easily accessible but highly unreliable source of information. Sorry for this assessment. But if you ask any scholar/educator, he/she will say the exact same thing. Dwarm12345 (talk) 02:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Revisted Sockpuppet Report (Fourth Thread)

Something else interesting:

• User MattyJacky created an Edit warring complaint by overtyping another's comment and saving it as his own
• User Dwarm12345 created an Admin, Notice Incident by overtyping another's comment and saving it as his own

Please advise me whether this should be taken up elsewhere. μηδείς (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Medeis, your off-topic tactics seem to be doing its tricks. Isn't it true you deleted the Ductchman entry from the Ethnic Slurs List three times within one hour without any discussion? [Nope. μηδείς (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)] If you are being truly scholarly, please focus on the topics. Oh, well, I have been spending too much time on this. Good luck, Wiki, and those most vocal, most skilled, most connected but unfortunately not necessarily the most knowledgeable and truthful. Dwarm12345 (talk) 01:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Recommend checkuser to confirm/exonerate user per Medeis' evidence. User suddenly seems evasive.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Same violations, different treatments. Dwarm12345 (talk) 05:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I have been involved with this since the beginning, so I think it might be helpful if I give my version of events. First, I think Medeis's claim of sockpuppetry is reasonable given the editing histories of the users he mentions, and I also think a quick checkuser would be a good idea. However, whether the allegations are true or not, Dwarm12345 has shown a quick ability to learn about editing here, and I see the mistakes they have made as due to a lack of experience rather than actual malice. For example, the three reverts on Chinaman yesterday seem to be due to a less-than-full understanding of the nature of consensus here, and also confusion with the language I used on the talk page; I don't think they were due to a disregard of the consensus process itself.

I am a little more concerned with Dwarm's accusations towards Medeis of vandalism (above) and of "newbie mistakes" and "POV" (here) and I think Dwarm should be very careful not to let this continue. It's unfortunate that Dwarm chose a controversial page to be the first one they edited, as the tolerance for their mistakes has been pretty low, but with a little more time here I have confidence that they could become a good contributor. I don't think there's any reason for Dwarm to stop editing Chinaman and related articles, as long as they complete their understanding of WP:CON and WP:AGF and keep discussion calm and rational. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Point of Order Can we change the head of this section to something less presumptuous of guilt on my part "Vandalism by me", perhaps something like "Conflict at Chinaman"? The title itself is a slander on par with Dwarm12345's continued insistence that I edit warred at and vandalised List of ethnic slurs when all I did was twice remove unsourced material. μηδείς (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Someone should also get the sockpuppet investigation started at WP:SPI. -OberRanks (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Created at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dwarm12345 -OberRanks (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

If someone gets to filing an SPI (I will be somewhat busy today and tomorrow) they should also take a look at User:Respecteveryone:

• MattyJacky "New User. Hello everyone in this wonderful community!"

Contributions 03:51, 25 May 2011 - 14:38, 26 May 2011

• RespectEveryone "Hello Everyone, I am happy to join the family of Wikipedia."

Contributions 14:23, 25 May 2011 - 01:40, 27 May 2011

• Dwarm12345 "Pursuing truths. Pleased by truths."

Contributions 10:20, 28 May 2011 - 01:43, 1 June 2011 (as of this post)

and the various creators/edit warriors of the deleted articles mentioned at this ANI. μηδείς (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Per the findings at SPI, the users are not related. Is there a request for admin action outstanding here?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The SPI is not closed, is it? I have not had to go through this process before, and felt it proper to address certain questions there first before bringing them here. My understanding is that the SPI was limited, and provides only negative evidence, and I have queried the administrator involved. I believe that, depending on his answer, there is still plenty at issue. μηδείς (talk) 03:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Meatpuppet Report (Fifth Thread)

Regardless of the SPI results, we have an explicit admission to meatpuppetry by Dwarm12345 who admits his editing was occasioned by calls to do so at mitbbs.com. [127] The article Chinaman was mentioned by url on that bbs on three threads within the last week [128][129][130]. The calli to edit Chinaman specifically was posted on May 28, the day Dwarm12345's account was created.

Per WP:MEAT: "Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate" . . . "whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets."

μηδείς (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I think so long as there is not active disruption of the article, or a visible effort by multiple accounts to influence votes on proposals, it might be best just to move on with this and avoid further drama. I will agree, however, this does look like people getting together outside of Wikipedia and agreeing to edit the same article, but there is not much that can be done about that unless there is flagrant and visible disruption of articles. Since there is none at present, might be best to move away from this. -OberRanks (talk) 02:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

If there is no disruption this moment it is because the articles have been protected, and the user on his best behavior given a block for 3RR, the threat of a second block, and his having to defend himself at this ANI. In the meantime, it is uncontested that we have had meatpuppetry, edit warring, bad faith accusations, accusations of racism and malice, and a blatant failure to understand or to care to understand NPOV and other wikipedia policies pointed by a single purpose user showing up out of the blue fullblown with significant wikilawyering skills. The disruption to established editors and busy administrators has been significant, and there is no evidence of any good contributions by this editor that will be sacrificed if the rules are enforced. If we are going to assume that Dwarm12345 is a truly new editor and will stay at wikipedia and be a productive rule-following contributor, nothing in a one-month topic ban will prevent him from developing in good directions--it should, in fact, encourage him. μηδείς (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

At this point, I would suggest waiting to see if there is another major incident. I think the intensity of this thread has perhaps "scared the user away". -OberRanks (talk) 05:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

British sockmaster? from library IPs

[131] I'm not totally sure what is going on here. I think we have a sockmaster, evading blocks from British library IP addresses but I'm not exactly sure who it is or whether whack-a-mole-ing British libraries is the right thing to do. Argh. ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 16:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there really any other option? It's sad that one attention-starved (expletive redacted) can screw things up for a large number of people, but that's the human condition, I'm afraid. And it's not like library-terminal users won't have access to read, or registered users to edit from those terminals. Just my 2p worth. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That was my thought.... all the IPs seem duckish. But I just wanted to confirm because I am not intimately familiar with that issue. ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 17:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought - British libraries generall keep a log of who's on which computer at whatever time, and also I think their computers keep history of what's been accessed. You could point out the problem to the library/ies invovled, and they could put a Library-ban on that person for computer use. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing disruptive editing and possible WP:COI violation by User:WriterEditorPenn

Resolved

 – indefinitely blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 03:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

At the suggestion of EdJohnston I'm requesting additional examination of the actions of an apparent single purpose account WriterEditorPenn (talk · contribs). This user seems solely interested in editing the article DontDateHimGirl.com, perhaps as part of a PR effort, excising certain sourced content and introducing less-reputable-- or outright fraudulent content-- to move the article from NPOV, towards a positive spin. This user has been warned multiple times for edit-warring, and was previously blocked for such, after blanking content without explanation or discussion. Since I was the principal editor who had added sourced material and reverted WriterEditorPenn's past content blanking, I have refrained from reverting the most recent set of edits made after the expiration of the account's block. The latest edits by this user have created a jumbled mess of the article, and introduce some apparently fallacious content-- as well as injecting a link to what appears to be the user's own site.[132]

Specifically:

• Claiming that "In 2006, to combat the rash of fake blogs and URLs using the DontDateHimGirl.com brand name and purporting to be written by DontDateHimGirl.com staff, the site launched its' official blog located on the DontDateHimGirl.com website" with a citation being the site's blog landing page.
• Claim that "In 2007, the site won a Marketing to Women Award from Future Inc. Now" -- citing a blog in which an online marketer decided to give kudos to "all the companies and marketers who have prompted my happy dances." [133] Not exactly "serious" considering the "award" is "Best Name for a Website" -- and the "winners get a free copy of my new e-book." [134]
• Making a wild claim that "In 2008, the site was hailed by CBS News as instrumental in helping to locate a club promoter who was allegedly infecting women with HIV. ." with a fake citation that linked to an unrelated press release by the site. [135]
• Falsely claiming that, "U.S. production company Reveille has optioned "Don't Date Him Girl" for a possible U.S. makeover announced at the Cannes Film Festival..." -- with a citation to a Variety article that makes it clear that Reveille optioned a Scandinavian reality show unconnected to the site: "Sold by Nordisk Film TV World, part of Nordisk Film, reality show "Girl" turns on three over-confident single men competing for one girl -- despite the presence on the show of their ex-girlfriends."[136]
• Finally, stating that "In 2011, the site announced the creation of its own official Wiki page to combat the constant vandalism, false information and editing wars that continue to plague the site's page on Wikipedia.com." citing a newly created but empty site [137] -- which shows a distinct conflict-of-interest.

I would ask that the article be returned to a version without the newly added questionable content; and that the user be sanctioned, as it does not appear the account is intended to contribute anything to Wikipedia other than remove material from this single article, and introduce false claims. --HidariMigi (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a very blatant effort to whitewash the article. Frankly, it borders on disruption (and steps over that border from time to time). -- Atama頭 00:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This insertion is troubling :In 2011, the site announced the creation of its own official Wiki page to combat the constant vandalism, false information and editing wars that continue to plague the site's page on Wikipedia.com. Cited to this]. Heiro 01:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

A review of Talk:DontDateHimGirl.com suggests there's very little chance that User:WriterEditorPenn ever intends to comply with Wikipedia policy. Usually we give COI-affected editors a fair amount of slack, and try to explain to them what Wikipedia expects. Given the amount of time elapsed and the poor prospects for the future, an indefinite block seems advisable. EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears that 76.108.196.241 (talk · contribs) is also used by User:WriterEditorPenn as recently as 10 March 2011. Toddst1 (talk) 03:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)