Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive540

User:FlyingToaster RfA

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

User has retired, plagiarism issues being worked out elsewhere. See also Wikipedia:BN#Flying Toaster RfA –xeno ^talk 13:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

---

Resolved

 – There is no possible admin action that could deal with this, if any dealing-with is necessary. The Bureaucrats' Noticeboard would be the appropriate venue. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Taking the liberty of striking the resolved notice: RFA can't be resolved here, but potential copyvio and vandalism is appropriate for this noticeboard. Durova^Charge! 23:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

See subsection below - Copyright violation issues / evidence do belong here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a serious concern about a recent RfA of User:FlyingToaster. It only scraped through, and would have failed (by my reckoning) with only a couple of support votes. It was contentious because of concerns about content creation (or lack of it), and appears to have succeeded only because FT claimed to have written "156 articles". See some of the comments, for proof that the claim seems to have persuaded a number of supporters.

I have carefully researched these articles, and I find that as well as a significant number of disambiguation pages, a large number of the 'articles' are plagiarised directly from internet sources. Most or all of the 40-odd articles on Roumanian generals are plagiarised from a single source. Many of the more substantial-seeming articles are directly plagiarised, without any modification of phrasing or order or other softening. One article was already plagiarised and was only wikified (extensively) by the FT. But why did she not spot this, given it was obviously so? This shows a serious lack of judgment in a person who is supposedly chosen for just that quality.

I want to know if all of those who supported this RfA would still do so, if shown full evidence of the plagiarism, which was clearly performed in an attempt to gain credentials. If the election were rerun, would we get the same result? Is it in my power to ask for this?

I have a full set of links for those who ask. Peter Damian (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, let me go ahead and ask, then. Can you please post the links that support this serious accusation? Also, why didn't you post them already? — Gavia immer (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this belong at WT:RFA or WP:BN. –xeno ^talk 20:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Xeno is right. If you think consensus was misjudged because the !votes in support were not as heavy as they seem, WP:BN is the place to raise the issue. This does not need any admin intervention and it thus not correct here. Regards SoWhy 20:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I agree with Xeno as well. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If we're dealing with serial plagiarism and copyright violations, this might be the appropriate venue. AniMate^draw 20:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Xeno in terms of closing issues, but another thread here may be warranted for the plagiarism concerns alone, if Damian can substantiate the claims. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we would all be interested in seeing substantiation of these claims. If they are accurate, that would be the proper time to reconsider the RfA. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

@Animate: granted, but that issue is merely presented as a platform for the OP apparently trying to re-open a closed RFA. –xeno ^talk 20:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Tag the articles and request deletion through AfD. We can reconsider this issue after a consensus has formed on if the material is indeed plagiarized or a copyright violation. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if those claims were correct, this is not the correct venue because it does not require immediate administrative intervention. WP:AN would be the correct place to discuss those claims. As for the RFA, it's up to the crats whether to reconsider the closing (after some evidence was shown), so for that I think it should go to WP:BN. Regards SoWhy 20:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for not posting in the right place. I shall collect the links - though many have already been posted at Wikipedia Review, and put them on WP:BN. It is late here, will be back tomorrow. Peter Damian (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation evidence and discussion

I disagree with some above who feel that this is the wrong place. There are two issues at play - one, whether the RFA results were questionable, which is a BN issue, and two, whether the editor is involved in plagarism or copyright violations. Major copyright violation cases are perfectly at home here.

I do not prejudge the latter issue - without the diffs and links there's no evidence on hand yet - however, if they are found to have been doing that, I believe that there's no precedent that being an admin (of any duration of experience) is any sort of insulation from being indef blocked for blatant copyright violations.

I sincerely hope that this is a mistake, and that that's not the case - I always hope for an AGF success, and untangling these types of incidents is always ugly - but if Peter has evidence and believes that's what's happening then it should be brought forwards here for review. Please present it as neutrally as possible when you have a chance tomorrow and let us review the information.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. It's unfortunate that Peter brought these allegations, then signed off for the evening. I'm doing some minor investigating, but have ten other things going on right now offline. AniMate^draw 22:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Just wanted to say that I don’t mind any investigation people would like to make. I do not believe I’ve committed any plagiarism, and I endeavour to always cite sources correctly and summarize contents of external sources in my own words. I do think that I’ve become a better article writer over time, and as such my early work has various problems that my current work does not. However, I feel confident that I have not committed plagiarism. I hope that if I’m judged on my content, that it’s over the span of content and learning over time rather than on any beginner’s mistakes. Thank you, FlyingToaster 23:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom?

This seems like the kind of thing to kick straight up to Arbcom. They're the ones that do the deadminning, after all. Jtrainor (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

We're not there yet. If Peter Damian's claims show plagiarism, blocking would be more appropriate. FlyingToaster believes that they won't, though her first act as an administrator was sending out RfA thankspam that contained a copyright violatioin, so... AniMate^draw 23:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be a punitive block rather than preventative and inappropriate. If she has been plagiarising (no confirmation yet), perhaps she didn't realise (she claims innocence) in which case she can be shown how to avoid it in future. Nev1 (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Voluntary resolution

FlyingToaster will probably log on soon and confirm this; we got introduced today and have a proposal to resolve this proactively. FlyingToaster wasn't aware of a problem until very recently and is willing to fix it. Here's the suggestion: she'll start a page in user space devoted to this. People who find problems will be welcome to list them there; please be as specific as possible. Meanwhile she'll go through her mainspace contributions starting with new article creations[1] to add quotation marks, improve paraphrasing, etc. as appropriate. She's being polite and cooperative and there doesn't appear to have been an intent to deceive, so let's give her the chance to get it right. Durova^Charge! 00:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a curious definition of the word "proactive", which I'd always thought meant taking steps to avoid problems, not reacting to them when they materialise, as in this case. Let's hope that these allegations of plagiarism are unfounded, but let's also hope that if they prove to be true then FlyingToaster does the honourable thing. Frankly I have more faith in the former than the latter. Once again an administrator is smiled on for behaviour that would get an ordinary editor blocked. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

In fairness, the allegations are of actions that happened before she became an admin and have only just come to light, so this has nothing to do with admin corruption etc. Nev1 (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

She appeared to have been genuinely unaware of a problem before this came up, and wants to get it right. Durova^Charge! 00:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Then she is evidently unaware of wikipedia's policies on plagiarism and copyright violations, and so unfit to be an administrator should these allegations be substantiated. Agreed? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but this talk of blocks makes me uneasy as at this stage it would in no way be preventative. Nev1 (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not proposing a block; what I'm proposing is a desysopping if these allegations are substantiated, as I'm quite certain they will be. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

She is not unaware of Wikipedia's policies on plagiarism and copyright violations. It was an issue in her first RfA. (See my oppose, #27. During that RfA, she was also requested to remove a fair use image from her userspace.) I'm sorry that I did not catch that there were other issues. If any additional copyright infringements were placed after February of this year, I would find that pretty concerning, since we talked about it at length then. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The allegations came to light because someone took the trouble to check whether the claims made during her RfA were actually true or not. Many didn't take the same trouble, or indeed any trouble at all. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

At DYK, we had many editors do this same thing and none of them were blocked, especially when they put a citation to the source material but didn't quote (as it showed intent to cite but was still done improperly). Ottava Rima (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't asked for anyone to be blocked, either here or ever. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Agreed with Nev1: WP:COPYVIO says "Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material despite appropriate warnings may be blocked from editing by any administrator to prevent further problems. In extreme cases administrators may impose special conditions before unblocking, such as requiring assistance with cleanup by disclosing which sources were used." She has already acknowledged the problems and agreed to help with cleanup, so a block would do nothing other than delay resolution. If someone wants to start a conduct RfC in addition, that might be feasible. Although I'm a hardliner on plagiarism (see the proposal talk page; I tried to get it upgraded to guideline recently) it seems right to give her a chance before taking things to the next step: she's being receptive to feedback etc. Durova^Charge! 01:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Good, but that would only be an appropriate resolution for an ordinary editor, not for a newly promoted administrator who is charged with enforcing rules with which she is so obviously unfamiliar. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't use the word "obviously" myself, since no evidence has been presented. If some articles are copyright violations tag as prods speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G12, if plagiarised from a single source, send to AfD. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

We don't prod copyright violations. We handle them as per WP:CP. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, was confusing prods with speedys. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

She shouldn't be blocked, as this doesn't appear to be malicious, and I'm fairly certain I'm one of the first people mentioning this as a possibility. As for a desysop, there aren't really many options. This coupled with her copyright violating thankspam, would make a voluntary resignation common sense, but we can't force her to resign. An RfC seems like a fine idea, but nothing said there would be binding. Really, this is just embarrassing all around and there really should be a binding process. AniMate^draw 01:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we just drop this blocking thing? I've never suggested she should be blocked, just desysopped. After all, it's no big deal, right? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

To confirm this, Durova and I spoke and she was very helpful on this issue. There are several actions I will take to improve my created articles which have raised concerns and to better the sourcing and quality of the summaries of sourced content. As Durova said, I plan to go through each article with a fine tooth comb and further improve them, soliciting feedback along the way and charting the progress as I do so on a posted subpage. Comments from people who find problems will be gladly incorporated via this subpage. I'm confident that through this effort any concerns will be laid to rest. FlyingToaster 01:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Though this is obviously jumping the gun somewhat, what if concerns are not laid to rest? I'm not much of a WR reader, but the thread on this over there points me to the article you started on Homeokinetics, and I can't say I like what I see there in terms of how you used your first source. If there are other problems along these lines, I have a feeling that LessHeard vanU 2 may seem all too apropos. Like I said I'm somewhat jumping the gun since we'll need to look more closely at your article work and I recognize that and am very much open to the possibility that we are talking about a couple of isolated incidents, but there's cause for real concern at that article in terms of some pretty basic copyright stuff. Regardless of how this plays out, rather than simply being "confident" that any concerns will be addressed, I hope you are open to the possibility that that will not happen and that you will have to proceed accordingly. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious that a conduct RfC and possible arbitration would happen quickly if she misused the tools in this area. So how about a voluntary pledge from FlyingToaster to avoid using admin ops on copyright issues until she's on a firmer footing with regard to that? Durova^Charge! 04:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

As I'm already only planning to use admin tools in areas where I feel I have a thorough understanding and great deal of experience, I was already not planning to be involved in copyright issues (except for speedy deletion of blatant copyright violations) for a very long while, if ever. I'm happy to make this pledge official and state it here. FlyingToaster 05:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec with FlyingToaster, replying to Durova here) Certainly that's a very reasonable suggestion, but I take a longer view of this, and my concern here is not necessarily that FlyingToaster will somehow misuse the tools in the area of copyright (in fact that strikes me as unlikely). We are writing an encyclopedia, and admins are, or should be, those editors whom we deem especially familiar with the general way in which we go about doing that. While we can all acknowledge that admins are in a sense just "janitors," they are also supposedly expert Wikipedians who have special privileges as a result, and of course are often described as such in the press. Ultimately we want to be just as, if not more, respected as Britannica and the like (though we have some problems in that regard, obviously). In that context it strikes me as exceedingly, exceedingly problematic for us to say "this is one of our most expert editors and hence an admin" and then also have to admit that said editor seems to have some issues with copyright (and by extension plagiarism) that would cause me to take one of my undergraduate history students to the woodshed. As I said above I still need more information on this situation and would like to see more detailed explanations from FlyingToaster, but my initial impression here is not a good one (incidentally I've cut Homeokinetics, a topic about which I know absolutely nothing, down to one sentence until we can figure out how to rewrite it, see here for the previous version where there is perhaps some stuff that is salvageable).

I should mention that I understand and fully believe that there was nothing nefarious or intentionally bad in what FlyingToaster did here, but that when it comes to plagiarism, here on Wikipedia or anywhere else, that absolutely does not matter in the slightest (and ultimately plagiarism is what we are talking about, compare for example "Homeokinetics attempts to treat all complex systems equally, animate and inanimate, providing them with a common viewpoint" in our article with "Homeokinetics treats all complex systems on an equal footing, animate and inanimate, providing them with a common viewpoint" in the source). This is serious stuff, and "sorry, I didn't know about that, I'll work on it" does not remotely cut it as an excuse for a Wikpiedia administrator. Given what it is we are doing here, I don't see how anyone could seriously suggest otherwise. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The entire result of the RFA was influence by her supporters hectoring (and continuing to do so) the opposition about her prolific and amazing content creation - it seems "amazing" is the word. She should do the honourable thing and resign, and use the time to sort out these pages. This is exactly what happens, when people who know nothing of Wikipedia, pop across from IRC wanting to be Admins - picking up the 100 automatic IRC votes along the way. Giano (talk) 06:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we should leave the "hectoring" and IRC stuff to the side since rehashing the particulars of the RfA probably isn't going to help anything at this point. I quite dislike IRC and never have (and never would) use it, but I think the real issue here is with the articles created. I dug into a few additional article contributions from FlyingToaster and immediately found more copyvio problems which I laid out on her talk page here, and where I also asked for a more detailed response from FT. We obviously can't re-run the RfA, but in my view it's hard to escape the conclusion that the result would have been different had these issues been brought to the fore earlier, and if other editors agree with me in that respect I hope FlyingToaster will think seriously on what that means for her status as an admin. Again as the current LessHeard RFA makes clear, we don't really have a good way to deal with situations like this one except to hope that the admin in question takes the opinions of others on board. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:BN

I have raised it here. I am less concerned with copyvio than with the fact that the candidate in an RfA made a claim about '156 articles' created, when over 40 were plagiarised, and most of the rest were stubs or DABs. Peter Damian (talk) 06:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned that many people here seem to be taking the insinuation by Flying_Toaster that it was accidental at face value. You don't plagiarize 40 different things by accident. Jtrainor (talk) 08:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the only possible counterargument to your point Jtrainor (assuming we are talking about 40 different articles, and that's plausible since 4 of 5 articles I randomly looked at had evidence of plagiarism and/or ridiculously awful sourcing), is basically the I-didn't-know-that-was--considered-plagiarism defense. And my response to that is that such a defense just doesn't cut it—Wikipedia administrators must know basic rules about plagiarism, and they don't (or ought not) get to bone up on them after becoming an admin. Indeed that should probably be a standard RfA question, seeing as understanding how to avoid plagiarizing sources ultimately has a lot more to do with writing a quality encyclopedia than does a question about an A7 speedy candidate (believe it or not). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If a user accidentally plagiarizes, thats fine. If he or she does it again... we should warn them. If someone gets the bit and a slew of copyright-vios comes to light... we should probably rethink giving them administrator status. If their first act as an administrator is to send thankspam that contains a copyright violation... Is this really the kind of user we are promoting? AniMate^draw 08:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll just be the meanie here and say "shame on all of those that didn't actually look into the user's edit history but instead cast blind supports!". With that said, it only further proves my opinion that RfA is a joke and when you add it to Arbcom and Bureaucrats, it makes for one hell of a script for The Original Kings of Comedy Part 2. Unproductive, I know. Or is it? ;] - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 10:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm deeply offended by that statement; I like to think that we bureaucrats could do our own tour without ArbCom or RfA in general tagging along. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

RFA has become a social networking process that bestows admin-for-life status on folks who, charitably, don't have the tools or interests to evaluate encyclopedic content. Good luck changing it now, though.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

In case anyone is wondering, this is at least the second time a plagiarist has passed RFA. Dragons flight (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:PLAGIARISM

In case anyone's missed it, WP:PLAGIARISM was still a proposal while all this unfolded. What we now have is a drive to desysop someone over a proposal: to parse FlyingToaster's mistakes as copyvio would be a close call; the errors were more clearly plagiarism. Within the last month an RfC was run on the proposal, with 26 editors favoring promotion to guideline and 6 opposing. The current situation makes it clear that a guideline really is necessary. So per consensus, plagiarism is upgraded to guideline. Durova^Charge! 15:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the status of the PLAGIARISM page at any given point is largely irrelevant; logic dictates that plagiarism is a Bad Thing, and calls for FT's bit over the affair is because it shows exceedingly poor judgement on FT's part, rather than an actual violation of any one guideline or proposed guideline. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, we can agree this episode demonstrates that WP:PLAGIARISM has the force of a guideline. So it ought to be formally designated as one. Durova^Charge! 16:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

That we agree on. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Durova for pointing this out and upgrading that to a guideline, though at a quick glance I already see that the section "Definitions of plagiarism" is quite problematic. We need to be a lot more direct and specific than that if we want to avoid problems here, and our definitions need to significantly conform to real-world definitions (excepting the bit about using free content, which is totally fine) in order to maintain our credibility as a reliable encyclopedia. That section as written would not have necessarily prevented FlyingToaster's problems because it does not explain that changing a couple of words in a sentence and citing your source does not magically get you off the hook for plagiarism (I think there's case law we can cite to make that point). At some point I'll be over there to complain about that though it may take me awhile. And I also very much agree with EVula that the fact that this was only a proposed guideline previously is not really relevant to the FT situation. Someone who plagiarized, even if it's just because they did not understand they were doing so, should not be an administrator on an encyclopedia project. I think that's pretty cut and dried. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do improve it. Am doing minimal alterations to the text in order to avoid possible accusations of ownership, but there are definitely places where it could be clearer and better. Durova^Charge! 19:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Question

Given FT clearly seemed to either know little or not care about plagiarism at the time, then it raises questions as to FT's knowledge of other areas, does it not? It also shows the RfA procedure has become a social networking joke... nobody spotted this ahead of time! I fail to see that this would not have generated more oppose "votes" at the time, strengthening the argument against. FT should be deadminned and stand again for RfA now the full facts are available. Minkythecat (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that nobody cared. From what i can see of toaster, having looked into the situation, i wouldn't have supported the RFA had i known/been paying attention. But so what? There are probably lots of admins that i or you wouldn't have supported -- and in many cases, enough editors would have supported so that it would have passed whatever you or i thought. The culture has evolved to reward social networking and the making of friends (inevitable in an open system in which, neccessarily, everyone has a right to express their opinion -- any closed system i could think of would be worse). As the culture and policies stand, i see no grounds on which someone could be desysoped for having shown bad judgement prior to becoming an admin (and we have both lots of admins who created tons of mischief back in the day who eventually reformed and became able admins, and other admins who were model editors prior to passing RfA who became problem editors since). My proposal? We clean up whatever needs cleaning up that has come to light, and assume toaster is a good admin until problems do (or do not) crop up with her as an admin, and then deal with those accordingly.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Which would be fine if FT came out and stated, "yes, I plagiarised. I was wrong to do so". Yes, you're perfectly correct in that RfA has become a social networking event. I just find it incredibly... interesting... if you compare this RfA, where a plagiarising contributor gains the bit, and the Everyking V RfA, where one particular opposer badgered about off wiki events with opposition based around that and one "bad" answer - an honest answer rather than bs to get the bit - where the view was "no". There's a clear problem especially since plagiarism damages wiki more! I'd at least respect FT if they resigned the bit and restood for RfA immediately, given the whole evidence will be available for supporters and opposers to make a more informed decision. Minkythecat (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that potentially misunderstanding copyright on a basic level is a problem that needs dealing with. Nev1 (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but it would have to be ongoing misunderstanding. Now, i understand she recently made an image copyvio mistake, which was caught, she was admonished, and should be well aware of why that was problematic. If it happens again (and again, and again) there might be a case to answer. But at the moment, we have a problem with past actions (some made long, long ago). If admins' pre-admin screwups become fair game, get ready for another Night of the Long Knives.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, then, with all due respect, you're highlighting a reason for the RfA to be revisited. Plagiarism occured not just recently, add in the recent image copyvio. There is thus evidence that from day one until recently, FT has (charitably) completely misunderstood the plagiarism / copyright issues with regards to this wiki. Which obviously leads to credibility questions with regard to suitability for the bit. Plagiarism / copyright obviously has cropped up. What other areas does this new admin not grasp? BLP et al? Without a new RfA, people cannot effectively judge... any admin actions FT takes will obviously be questioned. Let's remove any doubt, any finger pointing, "re-run" the RfA. Minkythecat (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree that these are legitimate areas of concern and were i king of wikipedia, i would probably have a vareity of litmus tests built around them. But i'm not king, nor are you. What you're proposing is a rather major change in the way this open, inclusive, consensus-based project works. Nothing wrong with that. But you're not going to effect change here. Your first step would be to construct a proposal for a system that would work better (as frustrated as i am with the current system, i personally don't have any ideas for a better system at this point, and certainly not ideas for one that would garner sufficient community wide support to pass). That's the sisyphean task you'll have to take on if you want to change the RfA process.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

As the editor who raised the "one question" which torpedoed Everyking's last RfA, I actually think it's a perfect example of a RfA for an unsuitable candidate (he openly disavows the very concept of WP:CON, for crying out loud) which would have breezed through almost unopposed if that issue hadn't been brought up. Sometimes RfAs fail for things which don't really matter. Sometimes they fail for a good reason. Very often they pass simply because your average RfA if far more about who you know than what you've done. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Everyking's RFA failed because he was honest. If Everyking would have lied about his thoughts on that particular question, his RFA would have passed. See Wizardman's support (support no. 86), and Rootology's comment below the support. AdjustShift (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That he'd have passed by lying is probably true, but that's just further reinforcement of the sentiment behind this whole thread. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

See WP:BANG. They are encouraging people to build articles off teh corresponding thing in Banglapedia. I think paraphrasing is more widespread than people think. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Paraphrasing: also meaning but a 4ricken word in ur own words. So much clearer, now. --auburnpilot talk 23:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• <cough> Has the alleged evidence been posted anywhere or is this allegation still a hypothetical? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Rirunmot disruption/incivility/sockpuppeting

Resolved

 – Issue seems to be over!

John Sloan @ 11:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

A few days ago an IP editor left a !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oguzhan Özyakup that used very similar wording to User:Rirunmot (diffs: [2] & [3]). Suspecting this to be an attempt at !vote stacking, I left Rirunmot a message about it on his talk page ([4]). He responded tonight ([5]) claiming that I was mistaken. I then left him a message providing evidence for my suspicion ([6]). He then responded on my talk page using multiple question marks and an enlarged header asking me to perform an IP check ([7]). I asked him to stop using multiple question marks and enlarged headers, whilst telling him that only checkusers could perform an IP check ([8]). To which he responded with this rather uncivil message that continued to use the enlarged header ([9]). At this point, I decided that the issue was dealt with and I had no wish to continue the discussion. I asked him to refrain from posting anymore messages on my talk page ([10]). He did however post again on my talk page ([11]) and when I removed his comment, he quickly undid my removal ([12]) and proceeded to use a sockpuppet to leave yet another comment on my talk page ([13]). Whilst this is being investigated, could a sysop please protect my talk page? Thanks John Sloan @ 00:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

User:John Sloan disruption+harrassement+wrong accusation

I found this message in my discussion page:

"...To user Rirunmot" Please don't use your IP to !vote stack at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oguzhan Özyakup. It is considered very disruptive to the AfD process. Thank you John Sloan "..

As an unknown IP ( 88.254.131.185 ) used some words similar (or copied!) from the discussion page; it was enough to this user for addressing accusation of "disuptive behaviour".!

Please clear this problem with that IP; Really and sincerely, I have nothing to do with it..

If this user wants his page not to be edited this way or that, at least he can apologize for accusating innocent people (act which is a real and undiscussable INCIVILITY) Rirunmot (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC).

In my opinion, John Sloan should not have removed the IP's vote from the AfD as he did here. (An exception could be votes that are obviously from banned editors, which this is not). Tagging with {{subst:spa}} is often done. It is assumed that the closing admin will be able to adjust the AfD results as appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

So what about the harassment on my talk page then!? He used two accounts to do it after I asked him not to! Rirunmotand Quedorme. John Sloan @ 11:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

What John Sloan should not have done is the Wrong Accusation ! He MUST apologize for that (instead of deviating the problem and trying to show it is a problem of writing style on his talk page or so..).... Rirunmot (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The way you handled the situation was completely unacceptable. Not only did you edit war at the user's talk page, but you used both this and your second account. This is not a legitimate use of a second account, and that will remain blocked; any further abuse will lead to this account also being temporarily blocked. Nonetheless, while I can see why John presumed that the IP was also you given the similarity of your comments, it is possible that the IP presumed that this was the standard way of !voting keep. The IP should be tagged with an {{SPA}}. – Toon^(talk) 11:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

So is this resolved now? If Rirunmot comes back to my talk to continue trolling, should I bring it back here or just leave a note on Toons or another sysops talk page? John Sloan @ 13:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, now everything is OK!. Everyone now is aware about wrong accusations. John Sloan talk page is safe and quite as long as he will be prudent while investigating, thanks to Toon05 and EdJohnston. Rirunmot (talk) 08:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hate to knock you off your high horse Rirunmot, but no ones actually said my accusation was wrong. They're just saying I should have looked into both possibilities. In any case, i'm marking this as resolved now so we can all get on with our lives and our task here. (Y'know building and maintaining an encyclopedia.. John Sloan @ 11:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

wiki-hounding continues

By turning a blind eye to the evidence and letting FyzixFighter off the hook, you have off course given him the green light to continue his activities. He has just reverted a fully sourced edit at 'centrifugal force' and replaced it with the incoherent mess that existed in its place. There was a chance that the edit war on centrifugal force could have been over, but it is obvious that certain persons are determined to keep it going. As before, FyzixFighter's intervention was pointless and it was motivated by sheer opportunism. David Tombe (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If the IP who just reverted FyzixFighter's edits was you, I suggest you acknowledge it. Since nobody else has ever supported you in your quixotic struggles, the probability seems high. Looie496 (talk) 01:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Looie496, That was not my reversion. You really ought to be more concerned about why FyzixFighter made his reversion. David Tombe (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so basically you are in an edit war with this user right? And you think that by coming here and posting about their "malicious" activities, we will automatically take your side and block the other user? C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 08:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No. I'm in an edit discussion with other users. FyzixFighter does not edit on 'centrifugal force' in his own right. He only comes to that page to revert my edits. Last year I tried to insert what was essentially equation 3-12 from Herbert Goldstein's 'Classical mechanics' into the centrifugal force page. It resulted in FyzixFighter going to the administrator's notice board and reporting me for disruptive editing. That brought me to attention in a bad light and it indirectly led to me getting an unnecessary block record. I was wrongly accused of trying to impose a controversial point of view. This accusation came from elements who clearly had no knowlegde of the topic.

My suggestion is that you fully investigate this issue. I have done alot of research in certain areas of physics and I have been going around making tricky subjects easier to read by emphasizing the unifying features. FyzixFighter follows me around and tramples over those edits. You only need to examine FyzixFighter's latest reversion to see that he is engaging in wiki-hounding. There was progress being made to end the edit war on centrifugal force but FyzixFighter has destroyed that progress by bringing it down once again to a revert war. You gave him the green light to do so because you ignored the evidence that was presented last week when the first complaint was made.

I don't know who this guy FyzixFighter is. He appears to have an ability in physics, but for some reason he is determined to follow me around and undermine my attempts to make physics articles easier to understand for the lay reader. Just take a look at that latest edit of mine which he reverted. I carefully described what Newton's reactive centrifugal force is, giving direct access to two references, and pointing out how attitudes had been changing. FyzixFighter comes in and restores in incoherent and factually wrong jumble that know reader could follow. That is what you need to investigate. David Tombe (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have informed FyzixFighter of this thread, so that he will have the opportunity to reply. Cardamon (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You guys are obviously biased as you continue to believe that you have some access to what the truth is, although you dont have any real facts to back up your positions. You need to realise that you don't have the absolute truth and that Mr Tombe does have a valid position that needs expression here. I am not a sock puppet and you need to stop falsely accusing Mr Tombe. You guys are an annoying group of poorly informed pseudo-experts. I suggest you actually learn what you are talking about before you delete edits of people who obviously are better informed than you are. This wikipedia continues to publish poorly researched articles that seem to be biased and not very scholarly. You eed too correct this or realise that the public perception that wikipedia is not an accurate and valid source of knowledge is going to continue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.47.152 (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2009

Anonymous 72.64.47.152, most of the administrators reading this will not be physicists. If I am correct, I think the point that you are making relates to the unexplainably high degree of trust which they put in FyzixFighter's knowledge of physics. It would certainly seem that way based on what we have read from those few administrators that have stepped forward to speak. But there are a few hundred more who may have read this thread. If they are genuinely interested in making the physics articles more accessible to the reader, then I'm sure that some of them will already be checking through all the reversions to try and establish why this guy FyzixFighter is so determined to undermine all my attempts which are aimed at clarifying difficult subjects in physics. FyzixFighter's most recent reversion would be the one to start on. I suspect that this will all come out in the wash eventually. David Tombe (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Cardamon for letting me know about the thread. I'm not certain what kind of reply though would benefit the discussion. The edit that seems to have precipitated it this time is this one: [14]

At least three other editors agree with the reversion:

• User:Brews ohare - who had earlier made the same revert [15]
• User:Wolfkeeper - [16]
• User:Wilhelm meis - [17]

I reverted for pretty much the same reason that Brews stated in the edit summary and Wilhelm's comments on his talk page. The preferred text is also consistent with the various sources provided.

As for some of the other accusations:

• The first noticeboard encounter David refers to can be found here. The report was intended to be less about the edit debates, and more about David's behavior of reverting random, unrelated edits of editors with whom he had a disagreement.
• The reverts from last week or so that David got up in arms about ([18] and [19]) were done because the text David was inserting did not match the source he provided. When I brought the specific statements not supported by the source, David admitted that he had provided the wrong source but still maintained the accusation that I was removing sourced material.

Like I said before, I'm not certain what kind of reply would benefit this discussion. If any of the interested admins have any specific queries, let me know and I'll respond as best I can. Likewise, if any of the above is more detrimental than beneficial to the discussion, let me know and I'll redact it. --FyzixFighter (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

FyzixFighter, You only come to physics articles to revert my edits. Your first complaint against me last year was specious because you were insinuating that I was trying to introduce controversial original research into the article, and everybody believed you. But we have all since seen that equation 3-12 in Goldstein's 'Classical Mecahnics' presents a perfectly legitimate approach to centrifugal force, and that is the approach that I was pushing. Few of you, if any, knew about that approach till I brought it to your attention. And your latest reversion is contrary to what it says about reactive centrifugal force in the 1961 edition of Nelkon & Parker when they were still teaching that approach. How about more discussion on the talk pages before you move in for your reverts? You're obviously capable enough of understanding these issues. But it seems that you are learning as you are going along and then digging in to your previous preconceptions. David Tombe (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If FyzixFighter has been "hounding" David, then so have I. With as much patience as I can muster, I explain to him how he is wedged (most recently here and here). But this has been going on for many months, and there's little chance that it will be resolved, as David has proven himself incapable of understanding mathematical physics, logic, history, or verifiability. He is simply married to an equation and a mysterious interpretation of what it means. The equation is good; the interpretation is not. He is the dog in this fight. Dicklyon (talk) 04:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes Dick, the equation is good. And I ended up with a block record for trying to insert that equation. The equation shows that centrifugal force is an outward radial expansion which arises as a result of absolute rotation. What other interpretation could anybody possibly put on it? See my latest reply to Brews on the talk page of centrifugal force.

The issue on this thread is that FyzixFighter has been following me around over a number of physics articles in which he is never involved in the debate to begin with. He only reluctantly gets involved in the debate after he has done a reversion. FyzixFighter's reversions have usually exposed the fact that he didn't have very much knowledge of the issue to begin with. His arguments above are totally specious. He claims that he made one of his reversions because my entry wasn't fully backed up by the source. If he had understood the topic, he would have realized that the entry was correct, and if he was really that concerned, he could simply have drawn my attention to the fact that I needed a better source (which I did in fact have, and have since put in). FyzixFighter simply reverted the entire edit. The evidence that he is wiki-hounding is overwhelming. It's only now a matter of whether or not there are any administrators who are will to invesigate the issue fully. David Tombe (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

George Pelltier

Unresolved

George Pelltier (talk · contribs) Currently disrupting Thirteen (House) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) et al (e.g. Allison Cameron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and previously Chris Taub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Lawrence Kutner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) by adding frivolous merge tags to pages. Personal attack after final warning. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have notified the editor concerned of this thread. Mfield (Oi!) 07:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That last link you posted was not a personal attack as far as I can see, it was fairly civil if anything. It is my opinion that this thread was started in bad faith. C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 08:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but accusing an editor of having a mental illness is a personal attack. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What makes these proposals frivolous? Sceptre, please explain I think this is a stronger violation by Sceptre of AGF than it is of George Pelltier violating NPA. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Sceptre, please try to adhere to policy in future. Please AGF rather than start attack threads such as this one. C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 06:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer it if you came out and said that you didn't like me, instead of disagreeing with any threads I start with arguments that are patently false. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, adding large maintenance tags to GAs and FAs without a very good reason is purely disruptive. Stuff like NPOV, NOR, in-universe/out-of-universe, plot summaries, sourcing and notability are effectively checked during Good Article reviews (and, by extension, FA candidacies). The only reason to tag these articles is if their quality has significantly decreased. In the case of Thirteen (House) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), it hasn't. I can't think of any FAs or GAs that were deleted or merged while they were FAs/GAs. Regarding the other articles, Allison Cameron (House) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is notable because of the fan reaction to the lack of the character in season 4 prompted more screen time in season 5; and Lawrence Kutner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is notable because the character was killed off so Penn could join the Obama administration, and that death episode was massively reviewed the day after transmission. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy is wikihounding me

User:DreamGuy is harassing me by wikistalking my edits by nominating articles that I have edited for AfD. I originally sought help at Wikipedia:Editor assistance, but another editor suggested that I post my concern in this forum [20].

I realize that I am not the first to have problems with DreamGuy (see dreamguy prefix:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard) and after reading the many complaints against DreamGuy, it is clear to me that his wikistaliking of my edits is further evidence of long time edit warring/abuse. The following links should provide sufficient examples of how DreamGuy is wikistalking me:

• Juliet Morrow
• Colin Spensor
• WeeMee
• Steven Van Slyke
• Cathedral (US band)
• Mark Abis
• Absolutist Games
• Atsuhisa Hiruyami
• Mary Gallagher
• Stefan Rapp
• Argo (film)
• Ashley Morgan (musician)
• Sergio D. Acosta Varbas (talk) 03:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand how it feels, but some editors may view DreamGuy's edits as useful. He could be following you because of cleanup purposes. Are you sure these articles you edit are notable enough to be kept? -download ׀ sign! 03:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Just from looking at a few of the diffs posted above, I'd have to say that DreamGuy is performing useful cleanup work on some of Varbas's contributions and nominating for deletion only when there is some justification for doing so. I've also taken the liberty of notifying DreamGuy that he is the subject of a discussion here. Deor (talk) 03:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, my best advice for you right now is to do nothing that will trigger DreamGuy to edit war with you. Don't do anything that DreamGuy might want to revert, nominate for deletion, or edit and see how that goes. -download ׀ sign! 03:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Quack. Or is that Plaxico? MuZemike 04:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azviz. MuZemike 05:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• User:MuZemike has falsely accused me of being a sockpuppet. This is revenge orchestrated by User:DreamGuy here. I believe this is an intimidation tactic being used because I complained that User:DreamGuy was stalking me edits. I am feeling very harassed. Varbas (talk) 11:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the accusation is certainly not revenge... we had you pegged as a likely sockpuppet of a banned user before you ever reported me for "incivility" and "wikihounding". Regardless of whether you are a sock, your actions (serial deprodding articles for no reason, adding bad links and pretending they are reliable sources, etc.) duplicate the actions of that banned user and deserve to be looked into, which is all I was doing. That's not harassment, that's due diligence. I go through and check the contributions of any editor I see make a colossally bad edit on any article I come across (in this case I looked into Varbas after I saw on an AFD of an article that clearly needed to be deleted that someone ha deprodded it with flimsy rationale) to try to clean up problems elsewhere. I catch a lot of spam and vandalism that way. DreamGuy (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

NCNOLT AfD

Could someone please have a look at this afd? It could use a set of eyes as to user conduct, and being involved, I don't wish to inflame the situation by attempting to address the conduct of others. Thanks in advance. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 17:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Warning Chuck. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

His repeated asumptions of bad faith and attempts to subvert the Afd process are not helpful. Does this edit of his [21] count as a legal threat? The edit was made after you warned him. Edward321 (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Technically, no, but it's still aiming at a chilling effect. He's currently blocked over a 3RR violation.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Equality

The idea has been swirling in my head for a very long time on this, and from a variety of bits of feedback over time, and the massive amounts of commentary on-Wiki the past couple of days that somehow we admins are "above the rules", or somehow held to a differing standard than everyone else, I present an utterly simple proposal:

• Wikipedia:Equality

Feedback on Wikipedia talk:Equality, and thanks. rootology/equality 03:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this should be moved to AN instead of AN/I. Law _{type! snype?} 08:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, AN would be a more suitable place, but even then... this is just a proposal, and really does not require administrator attention in the first place. I would suggest moving it to, say... here perhaps. UntilItSleeps PublicPC 15:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Abuse by Andrewp

Resolved

 – futile complaint Rodhullandemu 17:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Andrewrp is trying to block for no reason. I have been trying to add italics and fix redirects but he will not listen. He then removed my attempt to explain on his talk page before attacking me once more. Check his history of deleting what I say. [22] It's very unfair and I didn't know this was allowed. --86.40.209.112 (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

He can manage his talk page pretty much any way he wants to. Please provide diffs from some specific articles where you and he have clashed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Please explain [23] That, then. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 17:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and I have blocked the editor for 31 hours. Rodhullandemu 17:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Suspicion of another sock puppet involving user Caden

Resolved

 – User is being taken care of down the hall

There is another brand new user, Uikopdep (talk · contribs), whose account was created today (23:53, 20 May 2009). Just three minutes after the account was created, this user tries to sing the praises of Caden’s body of work, while condemning all of those who have distasteful dealings with him. Maybe it’s just me, but this sounds like déjà vu all over again with the sock puppet from yesterday, Corpiestre (talk · contribs). No brand new user in the right frame of mind will just create a new account on here, and immediately comes to the defense of a user guilty of many violations. Clearly, there is motive involved here. Anybody wants to chime in on this. It would be greatly appreciated. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Already blocked and has been reported here. —Travis^talk 00:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Corpiestre was a sock of the long-term abuser User:Pioneercourthouse, so it's reasonable to expect that this one might be likewise. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Except he's from a different harassment sockfarm, as it turns out. See below. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not "resolved". The SPI report basically says there's no way to stop these characters in the future other than whack-a-mole. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Let's make this offical already

Pioneercourthouse (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks ^confirmed_suspected | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE)

Per all the socking, not to mention the harassment of other users, and the attempt to get other users banned through socking to make it look like PCH is them, I believe it is time to formally ban User:Pioneercourthouse from wikipedia. Opinions?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Could there seriously be any more links in that template? :p Nakon 02:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's {{Usercheck-full}}, so I doubt it. Besides that, I wanted to make sure all available information was available on this user for others. — Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Except that it doesn't do that, it hides information through volume, and is kinda a mess. Support the community ban, btw, but seriously, we need a discussion about what to do with that template, too. --M^ask? 03:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support- Caden is...prickly, but this ridiculousness only serves to make him look undeservedly bad. //roux   02:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but you know this has roughly nothing to do with Caden, in the fact that Caden was almost blocked because a sock was attempting to impersonate him.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That is precisely my point. //roux   05:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I guess I misread then. My bad.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Obviously. Pioneercourthouse has been a royal pain since October of 2006, when he first started posting some uncited nonsense about the homeless in Pioneer Courthouse Square. No amount of reasoning with him would get through his thick skull. Until now, at least far as we know, that one article was the extent of his activities. Now he seems to be branching into outright harassment. He's already had more socks than I can count. If no ban was sought before, it's probably that he had confined himself to that one article. Because of him, the PCHS article is permanently protected. It's hard to imagine why such a mundane article would require permanent protection, but those of you who know the history know why. It's time to bring the hammer down on that character. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And it turns out that tonight's sock Uikopdep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was actually a sock of Fondesep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and presumably Horneldinkrag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), rather than last night's sock Corpiestre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was a sock of Pioneercourthouse. So now we have at least two of these characters running around, as well as the Axmann8 impostor from a month ago, who might or might not be one of these two. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Bugs isn't lying. Pioneercourthouse creates more socks than a Hanes factory, the amount of time that has been spent on page protection, whack-a-mole at checkusers, and so on is amazing. tedder (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support permanent community ban for Pioneercourthouse. The part that really is outrageous is impersonating another user and getting them in trouble. — Becksguy (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

*Oppose. I would be inclined to AGF here, and give them one more chance, as long as it is shown to them just how serious their situation is. If they then choose to abuse our trust, ban them for all eternity. C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 08:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to say that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. This user spends his free time trying to get others blocked by trying to make others think his socks are the socks of others.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I accept that I cannot produce an expert opinion on this matter, my thoughts are as follows. If this user has been threatened with a community ban before, yet continued disruption, endorse ban. Otherwise endorse last chance saloon. C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 08:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No, this user has been indefinitely blocked for continued disruption and harassment. I immediately lose any good faith with users who sock to continue to harass others. I suggest you actually read up on all relevant material before you post your opinion.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Support C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 09:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The SPI report is not at all encouraging. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced that these aren't all emanating from a single user, just maybe using PC's in sufficiently different places that they look like different users. What's discouraging is checkusers' apparent unwillingness to look outside the box on cases like this and also the Axmann8 thing from last month. What's encouraging is that these attempts to implicate another user have gained higher visibility due to increasing attempts at it. So given the link of one of them to Pioneercourthouse, the next time one appears, we can probably take it straight to WP:AIV instead of wasting time setting up tedious and futile SPI's. Just say "single purpose, harassment-only account, and probable sock of the banned user Pioneercourthouse." If that happens enough, maybe the guy will figure the game is up and will go away for awhile. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe it's beyond our power to control this user's behavior or persuade him/her to cease the disruption. What is within our power is to limit the amount of time (read: Wikipedia's precious volunteer resources) we spend on the issue. In this particular user's case, there is a clear pattern of disruptive behavior, accompanied by zero constructive contribution to the encyclopedia or to the community. I fully support a community ban, because I believe it will enable us to make quicker, less resource-intensive decisions if and when there are future violations. -Pete (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked another one, seemed like WP:DUCK, was responding to report from WP:AIV: account Explainingpioneer (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support permanent community ban. Seems like this sockmaster/block evasion user has exhausted the community's patience. Cirt (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support permanent community ban. This person has cost somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 to 200 hours time resulting in a net project value of zero. That's enough to have made significant improvements to dozens of articles, even increase a hand full to featured. What a waste.  :-( —EncMstr (talk) 23:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• I support a community ban for pioneercourthouse. I haven't seen anything productive from this user in a very very long time, and only a lot of headache. - Philippe 20:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

*Oppose per WP:DENY. By staging a discussion like this to "ban" them we are just giving the user attention. The user is as banned as can be de facto. What needs to be done is fairly straightforward: whenever they show up, just revert, block and ignore them. They'll get tired of it. Knight-Lord of the Infernal Penguins 21:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• • He's been at it since October of 2006 and hasn't tired of it yet. The one thing a ban would do is possibly result in a swifter block on subsequent attempts. Although we did get this one blocked pretty fast as it was. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I'll strike out the oppose !vote, however I don't really see why discussion has to continue. As I said before, the user is as banned as can be. No admin is going to unblock them, and I doubt anybody would object if you were to put the template on their userpage. Knight-Lord of the Infernal Penguins 21:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
      • And on that note, I put the little template on their page. Consider it de jure now. Knight-Lord of the Infernal Penguins 21:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre

Sceptre (talk · contribs) I'm not sure if this should be taken to WP:RFC or not, but I'll bring it to your attention here. Earlier today, I edited the article WP:BEAR as per my interpretation of what consensus here said the essay was about. Shortly after, based on my interpretation of the essay, I decided to nominate the article for mfd. I know it was wrong to do this after I had edited, I've learnt my mistake now and I apologise for it. To cut a long story short, Sceptre (talk · contribs) decided on that basis that he would revert everything I did and warn me for it, which is nothing more than petty "revenge" for my contributions to this thread. He proceeded to close the mfd as "Speedy keep" here claiming it was pure disruption, which it absolutely as not. For someone who has made their interaction with me here at Wikipedia somewhat personal, as evidenced here, let alone not being an admin, to close an mfd like that is utterly disgraceful in my opinion. To top it all off, he then proceeded to leave me a warning here. I then reverted his warning and warned him in return for editing my talk page in an unconstructive manner. In return for that I received a level 4 wanring from him here.

Whilst I accept that I am not entirely innocent here, having added the tag after editing the article (which I know was wrong now but was hardly meant as "pure disruption") and having fed the troll by returning the warning template, I do feel that Sceptre's behaviour in all of this is due to little more than an immature personal vendetta against me. For now I have readded the mfd tag and reopened the mfd concerning WP:BEAR, although I have not restored my edits to the page. If this is inappropriate, please let me know and/or close it yourselves. C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 17:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

CUTKD, leaving this warning was childish and inappropriate. Borderline disruptive. I think that the closure of the MfD was fine; can we move along now, maybe? ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 17:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, referring to an established editor as a "troll" is not appropriate. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

CUTKD, methinks that posting this message indicates that you are indeed missing the point of that essay. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hang on a minute. What is the point of that essay? Because it mskes me very uncomfortable and I agree it probably should be deleted and certainly needs improving if it's kept. Having said that communicating through templates is b loody stupid. No one should be doing it. Theresa Knott | token threats 17:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Upon reading it, it was fairly certain that the author had something specific in mind, but wouldn't quite come out and say it. Presumably self-defining, in that sense. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This back-and-forth templating needs to stop. Have you tried discussing the matter with Sceptre? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

...starts working on a new series of templates {{YouMayBeRight-1}} (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, can we just block CUTKD and be done with it, obviously a disruptive editor who loves to start pathetic discussions to prove a point. I've had enough of editors like this on Wikipedia, and its time we actively started to do something about them! And forgive me for being straight to the point on this, it needed to be said. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been away from ANI for a while so maybe their is history that I don't know but block him for what exactly? He put an essay up for deletion and was templated as a vandal. How is that OK? Theresa Knott | token threats 18:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree, here. I don't see how they were being deliberately disruptive or "pathetic" in any way. Lychosis ^T/C 18:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Who is the "vandal"? –Juliancolton | 

Ok, suggesting a block is a little bit harsh, but the disruptiveness has to stop. Jenuk1985 | Talk 18:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)^Talk 18:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with just droppong the whole thing? --YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 18:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we may need to look at CUTKD's edits a bit more. I noticed he had uploaded File:Hogus.png as a public domain image he created himself for his userpage, when it is quite obvious he merely merged two images from the manufacturer's website [24], [25]. Citing copyrighted images as your own is a rather serious violation of our major policy on copyright. MBisanz ^talk 18:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, you've ruined my user page now! C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 18:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Please go right ahead and review my contributions btw, for the last couple of months I've been knuckling down to a lot of counter-vandalism work, and due to some computer restrictions a lot of it was done manually, and far from painlessly, so I resent being called "disruptive". And to think that some of you here are baying for my blood over this one incident, geez! I'm in favour of dropping this whole thing, but I have one last request before we do, and that is for a SPI into some of the "characters" who have just showed up to vote "keep" on the WP:BEAR mfd. I know Sceptre has used socks in the past and I'm just suggesting you run a check now, just in case he's done it again. No harm in that right? Other than that, I'm off for a wiki-break, this whole thing has stressed me out a bit, so see you all in a couple of days. C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 18:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this straight? You posted a link to a page that has been nominated for deletion, on a high traffic page like this, and surprised when other people then go and comment?!?! Not only that, but you then throw in the suggestion that on that basis, Sceptre is using sockpuppets? I think that says a lot about you, maybe my original suggestion wasn't too far from the mark after all. Jenuk1985 | Talk 19:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't make sockpuppet accusations without actual evidence please. As for the mfd I think closing it so quickly was probably a mistake. Surely giving u=it a few hours at least wouldn't do any harm? Theresa Knott | token threats 18:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Review the page now with its improvements and if you still think it's a deletion candidate, then re-open or re-file perhaps. –xeno ^talk 19:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Have seen CUTKD's name come up in a few places. AFAIK there was no prior contact between Sceptre or CUTKD yet these comments seem to show a concentration on Sceptre's behaviour:

• "Sceptre, whilst I do have limited sympathy, this report is at best a COI, and at worst pure trolling on your part"
• [26]
• [27]

There were concerns here recently.

This report seems retaliatory in response to this report where CUTKD once again got involved in an issue that Sceptre was involved with. In addition, the mfd and editing of WP:BEAR might have been in response to Sceptre's use of the essay here. Hmm. Seraphim♥ 18:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no agenda here, or special focus on Sceptre, he just seems to bring a lot of negative attention on himself which I have been quick to comment on. And I do regularly comment in these fora, so in pulling out 4 links to threads where I have replied to him (in one of them I was even trying to help him!) you are not proving anything in the way of an obsession. I just temporarily lost my patience with him today. C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 19:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You have given a reasonable explanation but I have my own view which I maintain. Other participants at this board are welcome to draw their own conclusions from what we have both said. Seraphim♥ 19:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Time for you to take a step back, I think, CUTKD. From the outside, it doesn't appear that your motives are pure. And it appears there are other areas you need to focus on (namely your own behavior—copyright violations are serious) before you begin examining the behavior of others. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough but it won't hurt for you to step back for a while. Theresa Knott | token threats 19:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok I respect the views of everyone here, so point taken. C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 20:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

[Edit conflict.]

I find the conduct of both CUTKD and Sceptre in the incidents being examined questionable, and think a mutual agreement on the part of both editors to keep their distance from one another to be the best way forward. Indeed, I'd be inclined to consider taking action if future disruption arising from these editor's distaste for one another came to my attention. (To clarify: I am of the view that CUTKD is the primary offender in this quarrel, but that Sceptre is doing little in the way of appropriately and professionally handling the attempts by the former at baiting him.)

*sigh* Really: the number of editors who lack the maturity to play nice when editing continues to disappoint me.

AGK 20:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep. I hate seeing templates being (ab)used in place of conversation. Seraphim♥ 21:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Propose block for WP:COPYVIO and WP:POINT

There's a clear violation of two policies here. Note from the discussion above:

I think we may need to look at CUTKD's edits a bit more. I noticed he had uploaded File:Hogus.png as a public domain image he created himself for his userpage, when it is quite obvious he merely merged two images from the manufacturer's website [1], [2]. Citing copyrighted images as your own is a rather serious violation of our major policy on copyright. MBisanz talk 18:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, you've ruined my user page now! C.U.T.K.D T | C 18:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly 15 minutes after acknowledging the copyright issue and posting a sarcastic response, CUTKD follows up at 18:51 by uploading a photograph of the 2008 Beijing Olympics that would virtually be impossible to have taken without a press pass. The image lacks all metadata (another hallmark of copyvio) and has no photography date. One would think better documentation would be forthcoming if he had been lucky enough to get ringside tickets at the Olympics.[28] This looks like deliberate disruption, so perhaps a timeout will give him time to think things over so problems don't resume again. Durova^Charge! 21:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I will be willing to contact you via email Durova to show you exactly where that photo was taken from. Suffice to say I have done nothing wrong in this instance, it is not a press photo. C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 21:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Durova; all signs point to a copyvio. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Please add the date and a version with the metadata from your camera. A higher resolution original would also help. Durova^Charge! 21:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Look a friend of mine who went to see the Olympics took it and put it up on facebook ok. I'm not going to be able to obtain metadata + high res off them anytime soon. God I wish I had never uploaded the wretched photo now... C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 21:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

“I created this work entirely by myself.” was the obvious untruth then, wasn't it? — Aitias // discussion 21:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

With that, I have deleted the image. If your friend wishes to reupload it with a proper license, he or she is free to do so. Nakon 21:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If by some chance this subthread is mistaken and CUTKD has a friend who went to last year's Olympics and is willing to release photos to the public domain, I would willingly collapse this subthread with a formal apology and a barnstar. That's a low angle photograph. The seats were incredibly good if they weren't from the press zone itself. And it would be great to get to get more of these highly encyclopedic photos under free license. Durova^Charge! 21:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

(←) I have blocked CUTKD (talk · contribs) due to repeated image copyright violations despite warnings for 24 hours. — Aitias // discussion 21:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Marcopronto

Resolved

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

Here's the back story behind this guy. He was blocked by Tnxman307 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for 31 hours for vandalism ([29], [30], [31]). He requested an unblock, which was declined by TravisTX (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Travis subsequently reset Marcopronto's block back to 31 hours for this edit, and then to 48 hours (this time with talk page access disabled) for this edit. Following the expiration of his block, this was the first edit he made.

I recommend that we indefinitely block Marcopronto. Thoughts? --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 21:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Update: Moved from WP:AN for visibility. --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 22:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You want an indefblock for vandalism to his own talk page? – iridescent 22:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No, vandalism's no longer a problem, the problem at hand is now incivility and/or personal attacks following a pattern of general disruption. --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 22:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

He's made two edits since his block expired, one of which was to blank his talkpage, one of which was this, and neither of which was a personal attack. – iridescent 22:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

are you still going to be tight as shit is not a personal attack? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that's just about the worst, most intentionally insulting personal remark I've ever seen any editore here on wilipedia offer to a no doubt well-meaning colleague. I really can't understand why this dastardly villain hasn't already been blocked for a month. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Straw man. I never made any such comments. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is this even being debated? Calling another editor 'nigger' and being a vandalism-only account is about the most clear-cut easy indef block for a brand new account that there is. Based on [32] and his encyclopedia work, I've indeffed him. rootology/equality 17:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon

Resolved

 – This seems to be over. Mythdon has been warned by several admins to leave Ryulong alone. The outcome of the Arbcom case will deal with this matter moving forward. //roux   01:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. I'm aware of the arbcom case, but Mythdon does not seem to get the point behind this remedy or this remedy or this conversation, during which I asked Rootology to intervene on my behalf, inadvertantly leading him to act in the way that made me lose my patience with him in the first place. I do not know what to do with him (currently).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC) I asked Mythdon nicely several times on Ryulong's talk page to leave him be a while. He kept going, finally asking me--on Ryulong's talk page--my views on the findings of the RFAR case. I then issued this warning that I would block Mythdon if he kept on hounding Ryulong, which would be a violation of his AC ban which goes live in probably 1-3 days' time. Looking at Mythdon's last 100 user talk contribs, he's been all over Ryulong's talk the past 24-48 hours nonstop. He needs to stop per Ryulong's request; any issues with articles can be worked out on the article talk pages. rootology/equality 05:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Response by Mythdon Actually I did leave Ryulong alone. The only thing I did after Ryulong's request was respond to Rootology's statements, and as long as Rootology responded to me, I responded. There is no harassment involved. The "leave me alone" request was followed firmly, and I did not actually contact Ryulong on his talk page since the request. As a note, Rootology is not an uninvolved administrator because of his/her replies to me. I do not believe the community approves of blocks by involved admins, unless I'm mistaken. This has nothing to do with article discussion. I don't why article discussion was brought up, but it is not anything part of anything here. Also, there is no need to bring up the "Mythdon does not seem to get the point behind this remedy or this remedy" thing. That is not something ANI is here for. It is here for other things, such as user conduct. I hope I have covered things. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Wait, what? I'm involved because I asked you to honor Ryulong's request?! Please explain how that works. rootology/equality 06:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC) You posted multiple replies to me. You took part in editing the page alongside me during the discussion. Therefore, I can't accept your impartiality should you take admin action against me. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Whether you accept it or not is immaterial - its whether the community does, and interactions as an admin like Root has had does not constitute a dispute. ViridaeTalk 12:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC) This is the entirety of my interaction with you on Ryulong's page, and on your page: "Myth, I might suggest you stay off of this page and away from Ryu for the time being. It would be probably for the best to take a vacation from each other, at least for a while." "Hey Myth, nice to meet you. If possible, please take this suggestion seriously, for the time being."[33] "If a user asks another to leave his talk page, especially in the midst of this whole RFAR thing, it's usually customary and a good idea to acquiesce." "Nope, I was just asking nicely, since you guys both just went through the wringer, to avoid each other a bit, so you can both have some peace and quiet." "Consider this an official warning as of this moment. You're thisclose to picking up an AC restriction here against badgering questions on people's talk pages. I don't have an opinion as I haven't followed the case, but I am telling you right now that if you edit this page again after I post this warning and the adjacent one to your talk page, you will lose your editing priveledges for a minimum of 24 hours' time. There is no need for this. Please stop, immediately."[34] "Per this, please stay off his talk page per his request. Discuss article issues on the article talk pages."[35] Do you seriously consider this "involved"? I asked you nicely as a suggestion instead of blowing in like a tyrant, then when you immediately changed topics to continue the discussion on something wholly unrelated to the initial discussion, I told you need to honor his request in the spirit of the AC prohibition about to drop on you--and you consider that involved...? I think you misunderstand "involved". rootology/equality 06:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC) It could be considered involvement. You definitely had some kind of interaction. You're not going to lose the game if you concede possible involvement via communicating. —harej (EQUALITY!) 06:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC) As the conversation went on, you became an involved and potentially biased party. You are no longer impartial from I can see. This isn't something ANI needs to hear about. He didn't say "don't edit my talk page", but said "leave me alone". All of my comments afterwards were directed towards you, and now that you're starting to show emotions, you are losing your ability to be objective, neutral, unbiased, impartial, etc, in this incident. Four sorts of words of fair judgment, and I don't think you can any longer be any of that in regards to this anymore. You can no longer claim to be uninvolved. That is pretty simple. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC) What emotions? I'm sitting here chuckling at the odd turns of this conversation and having a funny conversation over AIM and another over IRC, while teasing my wife about something as my cat bothers me. I'm going to leave my warning on your talk page and ask the other admins that if you persist in posting to Ryulong's talk page--he clearly doesn't seem to want you editing there--that you be prevented from doing so. Good night. rootology/equality 06:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Here's your comment. The emotions expressed are in bold: "Do you seriously consider this "involved"? I asked you nicely as a suggestion instead of blowing in like a tyrant, then when you immediately changed topics to continue the discussion on something wholly unrelated to the initial discussion, I told you need to honor his request in the spirit of the AC prohibition about to drop on you--and you consider that involved...? I think you misunderstand "involved".". Now, please re-read your comment, and then tell me if you're still denying emotional expression or not. Thank you. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC) I do. I was trying to rationalize where you were coming from, and was coming up blank. But I'll leave this to everyone to sort out, and will just note that when your pending RFAR closes, your edits to his page tonight would be an AC enforcement violation. rootology/equality 06:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC) The Committee is not voting for prohibiting me from posting on his page, but prohibiting me from posting things in violation of the mentorship, unless I'm not understanding your comment. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC) This edit by Mythdon [36] seems to have been a deliberate and unprovoked attempt to stir the pot on Ryulong's talk page. Also note [37]. Mathsci (talk) 09:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Seeing this is still open, I'd just like to draw attention to this link again, which sums up why Mythdon should be not be editing Ryulong's page nor contacting him. rootology/equality 13:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC) As a previously-involved admin who has watched this train wreck mostly from afar, I already tried to give Mythdon a "word to the wise" here, earlier this week. It didn't work. In addition, this link, provided in that discussion, shows what looks to be an unhealthy fascination with the edits of another editor. I have no comment on all the rest of the drama, but I have long felt that this high-level of interaction was not good.  Frank  |  talk  15:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Since Mythdon wants to play games about who is and is not "involved", I've warned him that if I ever see him contribute anything to User talk:Ryulong, I will personally block him. I've never interacted with Mythdon in any capacity and couldn't be considered involved in even the most bizarre interpretations. If I'm away and somebody else see's Mythdon on Ryulong's talk page, email me and I'll find a computer. --auburnpilot talk 16:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Likewise. This is ludicrous. MastCell Talk 21:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC) I am not playing games, but instead voicing the facts. The editor took part in editing the page alongside me, making the user an involved party. I don't think you should have a right to say when I can and can't edit the page, as it is not your talk page. Ryulong should have the ultamate final say. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC) My 'editing' the page with you was asking you to honor Ryulong's clear statement that said, "Leave me alone". I asked nicely, and in a casual tone: "Hey, would you mind leaving Ryulong along?" You kept pushing the issue. I asked you again. When things did not improve, I asked again. You then changed the subject to ask my opinion on your having apparently tracked down Ryulong off-wiki, on YouTube. I then escalated my language--my right as an uninvolved administrator--to notify you to stay off of his page, per his "Leave me alone" comment, and in the spirit of this pending Arbcom decision, which when it closes in the next 1-few days, will bar you 100% from his page until your to-be-chosen in the future mentor says you can edit his page, essentially. Based on all of this, do you still believe I am involved? Are AuburnPilot and MastCell involved, for editing this page with you? ThContent that vey also issued a matching warning. rootology/equality 22:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC) AuburnPilot and MastCell are not involved in any way shape or form. If someone responds to me on a talk page, I respond back, no matter who it is, unless I state something like "I will not respond to you" or "I have no further interest in this conversation". Yes, I still consider you involved. As you kept replying to me, you became an involved party. Harej suggested that it could be considered involvement. Your involvement is more than just this discussion. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC) When have you or I ever interacted in regards to Ryulong, before I asked you on his talk page to avoid him and honor his request? rootology/equality 23:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC) That doesn't matter, because regardless, you're now involved. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC) This needs to stop now. Rootology is not involved. Mythdon's arguments are taken from page 1 of the wikilawyer's playbook. Warning a user administratively does not create "involvement", and all of the myriad definitions are at least clear on this point. As we can apparently all agree that I'm an uninvolved admin, I'm asking Mythdon to please drop this. It would behoove him to act as if the Arbitration remedy which is about to pass has already passed, at least insofar as avoiding Ryulong. The best course of action is to let this go and find something else to do. MastCell Talk 23:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC) I am not considering Rootology involved for the first post. It is the subsequent postings that make me consider the editor involved, and what do you mean by "wikilawyer's playbook"? I have not played any games in this discussion, and do not intend to use any arguments as a weapon to win the dispute by playing games. The arbitration remedy becomes effective either after it passes, or after the closure of the case (I don't know which, but do think it is one of them). —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC) I have to ask this. Which of my subsequent postings last night leading up to and including my official warning made me involved? Here all of them in one convenient diff. I really would like to know which involved me, so that I can understand your point of view. Please tell me the exact number (#1-#6) at which point I became involved, or I consider your entire argument invalid and rejected henceforth. 1. Was it me asking you to stay off his talk page nicely?[38] 2. Posting on your talk page to see my request to you on Ryulong's talk page?[39] 3. Asking you a second time to leave his talk page?[40] 4. My explanation of why I asked nicely and in plain language?[41] 5. My official "admin language" warning to you?[42] 6. My cross-linking the warning on Ryulong's page back to your own talk page?[43] You need to tell me: at which number, #1-#6, did I become involved, per your statement last night that I was involved at the time? You were explicit that I was involved last night, based on one of these six edits. Which one? rootology/equality 23:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC) #2 is when involvement starts. #3 onwards is when the involvement begins to extend. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC) So, in other words, I became involved when I called your attention with this edit to your talk page to my request to you on Ryulong's talk page? The edit which said in it's entirety: "Hey Myth, nice to meet you. If possible, please take this suggestion seriously, for the time being. rootology/equality 05:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)" By posting a polite reminder notice to your talk page about my request on Ryulong's talk page, I'm involved? I consider your assessment duly rejected, based on MastCell & AuburnPilot's feedback. I unfortunately feel you do not understand the concept of administrative involvement. rootology/equality 23:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC) I am sorry, I meant the second post you made on Ryulong's talk page. Not the post on my talk page. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC) In other words, the one where I directly answered your question of why I asked you to leave his page makes me involved?[44] That is utterly preposterous and circular logic. By that logic, any admin warning, if questioned and answered for the rationale of the warning, involves the admin who issued the warning. That is utterly not involvement and never has been. I strongly advise you, as you were advised again, to move on. rootology/equality 00:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC) It is the quanity, not the type of the posts that made you involved. It was more than just a warning, but an interaction, as Harej suggests. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC) "Involvement" means working on the same articles together, i.e. a potential conflict of interest if administrative action is needed. Can you cite any articles where you and Rootology were working together and opposing each others' edits? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Me and Rootology have had no contact with eachother until this incident. No, we haven't had any article conflicts with eachother. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC) ← Therefore there is no involvement. Issuing a warning to an editor categorically does not count as involvement. You have been told this by multiple people, both admins and not, of which I am the latter. Please heed it. //roux   01:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Purpose of Wikipedia

My problem is having a paragraph removed as original research http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toronado_(Zorro%27s_horse)&diff=288737615&oldid=288077157 but this is because it deals with Film and TV and as such I cannot find it written anywhere, only on youtube. Does this mean that wikiepedia is just cut and paste from third parties with the odd word changed? If this item is on another wiki type site such as TVIV can this be used as the reference.REVUpminster (talk) 09:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but what you were trying to add was indeed Original Research. You're inviting the reader to look at one thing, look at another and come to the same conclusion you have made. That's not how encyclopedias work: we need you to point to someone else coming to that conclusion and cite them. Also, no, you can't cite to another wiki. Wikis - including Wikipedia - are not reliable sources. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 10:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If it's really true, then I would think it would be noted on some Zorro fan site or some other trivia source. If not, then it might not even be a correct conclusion - it could be the bridles just look the same, or came from the same manufacturer, or whatever. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

But note that even if it were noted on a site like that it might not be applicable for Wikipedia, as most fan sites/trivia sources do not meet our standards for reliable sources. DreamGuy (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it might not qualify. But it might qualify. But if no one else in the world has ever noticed this except this user, then it's the epitome of original research. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"Does this mean that wikiepedia is just cut and paste from third parties with the odd word changed?" No, not at all. We don't copy and paste anything to begun with. But the important part is that we do need to cite expert, reliable sources for anything potentially controversial. Lots of people think they know stuff, but we as a strategy decide that not just anyone off the street is an expert on any topic they claim to be, so we only source information that got at least as far as being published by a reputable publisher or agreed upon by an expert somewhere that we can point to and say "and if this is wrong, blame them, we did our best". Please see take the time to look through the Wikipedia policy pages for how things are done here. DreamGuy (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I do a lot of TV and if I add an episode or film synopsis, not an opinion or review, is that original research? should then the synopsis be copied from a third party. This area is a minefield for an editor. Maybe TV and Film shoul be excluded from wikiepedia REVUpminster (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It is a potential minefield. And you have to be careful about copying the plotline from a copyrighted article. Where you have to draw the line is reporting vs. interpretation. What you want to do is basically "summarize" the story's plot line in a few paragraphs. That could involve summarizing or restating what a reviewer has said, and if so it should be attributed. But it seems that editors here like to write their own summaries, which should be fine as long as everything they write is verifiable from the film itself. How large the summary should be will eventually be arrived at through consensus. But as long as what you're saying is verifiable from the screen, you should be OK. You have to avoid interpretation. An example would be in No Country for Old Men. You can report that in one scene late in the film, the hit man has a conversation with the woman and in the next cut is shown leaving the house and checking the soles of his shoes. That much is totally verifiable. Saying that he just killed her and is looking for traces of blood on his shoes is interpretation. Now, if Leonard Maltin puts that interpretation on it, then you've got something citable. The catch is, he probably won't, because it will give away too much of the story. Wikipedia has no qualms about giving away the story. Just stick with what's unambiguously presented on the screen. Ya follow? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct link to film article. You shouldn't have taken that left turn at Albuquerque. Steve ^{T • C} 20:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

When I stuck by something that is only verifiable from the screen, ie; TV program, Film or youtube clip "senior" editors do not like it. and do not accept the word "identical" is not the same as "same". Who would think Toronado (Zorro's horse) could cause so much aggro when I wanted to post three pictures two of Toronado and one of Chico over 25 years wearing identical, not the same?, bridle..REVUpminster (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

What you don't understand is that wikipedia does not originate information. If a given "fact" is found on wikipedia and nowhere else, that's a sure sign of original research, and it's not permitted. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

User Talk:82.39.152.72

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

This to appears to be a vandalism only account.Drew Smith What I've done 23:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You should post it at WP:AIV, provided he's edited very recently (like in the last hour) and has also edited after any recent warnings. If not, the admins (here or there) probably won't do anything with it, as per IP guidelines. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

There are multiple warnings on his talk page, and I just got done reverting is vandalism.Drew Smith What I've done 23:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for pointing me to the proper place.Drew Smith What I've done 23:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It never hurts to try. The worst they'll do is say no. In the case of this IP, there was just this one edit for the last 4 weeks, so it's probably a floating IP. In addition to watching his talk page, you could also watch some of the pages he's vandalized frequently, and see if an IP range pattern begins to emerge. See what fun vandal hunting is? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. More like something to do between real contributions. But some of this stuff they come up with really is pretty funny.Drew Smith What I've done 23:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I especially like the atrocious spelling: "...so unattracting he's a discrase to the human reace..."? Like he should talk. Yeh, pretty funny. They laugh all the way down the block. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

OMG, all the way down the block? Did you seriously just say that?Drew Smith What I've done 01:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm ... Did I say that? ... Hmm ... Let me look ... ... Yep, I did. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Banned user editing

Matt Sanchez, aka Bluemarine (talk · contribs), just posted to my talk page, accusing me of vandalism somewhere. He is, as far as I can tell, still under an indef. community ban. It appears his Arbcom site ban ended in January but I see nothing at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine dealing with ending the community ban. The last action I see is this past December where he was placed on a limited unblock with conditions (see the very bottom of his arbcom page). So, can we find out and get a clarification on this? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 04:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Also note his editing at the Matt Sanchez talk page. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 05:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up about this thread, Allstar. Bluemarine's arbitration ban expired on 1 April 2009. This is the first time since then (that I'm aware) when he's returned to editing. He might not understand that the community ban remains in place. Have emailed him to ask whether he understands this; awaiting reply. (I've been mentoring Bluemarine/Matt Sanchez since his siteban, mostly at Commons). Durova^Charge! 05:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Have received a reply; he wasn't aware that the community ban remained in force after the arbitration ban expired. Have asked him to edit only to his main account user talk until this gets sorted out. Durova^Charge! 05:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I asked him via edit summary when undoing his edits to the article about him's talk page, not to edit until clarification was obtained as to the status on the community ban. He ignored me, undid me, and continued on. I assume he will now stop since you've had contact with him? Additionally, since he's under an indef community ban, why is he even able to edit? Shouldn't his account have been blocked from editing? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 05:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine#Limited unblock with conditions explains this.  Sandstein  06:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. It kind of caught me by surprise this evening while I was working on other things. Matt would like to request a repeal of his community ban; it's been a year. In this unusual situation, how do we go about clarifying the matter. According to many people a community ban is a block that no administrator is willing to unblock. He is unblocked, so how do we clear the air? Durova^Charge! 06:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, following up. Matt tells me he's been receiving offsite harassment that pertains to Wikipedia. Haven't seen it myself, although the arbitration case did establish that he had been harassed extensively. My advice to him was to forward evidence of harassment to ArbCom, if it's demonstrable that it originates from an editor. He did not discuss who (if anyone) he thought was the source of that problem. Seems to be a little confused, so I've asked him to monitor this discussion and post nowhere other than his user talk until things are sorted out. Will be heading to bed now, so please be patient. Durova^Charge! 06:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Durova. Whoever is harassing him offsite, if they are a Wiki user and it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, should be dealt with for sure. However, regardless of that, he is still under a community ban. I see that Arbcom per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine#Limited unblock with conditions unblocked him with stipulations as to what actions he could perform on Wikipedia but I'll also note 2 things in regard to that: A) Arbcom shouldn't have overruled the community and unblocked him for any reason whatsoever. Additionally so with the reason for the limited purpose of his making contributions related to increasing the accessibility of Wikipedia to users with handicapping conditions. Seriously, go against the will of the community and unblock someone on behalf of handicap people? and B) That unblock pertained to his Arbcom ban only. Now that it has expired, and since he's still under community ban, he should be blocked from editing except for his own talk page and the talk page be temporary and it too blocked should his community ban continue to stand. I've got no opinion at this time as to whether or not the community ban should be lifted but as it stands now, it's still in effect and should be enforced. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 07:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Actually it is precisely ArbCom's function to overrule the community on occasion. The community's actions are subject to review by ArbCom and sometimes they overturn the community's action. Durova^Charge! 14:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

As Durova has said above, a community ban is usually expressed as a block that no admin is willing to lift. Since any single admin can overturn a community ban, ArbCom, consisting of mostly admins, certainly can do so as well. If that approach still scales with the number of admins we now have is a subject for another time. Anyways, given that Matt has sat out the year, and is a productive contributor to our sister projects, I think he is one of the rare breed that deserves a second chance. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if any single admin can overturn the will of the community, that policy needs to be addressed as well. Not here of course but somewhere. Why does 1 person get to overrule many? As I said, I have no opinion at this time on doing away with the community ban but I am skeptical.. For 4 months after the beginning of his Arbcom ban, he evaded his block via sockpuppet as evidenced by the block log at his Arbcom page. Just today, I witnessed sockpuppeting by him over on Wikiquote (I know it was him because he made changes to the page about him there under an IP - when he normally uses the name Bluemarine there too - and then came over here and left a note on my talk page while logged in as Bluemarine accusing me of vandalizing his Wikiquote page even though the only edit I ever made up to that point to that page was adding a Conflict of Interest tag to it). When and if a discussion on the community ban materializes, I'll deal with these issues there. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 07:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

A community ban cannot be overruled by a single admin, that is a misconception. Viridae^Talk 05:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes, been working toward change in that part of the banning policy for over two years. Got overruled by the consensus. If you'd like to change consensus, by all means join me in doing so after this dispute is settled. Durova^Charge! 14:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought a ban was agreed upon by consensus and that to un-ban also required consensus. If not, then there's no practical difference between a block and a ban. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No, there are significant differences. See WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware that there is supposed to be a difference, and that's the point I'm raising. I'm not seeing anything obvious on who has the authority to lift a ban. But I thought that was supposed to be by consensus, not by an individual admin deciding to do so. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Where ArbCom makes a decision, I imagine it simply supercedes lower decisions, and Jimbo can overrule ArbCom. Elsewise, the hierarchy which certainly appears to exist, would not. In short -- action de novo would be needed to effectively overturn ArbCom. Collect (talk) 11:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, OK, so did an admin make a mistake in this case? I never heard of this Sanchez guy, I'm just asking what the rules are. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No, no admin made a mistake. He essentially was under 2 bans.. one indefinitely by the community and one for a year via the Arbcom case. The Arbcom ban has ended. The community ban hasn't. So, the mistake is on the part of Arbcom for unblocking him with stipulations that he could only upload files "so that handicap users could access them" and he could only edit his user page and talk page, while he was still under a community ban. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 11:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment on bans and blocks: My reading of the above leads me to think that community bans and de facto bans are being confused. A community ban (discussed fully) requires a community consensus to lift (though ArbCom may lift if they decide community input/process was insufficient to legitimately establish a ban). Any admin may lift a defacto ban, as it really just overturns an indef block made by another single admin. I do agree with the above that MS was under two separate bans, and that while the AC sanction is over, the community ban is still in place, esp. as the AC motion does not address the community ban.
• Agree with Schulz above that we should probably re-visit the community sanction, especially if Durova is keeping an eye on things (but unfounded accusations against current editors would have to stop -tired or not) . . . R. Baley (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sanchez posting in this thread

I just noticed from Sanchez's contribs that sometime during this thread, he made a post here in this very thread, despite being told he was still under community ban. It was undone by Durova so I didn't see it. I'll address the allegations in that post: lies. I don't know the man's phone number, never have known the man's phone number, don't even know his Twitter account name, never have known the man's Twitter account name, don't know the man's email addresses and have never in my life sent the man an email to any email address. Posting that only proves to me that he hasn't changed one bit. I demand proof of these accusations by him, against me, or else he needs to knock that off right now. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 11:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Allstar, he was confused. It was the wee hours of the night in his time zone and nearly midnight in mine. Now in spite of my declaration that I was heading to bed, and request for patience, I awaken to discover this new subthread has been open for hours. This is very disappointing. Durova^Charge! 14:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It's also very disappointing to see myself accused of such things Durova. If it were you being slandered and accused of such gross violations, I highly doubt you'd have even went to bed on it. How is one "confused" when they make posts like that? If someone were stalking me, calling my personal phone, sending me harassing emails and harassing me on Twitter, and I knew who it was, I'd certainly remember and not make such an enormous mistake as to be "confused" and post someone else's name as the "stalker". - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 18:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I sympathize. I have seen no evidence that you were responsible for any of that, nor was your name discussed specifically before he posted. That was one reason why I made last night's final post (didn't want to draw attention and/or doubts attached to your username, which was the reason for not naming you). Very difficult situation to rise up at the very end of one's evening.

Matt has been subject to a very serious offsite harassment campaign, as noted in the arbitration finding. So far as I know, the individual responsible for it was sitebanned long ago. Last night Matt mentioned that offsite harassment had either continued or resumed, and I advised him that if he had evidence linking ongoing harassment to any current editor then that should go to the Committee (per the general instruction from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jim62sch#Grave_real-world_harassment). I had also advised him to post only to his user talk until this matter is cleared up, and given him a link to this discussion so that he could monitor its progress. The unintended result of that was that he got very confused. You have my apologies for the I played in that chain of events; its outcome was unintentional (this was why I really hoped to get a night's sleep in my body before resuming). And if there's need be explicit about an issue that seems to loom close whenever this biography comes up, my own views about LGBT issues are very different from Matt's. Durova^Charge! 22:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Revisiting the community sanction

Per suggestions above, let's revisit the community sanction. What seems sensible is to implement a topic ban under mentorship and restrict him to one account. Bluemarine (who is Matt Sanchez) is fluent in four languages and has a history of useful contributions at Commons.[45]

So suggesting the following (based upon Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Bluemarine#Limited_unblock_with_conditions):

Bluemarine's community ban is modified to a topic ban from the Matt Sanchez biography, and from LGBT topics and related talk pages, broadly construed. He is limited to the use of one account. If Bluemarine violates the terms of this restriction, or makes any comment reasonably regarded as harassing or a personal attack, he may be reblocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator.

Would appreciate the assistance of a second mentor, if one is willing to step forward (seeking volunteers). Durova^Charge! 17:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this has gotten pushed so far up the page that you may need to start a new section on it, referencing this section of course. As for the suggestion itself, what is the time constraint on this topic ban? Also, let's change "he may be blocked" to "he will be blocked", difference in may and will. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 02:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the main idea here is to bring in the good he can do for the site without reigniting old fires. Do you think this proposal would manage the major concerns? Durova^Charge! 04:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have concerns. First, the nature of Bluemarine's actions were so egregious as to support not one but TWO bans. Second, while I grant that he may have been confused about when the bans ended, he didn't choose to ask Durova, who has faithfully mentored him, but began editing again. Third, one of his quickest edits was to accuse an editor here of harassing him. Whatever time it is, that's unacceptable. I do not - at this time - support a modification of his community ban, while at the same time congratulating him on his success on other projects. - Philippe 04:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite inclined to agree with Philippe. The vitriol (calling other users "faggot" among other choice things), the blatant disregard for policy and for the bans (still editing via sockpuppet 4 months into the bans), socking on other projects now (see Wikiquote), asking for meatpuppets via his Twitter account (see the Matt Sanchez article's talk page for that), Uploading of copyvio files (he's had many files deleted for claiming ownership but later found out to be copyvios owned by other sources).. I just don't see why he can't continue to contribute to sister sites while still community banned here. His mode of operation is completely established and are we sure it won't happen on other articles in which he's been the cause of disruption to (Ann Coulter specifically) but which aren't covered under such topic ban? Despite all of this, and my better judgement telling me not no but hell no.. I'm willing to go along with the following:

Bluemarine's community ban is modified to a topic ban from the Matt Sanchez biography and its talk page, and from LGBT topics and related talk pages, broadly construed. He is limited to the use of one account:Bluemarine. He is not to upload any files of which he does not own. If Bluemarine violates the terms of this restriction, or makes any comment reasonably regarded as harassing or a personal attack, he will be blocked indefinitely by any uninvolved administrator.

That's the best I can muster right now. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 04:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

To respond to Philippe, there was a specific and unusual provocation behind Matt's recent edits. I have no reason to believe Allstarecho was responsible, but Matt has been targeted for very serious harassment. During last year's arbitration someone hacked into Matt's computer, posted a (possibly altered) personal chat log of Matt's to the arbitration case pages, and according to Matt the hacker also cleared out his bank account. Someone runs a hate site dedicated to Matt and also impersonates Matt on the Internet. Recently a query came up at Matt's bio talk that seemed like a plausible claim (supposedly Matt had tried to canvass for Wikipedia editors on Twitter), and when I queried Matt about it he got upset because Matt had never canvassed on Twittter; that was the impersonator. Matt's been getting other offsite harassment recently also, which I hadn't been aware of.

So in short, Matt wasn't flying off the handle for no reason at all. He has been provoked for a long time by someone who is very patient and diligent about it. Matt wasn't aware that the second ban still existed, and I wasn't aware that the harassment had continued. Durova^Charge! 05:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Durova, I guess my concern is that this whole thing is ALREADY setting off my "drama"-sensor, and I can't see that the drama is going to decrease. As far as I'm concerned, I'm not willing at this point to support a modification of the terms of the community ban. You asked if your proposed language would manage the main concerns: in my opinion, no. I do not believe that sufficient "drama-free" time has elapsed to over-ride the community ban. If someone truly cleared out his bank account, that's a felony and should be addressed with the police. If he's being harassed, that may or may not be a felony and should be discussed with the police. In either case, I don't think it's justification for anything. I empathize with him, I hope it gets better, and I hope that he takes it to the police: but I'm not willing to use that to excuse his behavior here. There's just way too much drama that follows him on here. Maybe later; not now. - Philippe 20:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Something fishy goin' on

Check out the edit history of StephenLaurie (talk · contribs) whom I wouldn't have noticed were it not for the edit today to Matt Sanchez. It appears through the user's own edits, more recent socks of Matt have been exposed, as recently as this month. This will of course take some actual clicking to look at the edits made by the IPs that user StephenLaurie has tagged as being socks of Matt/Bluemarine. I of course have no proof these are socks of Matt's but they definitely match his editing pattern in related articles, especially Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy. See WP:DUCK. As such, I withdraw my willingness to agree to relaxing Matt's community ban. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 04:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

How about filing a sockpuppet investigation request? This comes as a surprise and I'm as curious as you are. Durova^Charge! 04:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bluemarine - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

 Clerk note: I have endorsed for CU attention. I have amended the reason from community ban evasion to Arbcom sanction evasion, as it seems clear to me that the Arbcom decision to give BM a limited unblock vacates (at least temporarily) the total community ban. Mayalld (talk) 08:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

StephenLaurie's history is also suspicious. His very first edit was to accuse another editor of socpuppetry. That is not the action of a new user. That smells like a stinky sock as well. LadyofShalott 17:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Anyone else feel free to open a SI case on that user as well. I plan on doing so once the first one is dealt with but certainly won't mind if someone else does it. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 18:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Still waiting. As of this time, it hasn't been assigned to a Checkuser. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 04:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added a comment at SPI about the history of impersonation attacks. When it comes to potential socking by Bluemarine, best to keep a totally open mind until the facts are in. Durova^Charge! 17:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI StephenLaurie has added an IP to the list of suspected socks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 03:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

To me, as an uninvolved party in this whole issue, it seems pretty clear that Allstarecho has some sort of vendetta against Sanchez, and should probably recuse himself from further discussion of his status. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't make asinine, bad faith accusations without explaining why it "seems pretty clear". I have no vendetta against him. He's under a community ban and as such, it should be enforced, just as it should be with any other editor who is under a community ban. Now suddenly we find that there's a question regarding him evading this ban all along via socks, of which isn't above him as many of his other socks have been blocked previously. Regardless, I reserve vendetta's for real life, not a hobby like Wikipedia. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 04:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This, from your userpage, would seem to indicate at least some bad feeling. Viridae^Talk 05:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That's been on my userpage for well over a year, maybe even close to 2 years now, and has nothing to do with his or my interaction here on Wikipedia. Here, it's referenced a year ago. I assure you and anyone else, there's no massive Sanchez conspiracy. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 05:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocking of Vexorg

Resolved

 – Blocked 1 week by Quadell, unblock request declined by Aitias.//roux   06:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I just blocked User:Vexorg for one week for edit-warring, adding unsourced information into a BLP at David Sainsbury, Baron Sainsbury of Turville, regarding whether he was "born into a Jewish family". This article has had a history of BLP problems, and User:Vexorg has been blocked 3 times before, for increasing lengths of time, for edit-warring in other articles (usually the addition of unsourced and possibly defamatory content regarding Judaism. If anyone feels a 1-week block was unwarranted, let me know. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless I'm not missing anything, they did two reverts on David Sainsbury, Baron Sainsbury of Turville, didn't they? — Aitias // discussion 21:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

IMNSHO, BLP>3RR. Two reverts is enough. //roux   21:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes that's right. The addition of unsourced material, and two reverts to restore it. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

After having reviewed the situation a bit further, I agree and therefore I have just declined the user's request for unblock. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 22:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

User:TrEeMaNsHoE

Resolved

 – User blocked, relevant pages protected. //roux   06:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

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

User:TrEeMaNsHoE has become a very disruptive user. He hasn't had the greatest history (a look at his talk page can show that) and he continues editing articles to fit his criteria, not Wikipedia's. For example, he continually breaks redirect articles, like Work (Ciara song) (which is not fully protected), Like a Surgeon (Ciara song) and Work (song). More recently, he moved Work (song) to Work ( Ciara song) (note the space between the parentheses and the letter C) to redirect to Fantasy Ride, even though it was redirected to Work because multiple songs share the title and it was correctly redirected there for disambiguation purposes. He's been warned multiple times for multiple disruptive edits and he shows no sign of trying to work with the rest of the community, and I believe that a block is in order at this point. — Σxplicit 21:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked the user for 24 hours. In process of cleaning up the various pages now. Cirt (talk) 03:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I protected Work ( Ciara song), Like a Surgeon (Ciara song), and Work (song). I think this is done for now. Cirt (talk) 03:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully this block gets through to him. Thanks, Cirt. — Σxplicit 03:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Help with anonymous user and homebirth article

Resolved

unresolving, issues seem ongoing //roux   06:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, The homebirth article is in need of help. There are a couple of editors who are willing to discuss and reach consensus, but one anonymous editor has taken the position of reverting any and all edits. He/she demands that we reach consensus on the talk pages, but even when we do he/she reverts the edits that result from the discussion [46]. His/her edits are exclusively in the form of reversion [47], and it doesn't appear to matter what the edit was, or who made the edit. Further, it appears that the only consensus he/she is willing to reach is one in which other editors agree to his/her dictates. It is contentious and frustrating. I have attempted to talk to this editor on his/her talk page [48], which was rebuffed [49]. And finally, this editor is unwilling to follow the standard wikiquette of signing posts with the four tildas despite requests from several editors. I'd appreciate help on how to proceed. Lcwilsie (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page and have left a note on the talk page to encourage discussion and consensus. —EncMstr (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. With luck that will help us begin to make progress. 72.68.41.163 (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Homebirth (more)

Hi,

I think you've been misled. If you look at the homebirth discussion page, you'll see that other users than me have raised concerns with the neutrality of two particular users' edits. No attempt has been made at all to address mainstream maternity concerns on homebirth by these two users, both of whom are radical homebirthing midwives, pretending to be otherwise.

Consensus has not been reached on the discussion page, yet they then edit the article and involve admins as though it has. They are entrenched in their positions (and I'm sure they will say the same about me). Please also note that they have tried other admins before you who note that my edits have ended up with a more NPOV - see these admins' talk pages.

When the protection comes off the page, I'd be grateful if you'd ask these two radical homebirthers to apply the same principles on reverting, one of whom has reverted as much as me. Also it would be good if you formally asked them to remove contentious issues until resolved and address the concerns of mainstream maternity opinion in the discussion page, and bring neutrality to the article.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.167.125 (talk) 05:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Dispute at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lessie Wei page

I am bringing this to your attention because I do not wish to be blocked or banned again. I have been in a dispute with User:OlYeller21 and in response he went scavenging through my background and publicly revealed things from the past which led to my being banned, to wit: "Your colloquial responses, constant bolding, personal attacks, perhaps the longest list of confirmed sockpuppets I've ever seen ... previous ban and this edit is what made me think that you're emotionally attached to this article. This response has nothing to do with the deletion of this article but your false claims need to be addressed where you made them." I did not engage in personal attacks, except for a comment (see below) regarding stalking the article, to which he took offense, and questioning the validity of the original speedy deletion of the article in question. I have already denied being emotionally attached to this article; it came down to principle and stubborness, I guess. He himself admitted "This response has nothing to do with the deletion of this article" and I believe his resurrecting my past amounts to a violation of WP:CIVILITY, WP:APR and WP:NPA. Am I held to a higher standard than he?

I am unbanned now and I have done well. I even received a message of praise from another Wikipedian, User:Dylan with an offer of a Barnstar, which I didn't accept. Having received a second chance don't I have the right to start fresh rather than be subjected to gossip and innuendo, the chain of which User:OlYeller21 has initiated, regardless of what his immediate motivation may have been. I do not know if the actions of User:OlYeller21 violate any formal rules or regulations of Wikipedia but he had no business going through my background and making public comments regarding my pre-reinstatement history (which the Arbitration Committee had already reviewed) and I responded, measuredly; please see the most recent diffs ([50], [51]). I do not say that I am blameless. He was upset because I made an ill-thought out reference to him "stalking" the article in question, as he had speedy delete tagged it twice, and I do not believe the article qualified for speedy deletion. I thought the better and crossed the comment out a few minutes after it was posted, before anyone had read it. Obviously one can decipher text that has been crossed out, but the point is that I did cross it out. This is what caused things to get out of control, but nothing mitigates User:OlYeller21's attempt to embarrass, humiliate and diminish me in front of my fellow Wikipedians. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The WP:AFD is closed with a lack of consensus ([52]), but I would like to add that I just noticed that User:OlYeller21 added Category: Wikipedia sockpuppets of Rms125a@hotmail.com category to the proceeding, which was either not noticed or removed and now is a part of the permanent archive. The category was not there until User:OlYeller21's edit ([53]). Why was this category added? Why is it allowed to stand? Is Rms125a@hotmail.com a sockpuppet of Rms125a@hotmail.com? This vandalism should, at minimum, be removed from the permanent record of the archive and the editor responsible warned about such acts of vandalism. Thank you. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 08:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The category was added because OlYeller failed to add a : before Category when linking to it. Probably a good faith mistake. Taemyr (talk) 09:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Bishonen using status as admin to control others while violating our civility policy

Resolved

 – Blocked 3 hours by Jimbo

{{unresolved|Not blockable without warnings. This belongs at WP:WQA. Please take it there.}} Gwen Gale (talk) 01:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Unresolving - what and get accused of forum shopping? No thanks - discussion is ongoing, archiving this thread is completely inappropriate and gives the impression admins are trying to bury the issue or shunt it onto another lower profile/traffic board. Exxolon (talk) 02:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not forum shopping if the thread has been closed with a note to take it to WP:WQA, where this belongs. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:WQA is in it's own words "non-binding". Also this forum is appropiate for "...incidents that may require administrator intervention" - which is what is required here. Exxolon (talk) 02:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Please see this diff, and I quote: Yes, I do, you little shit. Don't interfere with Giano's page. Now get lost. Shoo! Last time I checked, Retired tags are given to those users who have self-identified as retired. So Giano might come back? The user is still retired, and that tag is not any means of insult to them, it is a notice to others that weren't involved in the matter that the user is gone for the time being. Last time I checked, admin status is to prevent disruption in matters you are not involved with, and further, in matters that are seriously disruptive, it isn't some steel toe you can stick in a matter you're personally involved with a use to push around and be rude to others.

True, wikipedia is a private website, but what goes on here, not mentioning matters of oversight of course, is anyone's business. If the matter is private, then make it private, instead of putting it on an open noticeboard. Last time I checked, no one but Bish appointed themselves to be the controller of Giano's user and user talk page, as also noted when they removed an arbcom notice, seen here.

What admin action do I want? Not much, if anything, I would like someone to remind Bish that they can't use their admin status to push those they don't like around, and be uncivil to them without consequence. I may not not been deeply involved in this matter like everyone here, mainly because I chose to stay away from it, but I am not going to sit here and let someone treat me like shit over such a small matter like a retired tag.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

<cough> Where would you like the steel toe? Bishonen | talk 22:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC).>

• Completely unacceptable. Any normal editor would have been blocked immediately for that. Any bets on Bish being blocked? I didn't think so. //roux   21:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure I'm just missing it, but can you point me to where admin status came into play? Nathan ^T 21:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, when Bish told me what to do, in regards to the template. Yes I do control something, don't do it again? It may not be visible, but if you take the time to look, you will see the or else threat.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with admin status, it's just plain rude. Nothing will happen though. Admins are generally excempt from policies. Majorly talk 22:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you stop saying this? It's clearly not true. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It clearly is true, to anyone with eyes to see it. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Bishonen was just blocked, by Jimbo himself. Both sides in the spat got warnings from several arbcom members. I am sure that had they continued and Jimbo not stepped in, someone else would have.

I am reluctant to say "nobody is above the rules" - because we have people who have abused Wikipedia in attempts to fight personal or ideological battles and are just absolutely sure that Administrator XYZ broke the rules in taking policy enforcement action against them, and every time someone says "...will all be treated equally" we get dozens of people protesting what horrid people us admins all are for letting XYZ get away with it.

But the last couple of administrator cliques that were big enough to possibly cause problems of letting people get away with stuff have dissolved in the face of abuse issues, several people who have been strident critics of earlier environments have passed Survivor:Mop Bucket and now have the bit themselves, and most of the administrators who habitually were overly snappy with annoying people have calmed down or semiretired.

Just in the last week, I have seen dozens of administrators confront each other when they felt there was problematic behavior on one's part. I don't think that the bulk of admins are interested in or think it's appropriate - but there are plenty of us who have stood up and said "No, wrong", and gotten stuff changed or stopped.

Do I personally spend every waking moment lurking on all the noticeboards, primed and ready to go off on any other administrator who strays into a grey area? No. That would violate AGF, be rude and disrespectful to the rest of us mop-bearers, and frankly I have a life and a day job.

Will I or others stand up when people do stuff wrong? Damn straight.

Can our doing stuff preventively block any sorts of problem situations from developing in the first place? Hell no.

I'm tempted to nominate a few loud complainers for the mop. I'm not sure everyone I am thinking of nominating meets the usual not-currently-controversial criterion, but I AGF and think some of you would do well looking at things from the other side. I'm afraid you'd decline, Malleus, but if you won't I'll go nominate you now. Majorly too. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Damn right I'd decline. My views on the RfA bear pit ought to be well-known; I get poked and prodded enough without sending out free invitations to everyone who's ever disagreed with me. The result would inevitably be that I'd fail for a third time, and in the worst case scenario I'd be so discouraged I'd pack my bags and leave. Hardly productive, although I don't doubt there are many who would see that outcome as a good result. Probably about time that Majorly got his tools back though. --Malleus Fatuorum 11:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Please, not more nonsensical behaviour - you shouldn't have put the retired tag on the page, I'm sure you can see how that would be considered, by many, to be a highly contentious thing to do at the moment, and of course, Bish shouldn't have spoken to you in that manner. You both should be hit about the head with a trout (and perhaps not one that is fully defrosted). Nick (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, Bish is now threatening me. More use of status to push others around, when will someone put a stop to it?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no evidence of Bish using her status to push you around, I see a comment than any editor, indeed, even an anon IP could have made. You've reported the incident, now please stop pushing the matter, it's harmful to the project. I don't know what you want, and I honestly don't think there's anything actionable about the second comment anyway. I do agree that the first comment was out of line, but I believe you adding the retired tag to Giano's talk page was equally inappropriate and that there's no pressing need to take action against either of you. Nick (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

See Maxypoda pair of theses on User talk:Bishonen. Little 'poda think it good solution here. maxypoda tik-tik-tik! 22:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone who sets out to be petty and juvenile as part of a longstanding grudge of severe incivility against another editor shouldn't expect some tonguelashing for it. This whole concept that disruptive and uncivil behavior is somehow fine but less than civil comments are not (especially as a response to the bad behavior) is completely backwards. DreamGuy (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground. Bish knows better, and will either be suitably ashamed of herself in the morning, or continue this behavior until she finds herself with our other high-profile, well-loved, and sorely missed forced retirees. As for Daedadelus, you've made your complaint, there is no serious threat Bishonen can do anything to you or your wiki-career, and if you continue pursuing this, you will lose whatever sympathy you've gained.--Tznkai (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh noes, he'll lose all that? You're a cruel man, Tznkai. Bishonen | talk 23:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC).

Looks to me like you ran out in your Sunday finest and big grin to dance on a well-known person's grave, and got kicked to the mud for it. Which is the primary incivility? Should Bishonen have responded in that manner? No. But then, odds are good you were hoping a certain other person would have, so you could bring them here instead. Now your'e here crying that someone ruined your fun. Walking away would be best. ThuranX (talk) 23:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Please. I did what I thought was necessary. A retired tag on a retired user's page. I was then told what to do with a unspoken threat, and was told I'm a little shit. I could really care less about the retired tag, what I care about is how I was treated. I wasn't hoping that anyone would have responded that way, so please stop with the assumptions.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise, once again the solution to everyone's problems is leave Giano alone. If he's retired, then let's actually make something of his disappearance--namely, not to create more drama to compensate in his absence! Is a tag on a user page really important enough for an ANI report? Motion to close, plz. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If you actually took the time to read this report, it is not about the tag, but the way I was treated over it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm thoroughly outraged that you've been described as a 'little shit', and 'little man', daedalus. How could Bishonen possibly know your size? I think maybe we should ban her for stalking. Privatemusings (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)in other words, you're being a silly person, dude - please consider wandering off to an area of the project where you can help, not hinder - I'm teasing you with the intent of raising a smile, and encouraging you to relax a notch or two.....

WP:WQA if anything. Let sleeping dogs lie? –xeno ^talk 00:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

When an administrator uses abusive and uncivil language with another user in an attempt to "shoo" them or otherwise subdue them it makes it look like Wikipedia is being ran by a bunch of children. I don't give a flying whit(a whit is a very small amount) about the circumstances surrounding this. Administrators who refer to other users as "little shit" or insist that they do decide what is and what is not the business of others should not be admins. All to often we come flying to the idea if desysoping someone, but when an admin really acts shamefully we just seem to let it go. This garbage really makes us look unprofessional. How can we enforce civility when administrators blissfully ignore it. Chillum 00:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Archiving this discussion is a perfect example of what I am talking about. The behavior of our administrators is an administrative matter, yet we are so quick to dismiss it. "Let sleeping dogs lie"... This happened just a couple hours ago, when exactly did this dog go to sleep? Chillum 00:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I sympathize with what you're saying Chillum, but as a pragmatic matter, I don't think we're going to get anywhere pursuing this tonight.--Tznkai (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"When an administrator uses abusive and uncivil language with another user in an attempt to "shoo" them or otherwise subdue them it makes it look like Wikipedia is being ran by a bunch of children." It is run by a bunch of children though, isn't it? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Bishonen was mean to Daedalus, >>>WQA is that way>>>. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

(Just a note that I've unarchived after Chillum's comment). @Chillum when I said "sleeping dogs" I meant the "retired" tag: 'twas unnecessary. –xeno ^talk 00:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Wanted. An admin with integrity and the balls (or ovaries, I'm not sexist) to block Bishonen for gross violation of civility, personal attacks and threats of violence - anything less makes a mockery of our policies applying equally to all editors. Exxolon (talk) 01:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Admin are not above civility blocking. Any other editor would have been blocked way before now. A block is in order.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel this is serious enough to be brought to Jimbo's attention and I have done so on his talkpage. To put this into perspective this is only the second time in my entire career here that I've notified him about something (the last time was the Publicgirl issue). If admins are incapable of policing themselves then we by necessity must appeal to higher authority. Exxolon (talk) 01:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Bishonen's comments to Daedalus are appalling and unacceptable! AND because he is a sysop, every other sysop backs him and tells Daedalus to sit down and shut up! Unreal.... If Daedalus was the sysop and Bishonen was not, Bishonen would now be blocked and every other sysop would be backing Daedalus! This project needs to start treating all users as equals. Anyway, to put plainly, I think this matter should not be dropped until either Bishonen is blocked, or he apologises to Daedalus! John Sloan @ 01:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

And yet, Daedelus was not blocked. It's going to have to be a both or neither situation. Daedalus was provocative in a predictably disruptive manner, and got the predictable reaction. Bishonen should have found another way to handle it, but as I said, it wasn't an unprovoked reaction. So unless we block both, it's neither. Finally, it's been a bit of time, so we risk the 'punitive, not preventive' conflict. ThuranX (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, is it now a blockable offence to put a retired tag on a user's talk page, especially one who has retired and actually did it himself when he retired? --WebHamster 02:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

And now we have an attempt to prematurely archive the discussion and a statement that its "Not blockable without warnings." - we can and do block for gross violations of our core policies without stepping through warning levels - any attempt to suggest this as a way of trying to avoid having to take action looks like a transparent attempt for admins collectively to avoid taking responsiblity for misconduct by one of their number - is this really the impression you want to give? Exxolon (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sort of puts one in mind of the Catholic Church's response to the Fathers and the Alter Boys quandary. Same sort of response really, the admins are spending so much time sweeping these things under the carpet that they don't have time to change the bag in the Hoover (so many analogies, so little time!) --WebHamster 02:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

As ever, introducing the nail to the hammer. Hammer, this is Nail. Nail, Hammer is going to hit you forcefully on the head. Nothing personal you understand, just the way it's gotta be. The self-deception and hypocrisy on this site is quite mind-numbing. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I gotta use an exclamation point too! -- Hoary (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked Bishonen for 3 hours. I trust that's enough to cause a bit of relaxation here and there, as well as (unfortunately) a bit of stress here and there, as well. This all seems sadly unbecoming to me, and a direct consequence of our having been too tolerant, for too long, of toxic personalities.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hm. I thought cool-down blocks were discouraged by WP:BLOCK. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they are, and Bishonen (being European) is offline and sleeping at the moment I believe. rootology (C)(T) 02:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo would never pass RfA! Mike R (talk) 02:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

And nor would he deserve to. About time the project grew up and left its pornographic roots behind. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"Toxic personalities..." If not a personal attack, what is it? --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

He's the Great PumpkinFounder, he does what he likes :) I wouldn't care, but then again this will probably feed the cycle of Giano and co. drama that should be drying up with his departure, yet is at full flood. I guess it is true, nature abhors a vacuum... --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Though as for me I've never found Bishonen remotely toxic. (She did call me one or two names once, as I vaguely remember. If that did indeed happen, it didn't worry me. Bishonen, you're welcome on my talk page any time.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, one you dont bring up policy to Jimbo, he knows the rules, and he is above them. two, he got blocked, so leave it alone. This thing is over.Drew Smith What I've done 02:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a point of order, Jimmy isn't above the rules. He technically be blocked the same as anyone, if he violates some policy that merits it. rootology (C)(T) 02:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have blocked any editor for a one-off snark like that. This belonged at WP:WQA, where it should have spun up a polite warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, calling someone "you little shit" goes way beyond snark - this is a gross violation of our civility and personal attack polices. We're Wikipedia, not 4chan. Exxolon (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

A warning would have been enough. Likewise, an admin should know that leaving posts like that can stir up lots of needless kerfluffle, this one happened to do that, Bishonen got blocked for a few hours by Jimbo himself. I don't agree with the block but I understand why he made it, as Jimbo. I hope it's over now. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

A "gross violation"? How old are you Exxolon? Do you ever leave your mother's basement and, you know, speak to real people in the real world? If you had, I'm sure you wouldn't be at all upset at being called a "little shit". --Malleus Fatuorum 02:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Please remain civil when contributing to discussions, your tone and implications are needlessly provacative and unpleasant. I'm going to assume good faith and answer your questions. I'm 37. Since my mother died some years ago I could hardly be living in her basement. I have a career and personal life that suprisingly enough means I talk to many people in a variety of situations on a daily basis in the 'real world' as you put it. And also suprisingly enough I would not tolerate being called "a little shit" in real life, and such remarks have a corrosive effect on Wikipedia. Basic respect and civility towards other editors even when you disagree with them does much to benefit the project. Conversely a lack of them damages it. I'm surprised that you feel remarks of this kind are acceptable. Exxolon (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, that crossed the line.--Tznkai (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Bishonen is female. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Also while off site posts are not actionable here, if this [54] is also typical of your attitude I'm sorely disappointed. I requested Jimbo's involvement not as a "childish appeal to the boss" as you colourfully put it, but because I could see a clear failure of the admins to clearly step up to the plate and deal with a highly inappropiate set of edits from one of their own and I certainly didn't do it lightly (as I've previously mentioned I've only once before requested his intervention.) As you appear to support the concept of Wikipedia:AdminWatch I'd say it's a tad hypocritical to attack another editor for attempting to resolve poor admin conduct even if you disagreed with the method. Exxolon (talk) 03:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Appeals to Jimbo are, in my opinion, an end-run around community consensus. Admins are entrusted to determine consensus. If no admin was willing to block Bishonen, it was because none of them saw consensus to do so. Getting an answer you don't like from the community and running to Jimbo is the very model of "running to the other parent" behavior, and the fact that it so often breeds the desired results is a travesty in my opinion. The community should be handling it's own problems; after this many years we should not need Jimbo to do this anymore.--Dycedarg ж 03:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we have a different definition of community. From my point of view (and many others I suspect) there was a consensus amongst ordinary editors that something needed to be done. (Block - my view, an "official" warning perhaps, etc - but something) and a failure of any other admin to apply the rules to one of their own and a lot of "let it go", "archive it since nothing will happen" "no-one will block another admin for this" kind of responses to the issue. Since the community of ordinary editors lacks, for better or worse, any real ability to deal with out of line admins (ARBCOM while great at dealing with ongoing and problematic long term issues is simply not set up to deal with this kind of thing) our only recourse is Jimbo - in effect he is our final safeguard against abuses of power by those that have had power invested in them. I stand by my decision to ask his opinion. Exxolon (talk) 04:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It is no surprise that you do not value civility Malleus Fatuorum when you write comments like "Sandstein's obviously lost the map that shows him where his brain is located, probably still trying to find his arse." (on WR). --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It beggars belief that people honeslty think 'shoo, go away you little shit' is even remotely acceptable. If you are likely to be slapped for saying it to someone in the real world, then that's a pretty big clue it's not acceptable here. MickMacNee (talk) 07:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

oh I dunno, Mick - there was this little man I came across once, who was being a little shit, and I wanted him to go away - so I said 'shoo, you little shit' - and actually I think he realised that he was, in fact, being a little shit, because he sort of squirmed away with his tail between his legs.... jus' sayin... Privatemusings (talk) 09:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

What are you trying to say? --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Although ordinarily I would recommend WQA, I wouldn't in this case. Fortunately, the filing party brought it here directly, and saved a lot of unnecessary drama and grief at WQA, for no matter whom ended up responding to it. Hopefully, this is now resolved before it can go any further. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, a RETIREMENT tag, should have been added only by an Administrator or the retiring editor-in-question. As for Bishonen? perhaps it's best other Administrators watch Giano's page. GoodDay (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

TL;DR. Yawn, teh dramahz. Isn't there an encyclopedia to write? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's see if Bishonen has the guts to do the in fashion thing and stand for reconfiramtion. This Rfa is currently failing due to the applicant having called someone a little shit. MickMacNee (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparent threats ("We know who you are, by the way")

I'm disturbed by the last line of this edit on a user talk page; "We know who you are, by the way." I don't think this kind of editing is appropriate and feel that it requires quick admin intervention. A quick review of this users edits (Smith research (talk · contribs)) suggests there may be other problems, and there may be username issues, meatpuppetry/account problems ("we"). I brought it here to request admin intervention as I would find such an edit on my own talk page highly offensive and it can only be intended to have a chilling effect. Thanks, Verbal chat 22:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not know whether to regard it as a threat to reveal the identity of an editor or a threat of external harassment. In either case, they should be advised of our policies. Some of their edits seem useful, and others clearly POV-pushing. I'd suggest a level-4 warning. DGG (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC) based on what was posted later, that would clearly be inadequate DGG (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The (related) comment that disturbs me the most is the direct accusation of "condone[ing] this form of child abuse". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I missed that in my reading as the last line stood out. I now feel a block is fully appropriate. Verbal chat 23:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec with others )Thanks Verbal, I was dithering about whether to come here or to WP:SPI for this issue, but you have helped make the decision for me.

Short version; several editors User:Smith research, User:S_MorrisVP and User:JaniceMT and many IP addresses based in Toronto (see this listing at the Spam blacklist[55]) have been adding POV material and links to copyrighted material hosted Canadian Children's Rights Council to articles on WP against consensus.

All of the named editors have admitted to being linked to the CCRC with "us"-type edits.[56][57][58]. User:S-MorrisVP was blocked for edit warring, and three days later User:JaniceMT was created and has now been blocked in turn. User:Smith research has now restarted editing, adding "warnings" to userpages, including the threat-like statement above and accusations that editors disagreeing with their edits must support child abusers and child abuse in general eg.[59]; see also this one by Janice [60] and this one by one of the IPs[61] There are other signs that the editors are sockpuppets: one of the editors uses exactly the same phrases as a post by another of the editors: cf the second half of this very recent post edit by Smith Research with this one by JaniceMT], who is supposedly currently blocked for editwarring. In addition, User:S-MorrisVP, who hasn't edited since her block, has a year old sockpuppet listing here; a conflict of interest posting here; and I mentioned her activities [62]on ANI just over a week ago, here. I wonder if checkuser is not required here, but sockpuppets or not, these are some very disruptive, COI editors.--Slp1 (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

So are you more inclined to take the problems to WP:SOCK, or to deal with the individual incidents piecemeal (here)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not decide here at ANI what admin action is reasonable, and then list the complete set of accounts in a posting over at WP:SPI to keep the records tidy. The improper edits by people who say they are associated with the Canadian Children's Rights Council have been going on for more than a year. All our efforts to coax them to behave have failed dismally. It is fair (I think) to consider them all meat puppets, and to indef block all of them but one. Leave the one remaining account free to edit, with appropriate warnings. EdJohnston (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That seems very appropriate to me, but then, I would say that!!!--Slp1 (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The name rings a bell. Didn't we have a rather messy dispute over the trademark and who the real CCRC was?Geni

Not sure about on WP, but this [63] suggests you might be onto something.--Slp1 (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm frankly not too worried, these people aren't exactly geniuses (WP policy isn't rocket science but somehow it doesn't penetrate). The only issue is if they did somehow find out about my RL identity, and post it somewhere, I'd be pissed, inconvenienced and mad at myself for not being sufficiently careful. Any admins who do notice this, if the edit could be removed and oversighted, I would be happy. I'm not paranoid about my identity (various admins and trusted users have my real name and e-mail address), but I do find the comfort in anonymity. Naturally, this could all be bluff.

I wonder if there is any appreciation of the time and energy that is wasted due to spurious research and advocacy when children could be better helped by directing it toward good parenting, volunteering, research and funding community agencies. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This is fucking bullshit. This is the deliberate silencing of dissent, there is no merit to these contributors in my mind. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Based on an escalating pattern of disruption, I've blocked the Smith research (talk · contribs) account for 72 hours. If this behavior continues, I'll be willing to extend it to indefinite. MastCell ^Talk 03:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Here we are otrs #2008063010023045 amoung others.Geni 01:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Note the contribution history of new anon. Can we get page protection for the CCRC page at least? Also removing valid work from 2009 swine flu outbreak WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Support lengthening this block and advise you open a checkuser case to get a complete list of these POV-pushing meatpuppets/sockpuppets. Then, as EdJohnston says, indef block all but one. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I have semiprotected Canadian Children's Rights Council based on edit-warring by two different IPs who appear to have a COI. Here is a recent section removal by one of the IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm filing a SSI per Tim's request, I'll post a notice once I'm done and would love any feedback or adjustments as I've never handled one quite like this. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've created the page, but it's always hard to keep track of changes to policies and stuff. If anyone has any suggestions or better ways of presenting evidence, have at thee. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Also note, COIN posting. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Another one, I'll add it to the SSI page. Anyone good at sniffing out a meatpuppet request for input on external web pages? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

outdent.. And in fact here we have a report that the president is promising meatpuppet admins and editors are coming our way to help out me and my girlfriend WLU!!.[64]--Slp1 (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Given this note, which asserts that the organization is planning a meatpuppet assault on these articles, I'd be happy to see the related articles semi-protected for more than just a few days. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

So can an admin invoke WP:UCS, admit that following procedures is just slowing down the inevitable, and block/lock the editors and pages? I'm getting sick of having to revert my talk page and undo the blathering of a bunch of POV-pushers who just can't be bothered to read. My profanity count is steadily climbing, and soon I'll lose my temper sufficiently that I'll be well over the bounds of civility. I don't think we can expect anyone to AGF at this point. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm blocking indef the accounts named in this thread and extending the prot on the CCRC article to indefinite. Any other articles in dispute, tell me now so I can prot them. If an SPI hasn't been filed yet, do it so that we can block the underlying IP. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 04:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Parental alienation and parental alienation syndrome were the two other main points of dispute, but those need at best limited-duration semiprotection from the IPs as the named accounts are probably blocked. The sockpuppet investigation can be found here and it has been endorsed but not processed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:Defunct national football teams

I protected this template a couple of days ago beacause of edit warring and unprotected when the parties seemed to agree on the talk page. I promised blocks if the edit warring continued. It seem to have started again today. I don't have the time for this right now. Could another admin investigate and take appropriate measures. No parties are notified of this report. Rettetast (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Fasach Nua (talk · contribs) and chandler (talk · contribs) ([65], [66]). — Aitias // discussion 22:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing was done while I was away. The edit war continued. I have blocked Fasach Nua (talk · contribs) for one week, and chandler (talk · contribs) for 24 hours. MusicInTheHouse (talk · contribs) has been warned, but I was near a block there too. Fasach Nua gets a longer block because of the history of disruption. Comments? Rettetast (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Infonerd2216

Resolved

 – Indef-blocked by AuburnPilot (talk · contribs) — Aitias // discussion 00:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I am very concerned about this user's behavior. He just threatened me on my talk page, telling me to "better watch it, or something bad will happen to you." [67] I was involved with this user earlier regarding his insertion of pov statement in NBA articles. That is not the issue I am reporting here. His threat to harm me is what is serious. I personally think he should be blocked.—Chris! _ct 00:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a bluff, but it still can't be tolerated.Drew Smith What I've done 00:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I realized that it is a bluff, but that kind of behavior is totally against the spirit of Wikipedia.—Chris! _ct 00:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Indef blocked and left a note on the user's talk page. No threat of violence is every acceptable, even if it is a bluff. See also this and this for other reasons for the block. --auburnpilot talk 00:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I've also now blocked Xmaster72 (talk · contribs) as a block evading sock. --auburnpilot talk 20:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Jayy009 - serial image copyright offender

Resolved

 – ...at least for now. Stifle is da' man

Could an available admin please keep an eye on/advise Jayy009 (talk · contribs) about his disregard for copyright. He/she's been uploading a string of copyrighted images and is ignoring all warnings on their talk page. Cheers. --WebHamster 12:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Advise a block - repeated warnings, and yet no interest in changing his ways? Block to prevent more damage and move on. Ironholds (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

  Final warning given. Stifle (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

  Strike that; he's had two final warnings already. Blocked 48h. Stifle (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Rcatholic, User talk:Rcatholic

Is copyright protected information allowed on user and user talk pages? If not, someone should check out Rcatholic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - there's information directly pasted from [68] and [69] on this person's user and user talk pages. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

it is not allowed, and the User page is a clear violation of WP:SOAPBOX. I've seen the survey referred to, and that's one hell of a cherry-picked interpretation of the entire findings. ThuranX (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the user page and taken out some of the revisions of the talk page, as well as leaving a note for the user in question, if they continue to post copyright material, report back here as it's getting rather late where I am, so I might not be best placed to take further action in a timely manner. Nick (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Advice for dispute of article

I was wondering if I could get some advice regarding the dispute between user:Verbal and myself at the article of Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine). I just started an informal mediation process. Left a message for user to please consider Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-05-22/Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine). I'm now waiting, just as I've been waiting throughout the articles talk page for a response. Is there anything else I should consider? --CyclePat (talk) 05:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've just let user know that we are talking about him. (Unlike his talking about me on the Admin. Protect Board mentioning or more specifically threatening and asking someone to block me. I think that lacks a little WP:WIKILOVE and again, I'm offended by user:Verbal conduct, as discussed on the article talk page of talk:Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine) --CyclePat (talk) 05:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

WTF. Okay. Now a revert of my redirect.. EMFT... This is ridiculous. [[70]] Everyone knows that the acronym EMFT refers to Electromagnetic Field Therapy and that it should redirect to the article that is appropriately linked to it, that is electromagnetic therapy... NOT electro shock therapy. WTF. This plain annoying... and he knows it. He's doing it on purpose to piss me off and has been pretend to be mister innocent since the start. It's a cummulation of his edits. as I've told user:Verbal on his talk page, and on the EMFT articles talk page (alluded to in the above paragraph), simply said... This is non-productive disruptiveness and taking wikipedia "revert" and ask questions to far. Escuse the words but bloody ridiculous. Please help before he makes me go into some psychotic reverse psychology and I start playing the same games on his annoying editing habits and or removing all things he does asking for a comment! --CyclePat (talk) 06:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If you've started mediation then why are you also filling at ANI? The talk page consensus seems to be against you. I reverted your edit on EMFT as I was under the impression it was an acronym for a real (not alternative) therapy, but say pls rvt with justification on talk if I was wrong. I welcome further input on the talk page, but I feel it is clear that this is confusing for some - hence we should keep alt med and med separate in this sphere. Verbal chat 10:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the danger of thought terminating cliches, just because a random guy says a joke along the lines 'what do you call alternative medicine that works? Medicine!' does not automatically make the work rearrange itself along those lines. an example from the page you 2 are arguing about would be hyperthermia therapy. Basically it seems that as much as Verbal on the talk page denied wanting to create a content fork that is exactly what has happened. This is the text which is now featured at the top of the article : This article is about use of electromagnetic radiation in alternative medicine.

This is verbals edit summary when moving: (moved Electromagnetic therapy to Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine): To better delineate article and limit scope to that of the current and past revisions). So from what I can see, rather than accommodating sources that may discuss electromagnetic therapy, whatever form it may take, in a less than withering tone is disallowed. While the old version had many faults the scientific evidence section had a number of sources (I must admit I have not verified them) and the article dealt with some of the general concepts involved. The talk page clearly shows that verbal and cyclepat are the main participants and consists mostly of verbal ignoring or deflecting cyclepats attempts at engaging in discussion. Verbal has had a couple of incidents that I am aware of where he displays ownership characteristics and seems to use 'discussion' as a means to frustrate and distract those with whom he does not agree. Soliciting help immediately after renaming article, there by framing the issue since it already has (alternative medicine) and was kept in a state that kept out non 'CAM' information here. Constructive ES and again. Generally considers mediation inappropriate for undisclosed reasons. This one is a bit weird, removes information which is sourced, considering it unsourced, apparently over style issues or failure to read the one source accepted on the article. Ignores existing consensus and established procedure. There are many more examples but that will probably be for later. Unomi (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Many of the sources were marketing pieces and patents - not RS. This is all discussed on the talk page. Policy arguments were in favour of the rename, as was the initial, small, consensus. The strong consensus since established also confirms the rename. I have responded to all of CPs policy arguments and tried to explain his confusion to him (as has 2/0), while attempting to ignore his personal attacks and unfounded accusations. CyclePat himself asked for a rename from the current name to the previous version, and consensus opposes this change. Despite the implication, I posted on the relevant noticeboard and specifically asked people to correct me if I was wrong. CyclePat did the same, but has also attempted to discount the opinions of other editors on the talk page. Unomi seems to have a problem with me as we have disagreed in the past, and he above makes unfounded accusations of ownership etc. against me. What seems to be lacking is WP:AGF, and I thought we'd patched this up. I see no problem with any of the edit summaries or edits Unomi quotes, they are rather tame for wikipedia and giving advise in edit summaries is useful in forums such as AN3 and here, and is meant to be constructive, rather than just saying "revert". Perhaps this is because I once waned Unomi about his use of edit summaries? Regards CP, I have tried to engage with him but when I and others disagree with him, perhaps by saying CFORK isn't relevant, he takes this as a personal attack and talks past us, while we are talking directly to him and ask for specific things from him. This article, and electrotherapy, both need work to improve them, and the distinction here is clear - I'd rather work on the articles, following consensus. Verbal chat 16:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

As this is a discussion about content, which is already under mediation, what admin action are you requesting? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, Arbcom deals with stuborn people all the time. Maybe someone can urged Verbal to avoid needlessly prolonging disputes by excessive or repetitive pursuit of unproductive methods of dispute resolution? ie.: Always request a talk on the talk page and not putting any comment on the talk page to talk about? Does any one here not think that is just annoying and perhaps disruptive... Maybe somone could urge him to talk this in the proper venu before it escalates to a formal dispute resolution process. --CyclePat (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Really... I guess the Mayo clinic is not realiable source for Verbal. And I guess a blanc page of my meandering soliloquy is his version of talking. Where he doesn't answer any bloody question. NO there was no initial concencsus. We just stood there and waited to see what would happen and sure enough after looking at the article you decided to change it. The only reason I decide to ask for the change is because I needed an admin to do it. And he did do it the first time, for the first move request. But then you reverted it right back. You must mean your edit and encounter with Umoni are rather tam compare to some other edits you've done... such as this sneaky move the page and prevent any other material from entering into the article started. Exactly... it's meant to be constructive. So why do you keep reverting/putting back in material which is not referenced? Your idea of concensus is clear... you revert any addition... and you revert any deletion. And once you remove, you say... bring to talk page. This is disruptive because you should take material you have removed, since you are doing this, you should put it on the talk page. WP:BRD is crap... it doesn't work... and it's plain rude at this point between user:Verbal and myself. I think if we have two or more editors we can decide to do some RFC or something? Hence, my question. Is an RfC appropriate at this point if we are not getting any response in regards to the mediation reguest? Or are there other steps I should look into? OOh! Like what have you specifically asked me to do... Oh yah! You asked me to type everything I want on the talk page before putting it in the article? Hummm... NO... Ridiculous. It's not going to happen. If you disagree with something... yes revert it... but at least start the talk page up like it says in WP:BRD so that way the other guy doesn't hate your F'n guts. and then you end up calling him a WP:DICK on his talk page. --CyclePat (talk) 05:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

A possible cause for concern

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

---

Resolved

 – Non-issue. Jehochman ^Talk 22:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Maxypoda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bishrhea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bishapod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Maxypoda claims to be a bureaucrat, bug given that anyone could link to, and say something like that, not to mention that 40% of this account's contribs are to the user talk space, tends to make me think otherwise. When investigating this user's edits, I came across the other two noted accounts, both of which have 75% and 84%(in same order as list above) of total contribs to the user talk space. Bishapod has zero mainspace contribs, the other 25% exist in the user space. On top of that, this doesn't make much sense to me. Am I missing some kind of inside joke where wikipedia is allowed to be used like myspace/whatever you want to call this behavior? As said above, the link of a user changing rights doesn't prove anything. Anyone can bring up a log of someone else changing rights. I'm thoroughly confused here, does someone mind telling me what the hell is going on?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Look up Bishzilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for more info. //roux   05:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure everything is okay, just some antics. The Bishies provide good stress relief, though I do wish their talk pages would indicate that they are valid socks. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 05:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE, anyone?

Mebbe you need to let this go? Jack Merridew 08:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Mebbe you should stop assuming things of others.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Daedalus, it is an open secret that these are socks of Bishonen. It's also not a secret that she called you "a little shit" -- which is offensive & wrong, & for which she was blocked for 3 hours. It appears many readers of WP:AN/I share my opinion of the matter, which is this thread is an attempt to "get" Bishonen for how she treated you.

Bishonen is allowed these socks because they are (1) entertaining, & (2) not hurting anything. (I'm not sure their impact on the servers is greater than the likely error in measurement.) She'd be permitted them even if she weren't an Admin, a woman, or living in Europe. Making an issue of them is eroding the sympathy people have for you. Let the matter go, forget about her, & work on something here in Wikipedia that needs to be done. -- llywrch (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do me a favor and stop assuming things of me when you have no idea how I think or work. I had no idea any of these were related to her, as, if you bothered to read my starting post, I didn't reference her once. This isn't about her, do me a favor and read the starting post before you make any further posts, as it outlines my concerns quite well.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Shrug. Mistake. User:Maxypoda no relation of mine. Likely is bureaucrat on Wikispecies as claimed; please Assume Good Faith, or, as second choice, inquire of CheckUser. Huntster, note: all alternative Bish accounts have indication of valid sockness on userpages (not talkpages). bishzilla _ROARR!! 21:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC).

...besides, they aren't socks, they're Alternate Accounts. They're only socks if used to evade Wikipolicy (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me, your Bishiness, I somehow missed that and was looking for {{User Alternate Acct}}. Please don't charbroil me. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Daedalus969, you seem to be experiencing stress. I recommend you forget about all things Bish* and go find something else to do on this project. Thanksabunch. Jehochman ^Talk 22:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If you bothered to read my posts, you would see that originally, and still, this has nothing to do with that user.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Avoid any user who's name starts with Bish, okay? Jehochman ^Talk 22:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about that. The only reason I included the other accounts is because Maxypoda edited their userpages and vice versa.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we just declare that there's nothing here that needs immediate administrator action and move along, please? - Philippe 22:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Daed, please. We understand that you found WP:SOCK, we know you've found a home at WP:SPI. I ask you to recall your mistake here, and remember that I did not call you out on your broken promise from your WP:ER, nor did I make a big deal of your refactoring dozens of other users comments (a big no-no by the way). Wikipedian to Wikipedian, I ask you to drop this. This path leads nowhere good, I promise you.

Ched ask 'Zilla's forgiveness for stepping in, Ched not want squishyed. Ched like to get wiki-old enough to have Chedzilla some day. Ched think it good idea for admin to close thread now. Best to all. — Ched :  ?  22:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

dag-gumit, this thread was still open when I "started" typing ... honest. — Ched :  ?  23:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Not once have I ever refactored anyone's post, not to mention your post is condescending in tone, so please take back your baseless accustation, which, by definition, is a personal attack. I know full well the rules of wikipedia, so whoever the hell you're thinking of, it isn't me.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you please just drop this and move on. This is getting tiresome and is becoming disruptive. AniMate^draw 23:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Daedalus - it seems to others that you're acting defensive or angry about it still. Please step back and move on. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to make something clear

I've just become aware, by reading a certain post that most you possibly think this thread was of the single purpose at getting back at Bish.

It was not, as many of you may know, I frequent SPI. I do not tie together accounts with similar sounding names if the behavior is different. As far as I saw, these accounts were unrelated to Bish. In my mind, they looked like some odd accounts I've run into before, such as User:Neomewga, who seemed to be using WP as a social network or somesuch. So please, this never had anything to do with Bish, and everything to do with what I quite clearly explained in the lead.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, your explanation is noted. Can we please, for the love of the flying spaghetti monster, move on?! - Philippe 23:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I will block Daedalus969 for wikihounding if they continue to harass Bishonen like they are doing here. Just...walk...away. Go do something else that does not match the regular expression Bish*. Jehochman ^Talk 23:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Just as a meta-note ... People who do a lot of SPI (and I've been there and still do that) sometimes find odd patterns and connect dots like this. That you spot a pattern and connect a dot, and it turns out to be harmless or a known account you just didn't know about yourself, is not news or a problem or an issue. If you are going to survive for a long period interested in SPI you have to get used to the idea that you just let it go when it turns out to be a nonissue. Otherwise you end up pingponging back and forth between J'accuse and OMGKSORRYNORLY.

The appropriate response is "Ok, thanks for letting me know." and then walking away. Any elaboration only makes people worried about you. Especially when you elaborate defensively adn repeatedly past the point people said "It's over, enough"...

We all know anyone doing SPI finds things. It's ok. This is expected.

You didn't do anything wrong until you started being defensive about possibly having done something wrong. You started digging the hole then. Stop digging. Go have a cup of tea. If it will make you feel better, I can dig up a trout somewhere, but really just move on 8-)... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Continued problems with unresponsive editor Indianwhite

This was brought up here [71] but the situation continues with Indianwhite (talk · contribs). Every comment/warning on his talk page is simply deleted, I'm wondering if he ever even sees edit summaries - he never makes any himself. Some of his edits are constructive, others are more of a problem, especially when if reverted he simply puts it back.

I spent some time today wondering why we had two duplicate articles Servian Wall and Servian Walls until I realised that Servian Walls had been created as a redirect only, but Indianwhite evidently decided that the plural form of the name was correct and turned it into a copy of the existing Servian Wall, where he then changed all instances of 'wall' to 'walls'. Again, this was done with no discussion anywhere and no edit summaries.

He's also made a series of edits adding 'Christian' to the list of winners/losers in various battled and in one instance changing the word 'men' in an info box to 'Arabs'.

Some diffs:

• For the "Christian" thing:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
• For the "Arabs" thing (as opposed to "men"?):
  • 1

Not a dramatic problem, but still a problem. When an editor won't engage in discussion it can be difficult. Eg,, he/she adds external links that are inappropriate/duplicate existing links. I revert with an explanation of why, which probably isn't read, and he/she just puts them back. Maybe someone who hasn't been involved with this editor might have more luck. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Indianwhite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indeed a problem; there is quite a consistent pattern, that I believe amounts to a form of vandalism: persistent introduction of unsourced facts or unrealiable sources (namely in a huge number of "battle" articles), addition of reduntant words (like "men" after a number of troops, or "killed" after a number of casualties, or "Christian" after the identity of a non Muslim beligerant, and usage of "Arabs" instead of "men" when refering to Islamic tropps, etc.), non-usage of edit summaries, refusal to communicate, almost immediate removal of talk page warnings (trying to appear with a "clean slate"?), most probably using IPs to avoid 3RR, etc. It is true he also appear to have some legit edits, although this and this makes one wonder... The Ogre (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

God only knows what Indianwhite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is doing any of this for. He/she seems to have a penchant for making pointless changes to articles involving battles and the NBA. I think this IP address is the same person: 119.95.176.131. Several of the Greco-Persian war articles have a pointless edit by this address at ~ midnight on 19th May, followed by a reversion by another user, and then several edits by Indianwhite at ~ 3am; see [72], [73], [74], [75]. Most of these edits are just pointless, without being incorrect; but some are introducing unsourced (and frankly wrong) information in the text. Whilst not vandalism, its not helping anyone, is it? And therefore is just as bad (even more so for being incipient rather than obvious). MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The editor in question was briefly engaged in an editwar on the F-22 Raptor article but did not respond to a message addressed in the edit commentary or on his talk page. Not a big deal, but not much anyone can do about an unresponsive editor. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Block them if they become tendentious or use IPs to avoid 3RR. 119.95.184.242 (talk · contribs) has only made 2 edits but they match Indianwhite's and are from the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, the same as that used by 119.95.176.131 (talk · contribs). Dougweller (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been dealing with this user in basketball articles too, mostly List of career achievements by Dirk Nowitzki, Dirk Nowitzki, and Steve Nash. I noticed that just today, the user reverted an edit that I made correcting style and POV issues. It's the same stuff - I'm sure the intention is good, but the user refuses to use the preview button, doesn't engage in discussion and keeps introducing POVy and WP:PEACOCKy edits. Also, I have noticed that some of this user's dodgier edits are done through IPs like 119.95.180.16 (talk · contribs) and 119.95.176.131 (talk · contribs). --Mosmof (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and it looks like the user got himself a sockpuppet: FreeSay (talk · contribs). Edited to add: I've started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Indianwhite. --Mosmof (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I've indef blocked his confirmed sock User:FreeSay , and blocked Indianwhite for 72hrs. --Versageek 00:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Indianwhite's Defence

If I have really offended some in Wikipedia like Mosmof, and Ogre, then I'M VERY SORRY. I'm really stomped at the same time how a small change can cause an uproar. I just spotted a vandal post in the Nowitzki section the other day and I fixed it. I'm not being vandal or disruptive, I'm just an ENTHUSIAST who enjoys surfing around Wikipedia. Wikipedia says it's FREE and ANYONE CAN EDIT, be BOLD and creative. I know EDUCATED guesses may mean nothing to you but, where is the fun without it?

I really enjoy being in Wikipedia, member or not, at least it helps give me fun in the pursuit of knowledge, whether it's sports, entertainment, or history. I don't mean any harm to anybody, I think my behavior is just being misunderstood. I any you guys of have favorite spots then, I will not touch them, but please, give me some freedom to as I please. The changes I'm doing are hardly noticeable, If any of you don't like such a small change, then I find it odd to believe that Wikipedia is FREE for anyone to edit, I guess it's full of restrictions, no FREEDOM whatsoever.

I try providing external links to back up my edits as much as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indianwhite (talk • contribs) 00:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

(Non-admin response) Wikipedia is free in the sense that there is no monetary cost. What you are doing is trying to influence the point of view of the readers by making small, seeming "unnoticeable" changes. In my opinion this sort of quiet injection of bias is more harmful then outright claims such as "so and so is the best" because it only subconsciously registers. Your edits are inappropriate and biased, and you have not made an attempt to communicate with other editors legitimate concerns. Did you expect to be able to continue your current style of editing or something? Matty (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The free does not mean free as in no cost, it means free as in free culture. In fact, part of our being free is expressly granting the right to reusers of our content to charge for it as long as our license terms are met. No comment on the larger issue, but wanted to step in and correct you on that point. It's number 3 on the list of our five pillars. --M^ask? 03:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Date-linking despite warnings

Resolved

 – not a case of massive delinking

According to this extract from MOS, since 13 Jan.'09 there's been an injunction against linking or delinking dates.

This injunction has been flagrantly violated by User:203.97.255.42, as you can see by most of his/her contributions. I and other editors have repeatedly warned him of his violation, and also his lack of any Edit Summaries. We have asked him to desist and discuss his editing, as you can see from their Talk page. They have declined to talk, and continue their date-linking (without summaries) unabated, despite our very explicit warnings that they will be reported if they continue. The most recent example, as at 04:24 on 24 May'09, is this edit that they made 14 minutes ago.

As non-admins, we have taken all reasonable steps to educate this user, but with neither effect nor any discussion back from the user. What would admins now consider appropriate in such a case? Thanks in advance for your advice &/or intervention. Trafford09 (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

this edit is not delinking or relinking as the date was incompletely linked. -- User:Docu 03:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

disturbing new bots...

Resolved

 – Approved bot working as intended.

It seems to me that bot authors have recently unleashed a rash of disturbing new bots on the wikipedia. Let me describe the most recent one I have encountered.

Today I saw on my watchlist a bot that offered the edit summary: "WikiProject:Check Wikipedia cleanup (title linked in text) and general fixes; sort key per guidelines".

What this bot is doing is unlinking wikilinks to author's names.

Perhaps this bot's actions are justified by policy or consensus. But the edit summary certainly doesn't support that. The second link is to a section entitled "Using sort keys". How is that helpful? This is not what the bot is actually doing. The first link is to a large, and opaque page, with sixty subheadings.

If there was a specific discussion authorizing the action of this bot I would like to read it, because I think its actions are ill advised and very damaging. If we have an article about the author(s) of a reference why in the name of heck wouldn't we link to that article.

I have been prolific, and I have added well over ten thousand references that wikilink to the author's article. Is this bot going to unlink all of them?

Perhpas this bot's action are justified by policy or consensus. If so I believe it is essential that the edit summary offers a clear link to an explanation of its mandate.

Candidly Geo Swan (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we have some links to these bot's contributions? rootology/equality 02:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Without commenting on the specific issue, it would be helpful if you could give an example diff (you haven't even told us a page), the name of the bot, and the owner of the bot here. Also, have you tried talking this over with the bot's owner? Oren0 (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not a bot. The Check Wikipedia project is done by people using AWB. //roux   02:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

User:DrilBot is my bot and it does use the CHECKWIKI lists to find articles with errors so that it can fix them. Now, I am assuming that the above concern (based on the edit summary mentioned) relates to the bot removing links in an article. It is designed to do this when the link just links back to the current article, which produces bold text rather than a link... see the articles listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia#Title linked in text (AWB, AutoEd, BOT). This is almost always an error... an author's name should not be linked in the article already about the author, as that produces bold text rather than a link, and having bold text randomly inserted in an article is usually bad. E.g., [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] produces Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents so, for example, on the article Jimmy Wales and text [[Jimmy Wales]] produces Jimmy Wales, which is almost always undesirable. If you could provide some diffs it would be much appreciated so that I can deal with the issue specifically; you could have also just contacted me with your concerns so that it could be discussed rather than bringing it to ANI right away... I don't mind. Anyway, I will not run my bot until this is resolved. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, since I'm here let me explain the edit summary: The first link is to the page where I get the lists of articles from for the bot to fix. The text in parenthases indicates which specific subheading I am working on... so when it says "title linked in text", just find the "title linked in text" section on the CHECKWIKI page; that should provide a brief description of the reason for the fix. DrilBot also often adds DEFAULTSORTs to articles so that they are sorted correctly with capitalization; this can look kind of odd or counter intuitive, so I added a link to the guideline that describes the reasons for that. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

(I need to get some shut-eye now so I won't be able to respond to any further questions/comments until tomorrow; my apologies if this is any inconvenience) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

DrilBot's task was approved by the Bot Approvals Group at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DrilBot, after community discussion that was largely supportive. I have just reviewed many of DrilBot's recent contributions, and I believe these tasks are helpful and in accordance with style guidelines. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote above the actions of this bot, and a couple of other new bots, my be authorized by policy or consensus. But I am afraid I have not found these bot's edit summaries providing a helpful link to the bot's mandate.

The Bot Approval Group didn't ask, and the bot author didn't state, what edit summary the bot would use. I don't want to pick on this bot's author, because I gather the bot approval group never expects bot authors to state what explanations bots will offer in their edit summaries.

I realize that, like everyone else here, those who write bots do so in their spare time. Nevertheless I suggest on a large project like this meeting the same professional standards we'd try to meet if if we were doing the work for pay is important. Documentation is important. Explaining what the bot is doing, to those unfamiliar with the background of the bot is important. This bot, like many bots, provides a totally inadequate explanation of what it was doing.

Why isn't supplying a clear, meaningful, specific explanation of what the bot is doing a part of the bot approval process? Why isn't reviewing that clear, meaningful, specific explanation a part of the process?

WRT to this particular bot, the bot's author has clarified, above, that it removes links to the author only within the author's own article -- not generally. That is a relief and absolutely not clear from the links provided in the edit summary.

The bot's author has said that links, within an article, are almost always undesirable. Maybe a discussion reached a consensus about this. If so I would like to know where.

References are useful. Fully populated references are the most useful. Now a fully populated reference has a half-dozen or more fields, and it can take several minutes to pupulate them. I suggest that when an author has a wikipedia article about them, and one wants to re-use a reference that has already been populated, the most obvious place to look for the already fully reference would be in the article about that author.

So, no, I do not agree that removing links to an author, from within references, is a good idea. It means that every single time a reference is cut and paste from the author's article, to be re-used somewhere else, the author wikilink has to be recreated. That the current version of our software renders this in bold I see as a very minor inconvenience more than balanced by the times-saving of not having to worry about the time consuming relinked.

I am going to repeat that I think a much greater effort has to be made by bot authors, and those who use robot editing tools to explain the justifications behind their work, as these tools can make massive changes that are very hard to undo. Geo Swan (talk) 06:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

More Obama drama anyone?

Resolved

 – Speedy deleted. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama substance abuse controversy ought to elicit attention. Is this a CSD under attack page? -- Banjeboi 02:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No. But it might be a POV fork. I seem to remember this being discussed in detail in one of the other myriad other Obama articles but I can't find it at a quick glance. Since this was a matter of actual controversy, deleting it as an attack page seems like not a great idea. Maybe should to go AfD? JoshuaZ (talk) 03:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It was created by a "new user" after nominating George W. Bush substance abuse controversy for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George W. Bush substance abuse controversy). The initial edit summary may give some clue as to the intent: "To be fair and balanced". But hey, I wouldn't dare assume bad faith... --auburnpilot talk 03:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Hmm, maybe a helpful pointer to WP:POINT and WP:OTHERSTUFF might be in order? JoshuaZ (talk) 03:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Or a pointer that FOX News have now added "Accurate" too. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

POV/POINT indeed. And add BLP violating as well per the homosexual oral sex content. Should be CSD'ed. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 03:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed these non-credible accusations per WP:BLP --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the creator's motivations aren't really relevant to whether the article exists or not. (They are, of course, relevant to a discussion of his actions though.) Evaluate the article's content on their own merits and edit it for tone or nominate it for AfD if you don't think it belongs at all. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The creator's intent may give an indication as to their POV, which in turn can give editors the chance to scrutinize the article for BLP violations, etc. I agree that it does not have weight on the article's existence. I would like to see this go bye bye at AfD. Law _{type! snype?} 03:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll disagree of course. Creating an article to make a point, aka his motivation, is widely regarded as disruptive and unacceptable editing. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 03:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No disagreement on that point. However that would speak to the editor's behavior, not the article directly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Allstar. It looks like a CSD attack page to me. I agree that the edit summaries, as well as the editor's name, suggest a serious bias issue here. The Bush page consists of two dozen sources, with numerous non-inflammatory claims, whereas more than half the Obama page consists of a single unfounded rumor that he'll suck dick for crack. CSD it and done. ThuranX (talk) 03:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

And now we've got a sock.. only edit to WP is removing the PROD tag. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 04:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Should we get an SPI on that, or jsut an 'obvious sock indef' block? Leave the main account open with warnings not to push his agenda that way, this is obviously an inexperienced editor. ThuranX (talk) 04:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone, including the author can remove a prod so there is no need for a sock to do so. In other words, I'd wait until that account actually did something that matters before moving to block it... and it just made an attack so now theer is a reason to warn/block independent of being/not being a sock--ThaddeusB (talk) 04:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and be sure to add the sock's edit summary he just did calling me an asshole. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 04:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, he said, "look at my IP asshole". Unfortunately, it's too late to say, "My, what an ugly IP asshole." PhGustaf (talk) 04:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears User:Special friendly is a sock as well, his first and only edit was to User talk:SaddleBoy diff Matty (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I wish this was BJOADNable. The delete tags outweighing the content five-to-one was hilarious. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me that the speedy delete is just POV protection. There is no real balance with this project anymore.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no controversy, hence no need for a controversy article. It might be good for one or two lines in the main article - I wouldn't remove a properly-sourced inclusion there. Splitting it out to its own article, though, makes it an attack page, so I speedied it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

How, exactly, do you find 'A crazy guy with a long arrest record once said that Obama sucks dick for crack' to be legitimate, or the speedy deletion thereof to be 'POV protection'??? ThuranX (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Far be it from me to argue with the POV Protectors who are never wrong and always argue in force.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Your cries of censorship are totally drowned out by the fact the Obama's past drug use is already covered on his bio article. --guyzero | talk 08:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It's code for "Obama is black, therefore he must take drugs." And yes, I did just pull the race card. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, You see that, I see that... but others do not, apparently. Plus, the old "psst, he's a gay' zinger is popular on the right, cause pink is almost red. ThuranX (talk) 04:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, they do have a point. Obama is more socialist and liberal than the UK's Labour Party. But then again, so is John McCain. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel speedy deletion as a "blatant attack page" was justified, but I'm not going to make a big deal out of it either, as the article clearly had no chance in its current form. I would advice the article creator to look into creating a proper article (if possible) in his user space before even thinking of bringing this material back to the mainspace. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Thaddeus: with no speedy we'd have WP:SNOW by now. Obama's admission of drug use is already on the right pages. PhGustaf (talk) 04:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Bali ultimate

Resolved

 – Re-resolved. Content dispute, please discuss at the relevant article talkpages. //roux   06:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Would some take the time to remind to the above that if he/she doesn't bother to explain his edit on Estonia–Luxembourg relations, he/she should refrain from doing so. The user added identical tags to several pages and reversed detailed questions from his user page without answering them. -- User:Docu 05:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I've asked you to take any discussion to the talk page of that article. I won't engage with you on my talk page. I think your insistence that this content disagreement be discussed on my talk page, rathter than on the article discussion page, will not gain much support here. And while we're at it (and with an audience) please don't post on my talk page anymore, about anything.Bali ultimate (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Please add your detailed response to whatever forum is convenient for you. Thanks. -- User:Docu 06:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed the "resolved" as he didn't in fact answer any questions yet. Besides, he started adding {{unreferenced}} to articles I created while refusing any comments on his talk page. -- User:Docu

He started the discussion here, and I'm guessing is waiting for you to engage in it. The best place to discuss article issues is on the talkpage for the article, and not his talk or yours, because you will gain the audience that watches the article by discussing on article talk. This is essentially a content dispute, and as such does not belong at AN/I. Please discuss sourcing issues here, which is where these discussions belong. As for adding {{unreferenced}}, I have left a note for Bali discussing the issue. Further, he did make very clear to you why he added {{primarysources}} to the E-L relations article. So again: please go discuss content issues at the relevant article talkpages, as such discussions do not belong here. Re-marking as resolved. //roux   06:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your intervention about the articles I created (or split off from elsewhere).

In regards to E-L, Bali ultimate did supply an answer quoting "RS, V, N", but it's not entirely clear how this relates to the series of articles he tagged. I left a detailed question on his talk page which he removed unanswered. As there was no explanation, I removed the tag from the article. He replaced it and offered to discuss it [76], thus I reiterated my question [77]. This was without success.

It's only on ANI that he brings up which talk page he wants to use, even though he added the same tag to a series articles. He still hasn't supplied a detailed explanation.

Personally, I don't care which talk page is being used, but I think this is problematic, as, essentially, most of his edits in the last twenty-four hours were adding such tags. -- User:Docu 07:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I won't engage him on content here, or on my talk page. I will engage him on the relevant talk page. I have told him that explicity about 5 timers now. If he doesn't care which talk page to use, i suggest he use the talk page of the article in question. The adding of such tags is not problematic -- it is what sould be done with unsourced information of unassessable veracity (since it's unsourced). Dumping in an external link into an article doesn't make an article "referenced." I think what should be concerning is that an administrator since 2003 has no grasp on the need for sourcing articles, even on BLPs like Massimo_Cenci, which he created in March. The placing of such tags, at minimum warns readers to think twice before trusting what they see here, and also categorizes stuff as, well, unsourced, which may lead to someone making it minimally acceptable (preferably the person who put the unsourced, unverifiable information here in the first place). That anyone would agree that the placing such tags on unsourced articles is unhelpful worries me.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

One more thing for this thread, the silliest one i've ever been involved with ("please stop the meanie bali ultimate from tagging unsourced articles as unsourced, and articles that rely entirely on primary sources as primarily sourced.") This statement "It's only on ANI that he brings up which talk page he wants to use" is a flat untruth. I asked him here [78] and here [79] and I also answered the question the first time he asked it. [80]. And you know what? Shouldn't he know that article talk pages are the appropriate venue to discuss article content? The fact that he might not i find troubling.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The detailed question is now here: WT:WikiProject International relations#Adding .7B.7Bprimarysources.7D.7D to various articles, including Estonia–Luxembourg relations (supposedly "the relevant talk page"). If my question isn't clear, please say so there and I will try to re-phrase it.

As Bali ultimate seems to have thought quite a lot about this issue, tagged and possibly re-tagged many articles, brought it up on multiple talk pages, I think everyone would benefit if he would share his understanding of the issue and address it in-depth. As he doesn't respond to any comments I or others have made on the issue, just re-tagging articles without accepting to discuss is problematic. -- User:Docu 09:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"As he doesn't respond to any comments I or others have made on the issue." That's a lie, User:Docu. Here's just one of my comments on the issue, addressed to you. [81]. Please stop lying. It's unbecoming of an administrator. You seem to be trying to create a disupte where there is none. I would appreciate it, however, if you wouldn't lie about or otherwise misrepresent my actions in future.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Rollback feature

Resolved

An admin, David Levy, revoked my rollback rights a few hours ago, for no reason other than the fact that I removed a complaint from a vandal from my talk page. He claims that I am refusing to answer any complaints even though there were two other complaints addressed above and below his post. Furthermore rights are not usually taken without a warning, whether admin, rollback, or simply the ability to edit. However, I recieved no warning. Am I to lose rollback rights (which I have used responsibly, with a minimum of mistakes) over not answering a complaint?Drew Smith What I've done 08:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't find the specific instances that David Levy has a problem with, but it certainly seems that you should be a bit more careful when using Huggle. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 08:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I was unaware that huggle used rollback. The button said revert. Anyway, he appears to be online, and we are talking it out, so I'm marking this resolved.Drew Smith What I've done 08:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, about the above edit. I saw that it reverted to another version of vandalism, so I used the edit feature to simply remove it. I moved on, and noticed something curious later. Two users appeared to be using that article as a chat room. I then asked for a full protection of the article, and I believe the users may have been blocked as well.Drew Smith What I've done 08:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it was an accident, yeah. But Huggle is actually very difficult to use without making such mistakes. You get really pressured to go quickly, and it's an extremely confusing interface. That's why I gave it up. But it does use rollback, and you need to exercise as much care, therefore, as you would do if just rolling back manually. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 08:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I must note that Drew's initial summary was highly inaccurate. (I assume that this stemmed from an honest misunderstading on his/her part.) I revoked the rollback permission because of his/her repeated use of rollback in content disputes and statements that he/she would neither alter his/her behavior nor address legitimate complaints stemming from mistaken rollbacks. At the time, I indicated that I would reinstate the rollback permission if Drew agreed to use it responsibly.

Fortunately, I'm pleased to report that Drew appears to have recognized the problem and has promised to take greater care in the future and properly address any issues that arise. So I've reinstated the rollback permission. —David Levy 09:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks david, and for the record, I only posted here because it seemed you were offline, and I was just getting back on, hoping to go vandal hunting, ony to find my "vandal gun" replaced with a pea shooter.Drew Smith What I've done 11:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio

Cryptonio (talk · contribs) has been leaving some odd messages on talk pages recently.[82] Some of them tell editors to go away or that they are expendable and/or unintelligible. I'm not sure what's going on with this editor and, to be frank, I'm concerned for them.

• Samples:
  • "BTW, check my contribs really quick, the last 10 or so could make your day better. lol",[83]
  • "i must tell you, that the space you and others want to use to tell the world how great Israel is, has been confiscated in order to let the world know, something the world already knows. Beatles kick ass. Well, I guess that just makes you expendable here in Wiki, don't let the door hit you on your way out! Some people are tools, some are weapons. Care to guess which one are you?",[84]
  • "dude, seriously, you need a vacation, i am worried about your health. Lately, you have not been making any sense in talk pages, you are reading things wrong, and you seem to have a major problem with NPOV. Seriously dude, take a vacation. A long vacation.",[85]
  • "well you are a tool my friend. A tool fan that is. I am glad that you enter and exit certain articles, like the baseline does in Tool songs. You must be a drummer. Well, let me tell you my friend, that Wiki does not need you at all in project like I/P conflict. But, we have great opportunities for growth, in areas like Star Trek Oral Sex Child Support and all types of offshoots that you can imagine. Please, feel free to investigate around and leave I/P for ever. Thank you, have a terrible time at the poker tables.",[86]
  • "Well, welcome to Wiki .. Hope you don't stay for too long!",[87]
  • "push these crazy ideas that make you and others like you, look like Satan compare to Arab fundamentalists(really, take it from an experience observer). I can really honestly say, you should drop Wikipedia, and take the others with you.",[88]
  • "In due time, your suspicion that all will go to hell when it comes to I/P articles in Wiki, will come to be, and we will have to score it as a Mossad victory."[89]

I'm thinking this should be reviewed by a couple people. -- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional note: I was a bit concerned for Cryptonio but, considering their response below, I'm now more concerned for the project. Creating a collaborative atmosphere in these sensitive topics is hard enough without people asking those whom they disagree with to leave the project adding that they "look like Satan".[90] I personally do not find the entire list above "humorous" or "lol" worthy. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments

These are quite troubling. A block is certainly in order, with subsequent mentorship when the block expires. IronDuke 19:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

They are quite funny. And the way this dude has posted them, is taken totally out of context(and provides evidence of of certain editor's style of work here in Wiki). The subjects here are renowned pro-Israeli editors(except a few of them) of the kind that pushes Israel's POV blindly at the cost of Wiki. This, editor, that has brought this concern of me to this board, has a history of his own of "you have not been making any sense in talk pages, you are reading things wrong, and you seem to have a major problem with NPOV." Exactly what I let him know, but of course, in a humorous way that allows him to clearly understand the point. He's concern for me? they are only words and no threat was giving. I actually, recommend for everyone in here to go to the edits themselves and get a quick laugh. Some of these editors don't care about Wiki, all they care about is to represent the rights of others except Wiki. They see Wiki as a tool for their 'war mentality, instead of seeing it as a tool for knowledge.

The reason at large, why articles concerning I/Ps are the way that they are, is because a 'standard' was semi-established, when certain editors, in good faith or not, started to 'produce'(instead of creating) articles that were a carbon copy of already written articles from CIA's Factbook and the US's State Department. Through wikilawyering(and other practices) then, undermining the same rules that was brought to standard, in order to revert that activity, that presented a major danger to Wiki's independence, many of these articles remain intact.

The process, that has been on going, to make these articles 100% Wikipedian, has been an arduous to many editors. Recently, three very pro-Palestinian editors, but at the same time, ACADEMICIANS with pride of their Wiki-work, were recently dismissed in favor of giving certain editors a voice that goes against the load thinking of Wiki. These editors, that would under normal circumstances address a conflict with their best tools from the beginning, had to rather rely on their wits and anger in order to bring down the stonewalling that these 'cliques' present all over these articles.

Wiki has faltered in this matter. Wiki has taken the side of Anti-Wikipedia in order to forcefully give statue to a practice that is very much Anti-Wikipedia. The practice is Anti-knowledge, Anti-Reasoning, rewarding instead "group mentality" and "point-fixing"(the practice of sourcing one's beliefs and POV). We should not be afraid of quarrels in articles like Star Trek Oral sex and Child support, they are of a different kind, and even though the subject matter at hand is one of many, it provides precedent and will be looked at when considering other matters throughout Wiki.

Wiki is not a democracy, and the first victim of democracy is common sense, and so, Wiki is not under no obligation to give voice to the voiceless, or promote empirical ideals. Wiki has a self-inflicted responsibility to always improve itself, that just because there is an article that covers a subject, under no circumstances means that the subject is already covered, and thus we should move on to the next. Relevant information is a by-product of necessary information and it should be given the least amount of space when space itself, through rationale, dictates so. The judge in all of this, cannot be time, and it cannot be a judge itself. The judge of thought questions and preposition, should be the ability to comprehend an argument through the eyes of Wiki, and not through the eyes set on NPOV. There is a POV that matters and shouldn't be ignored, and that is Wiki's POV.

It wouldn't be difficult to bring examples, where even the least capable of administrators would have little difficult siding with Wiki's side. Administrators cannot continue to act as if they are solving dispute when in all reality they are admonishing editors at the expense of ignoring the question and argument that is brought to them. Was not, the same dispute that editors were told to solve on their own, what brought these editors to these boards in the first place? Why think, that editors started arguing and insulting one another, and never tried to actually solve the dispute? Wiki will not flourish under the current atmosphere. Wiki is not rewarding education and dedication, Wiki seems to be rewarding fanaticism and a sense of undermining Wiki itself.

If, argument and heated debate, insults and the rest, provides better results, the result expected by administrators, Wiki must stand aside or set the rules of engagement, so that Wiki would have the last word. This means, that as long as Wiki continues to give voice to those seeking their own, without regards of the platform, Wiki will continue to view dispute as children behaving badly, instead of reasoning that one must be right and the other must be opposing, not the fact or the truth, but process.

Allow Wiki to be Wiki. If solution is found to certain problems, do not get involve, simply because someone has ask you to.

Thank you, and read those links please. They are quite troubling! Aghast! I would mentor Jok! Cryptonio (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeewd. I'm with Crypt on this one. Those pro-Israel editors are nothing but trouble and destroy the very fabric that makes wikipedia so neutral, objective, and tolerant. In fact, let's just rename wikipedia. We'll call it...Cryptopedia. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"so neutral, objective, and tolerant". You need to understand these concepts in order to use them. You see Wiki is not neutral in the sense that there is no dispute, is neutral because it allows discussion. The act of tilting an article to one way over the other(over that discussion), is not being neutral, but engaging in POV-pushing. So thus, discussion shouldn't be used or needed in order to fix POV.

Objective is not getting every single detail about a subject matter down on paper. Objective is to be able to "judge thought, questions and preposition, by comprehending an argument through the eyes of Wiki, and not through the eyes set on NPOV." In other words, that you bring a source, that in your opinion is adequate for the article, does not merits opposition, but rather consensus that indeed is necessary material. Now here is the magic of Wiki, when you are asked to present your view on inclusion, you must be aware, that you cannot use your 'opinion' in order to reach consensus, you must rather state your case from Wiki's POV. This does not mean, that you feel, think, or reckon, that the reader needs that information, but rather that the reader's experience would be enhance by the addition of said information. When Wiki is held to these standards, there is nothing like it. Trouble is, that one marginal bit of information, for the most part, will invite terrible information in order to balance it. The editor, must be aware, that the objection of other editors, to add or remove information, is not solely based on their view, but also based on their view of Wiki.

Why doesn't Dispute Resolution work? Simple. It doesn't work because we don't accept judgment on a matter we feel so positive about, and thus, through arguing, if feel we could delay a ruling for eternity. The solution is never to stifled discussion, but to stifled ignorance(and ignorance is not the absence of knowledge) but rather "the rejection of acceptance to a contradictory logistical value". In other words, every argument must be brought to the table etc, and it is expected that consensus rises out of that, and if it doesn't, then consensus would be neither remove, modify or add said information.

Finally, tolerant. This is actually a very grave mistake on your part, to think that Wiki is tolerant. It isn't. It does not give you the right, any right, because it doesn't have constitution. Because reality is tilted towards "Westernrism" we equate a free man to democracy and other ideals that does not enter the realm of Wiki. To be tolerant, only extends to being neutral(allows discussion) but it doesn't mean that it needs to give you time to state your claim, or your bias. It doesn't need to respect your bias. If you don't think of Wiki as being a source of knowledge, you will view Wiki as a source of expression. You are going to feel as if you are entitled to a platform for your views. The rules of Wiki, are binding only in Wiki, thus, your ideas and beliefs of what a fair system should be, only extends to your immediate territory. Yes, you may very well think Wiki is tolerant, but when it comes to the job of Wiki, Wiki is, should be unstoppable. Wiki, on this subject matter, has not been tolerant, it has been fooled into thinking it needs to respect all editors(again, a westernerism). not all editors are created equal. Equal weight covers the information, not the editors. Wiki allows equal footing at the start of discussion, but does not require for all to finish at the same time, doesn't even help for all racers to finish the race. Cryptonio (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you for real? Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You enjoy my jokes more. I'll give this example in good faith. Say that there are two opposing views on a matter. Listen, this is the world wide world, this is not uncommon at all, people deal with this kind of stuff everyday without major fuzz, but only if both people are reasonable. Wiki would love to have those opposing views presented, but first, it must make a note that there are two opposing view. That we make that small mention, is worth a lot of trouble. Then, we must put those two views in perspective, paying close attention to the interaction between them. If the conflict arises out sheer POV, as a last resort, consensus should be the inclusion of both opposing views, in relation to the represented capacity of both views. If one view, is being presented as a replacement, it must be looked at very closely, because change is a human trait that doesn't allow us to actually practice it. If the view is being presented, as a substitute, on grounds that it should be looked at as standard here on Wiki, consensus must arise from accepting, that the view is relevant without the mention of the opposite view. Thus a reader will always benefit from consensus that was reached, by a process. If the view that has been presented as the standard in Wiki, is now viewed as having a challenge, that is, that it no longer can stand on it's own, the immediate remedial is not to add the opposite view, but to make mention in the article that such view could be notable(immediately). Then consensus should concentrate, in the addition of the opposing view, but only as a mention, that is notable. All of this is reached through the understanding of current Wiki-policies. Cryptonio (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You take a long time to explain nothing. Your comments are very uncivil. I don't think a block is in order, yet, but continuing to make those remarks would most likely result in one. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 22:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to attack you to defend myself. I can simply ignore you. Cryptonio (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

And besides, I was brought here. I didn't know you even existed till a few minutes ago. As far as I'm concerned, I can extend myself worthy, to the silliness, if I so choose to entertain. I'm already looking forward to sending you my good night wishes. word. Cryptonio (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

{out)WP:DFTT Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

After reading through some recent edits of Cryptonio (talk · contribs), I'm not clear on what he's trying to say, or what he's trying to do. But it doesn't seem to be helping Wikipedia. Can anyone else summarize, concisely, what the issue is? --John Nagle (talk) 05:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

John, I think the issue in a nutshell is simply that

• working in the I/P conflict area for an extended period produces a form of battle fatique
• Cryptonio has decided that he would prefer to stay away from this area of Wikipedia from now on
• these are his parting messages which for the most part express the kind of frustration many people seem to experience at some point

I think raising the issue here was probably counterproductive. I would advocate just letting it go as more pragmatic. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Many users, including myself, have received blocks for far less during I/P "battles." Crypt has been hostile and abrasive in previous discussions, so this really isn't that surprising. I'm all for jokes and laughs, but telling people to basically g.t.f.o through thinly-veiled "humor" is hardly an excusable product of "battle fatigue". I do not endorse a block however. I'm just saying the bar seems to apply to some but not all. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a bar, but its not a cool kids type thing, sometimes, when all the stars align and god slowly whispers your name in a seductive tone, and you happen to lose your cool right when the community feels a subconscious yearning for drama, larger powers come into play and to diffuse the whole thing the adults tell everybody the equivalent of mom yelling at the misbehaving children to get out of the house and go away so every can just relax instead of spanking them. It's a decent outcome. Think of it like a defensive penalty in football. It's like the play never happened. --M^ask? 10:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Without going into details, my reply to John Nagle's question, from a perspective of an Israeli-POV editor. Working on Gaza War article is extremely hard, the issue is very loaded, both in emotions and information. From my side, knowing that many others will disagree, I try as much as I can (though I am far from perfect myself), to discuss things first. Now if you look at current talk page and article edits from last, say, 10 days - you might see (turns out I am not the only one who got that feeling) that comrade Cryptonio has become totally uncooperative. This is the issue - lack of cooperation, of good will, of some respect to others. Most of us are cynical, its OK. But I see others who are cynical, but still able to cooperate. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

"uncooperative" = unwilling to accept your POV-pushing. Cryptonio (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You're a nuisance. But you have a point, because the there are serious racists running around causing mayhem. Have a look at Islam: What the West Needs to Know and who is editing it. anyone contributing to an article attacking Judaism in that fashion would be instantly barred. 81.156.223.72 (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what point you think I have made, since I didn't say anything about racism, Islam or Judaism. You must be a recent Muslim convert. Cryptonio (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

<- (Unindent)

Okay. That comment right above by Crypto is over the line. What now? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy, 'recent Muslim converts' was an observation that was not critical of his beliefs, but rather exemplify a common trait by recent converts of the Islam faith. In their view, they have found a reason to live their lives by, and they see that Islam is being attacked, and thus they feel as if they are being attacked as well, so they overreact against anything that might be at odds with their faiths(in this case, a stupid movie). Of course, this is not prevalent of female converts and not all male converts feel threatened by a normal 'critical' comment of their faith. Of course, being as religious as I am, knowing Islam the way I do, it was not meant as an insult to his faith, but just a simple observation, that I may have gotten wrong, but I think not. You guys jump the gun on every single comment that may comb your hair in a different way than the usual. How can some of you make judgment decisions when you seem like you can't read or understand what's in front of you. Anyways, when can I get my topic-ban so that I can move on. Cryptonio (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

So, your personal opinions excuse the personal attack of assuming the user is biased by his/her religious beliefs? And your final sentence kinda seals that you're trolling us. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It was a tactless observation. I've been blocked for implying certain users harbored antisemitic feelings that reflected their editing habits. I cannot help but believe comments such as "anyone contributing to an article attacking Judaism in that fashion would be instantly barred" are inherently antisemitic. Suggesting a wikipedia-double standard by virtue of being Judaism-related opposed to Islamic could be considered slander and perhaps even racist. Rationalizations cannot change what has been said. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan is trolling us. Who are you kidding Wikifan? you've been blocked because you don't know what to do in here, or even how to type a coherent sentence. You ain't kidding me though, acting here as if you got some sense to sell.

That was no personal attack, you are putting words on the dude's mouth. Assuming anything is not a personal attack. This is being anti-reasoning, adding that in your case, you also engaged in wasting my time. Cryptonio (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan might want to read the definition of Semitic, as it's fairly racially inclusive of a group that includes middle-eastern persons of the Jewish faith and middle-eastern persons who practice Islam as well. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Semantics. Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism; also known as Judeophobia) is a term used to describe prejudice against or hostility towards Jews. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Bwilkins might want to read the definition and history of anti-semitic, as it's a fairly specific term coined to mean "anti-Jewish". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Like, um, really </sarcasm> ? I was pointing out that anti-Semitic is used to mean "anti-Jewish", but by basic taxonomy, it's not. The term cannot technically and taxonomically be used by Middle-Eastern non-Jews as it would directly be referring to themselves as well. So, to use "anti-Semitic" and "recent Islam convert" ... well, that's not taxonomically valid. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Right. Because people regularly follow the rules of taxonomy rather than use the actual meaning of words and terms. Anti-semitic means "anti-Jewish" and non-Jews of semitic origin can and do use it. It certainly is technically correct for them to do so. Just like it's technically correct to call a certain fruit a "pineapple" despite it not growing on a pine or being an apple. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, wrong train of thought again. Here's a simple example: picture a spoon saying "I hate cutlery". Or a poodle saying "I hate dogs". Those that espouse racism are often the ones with the worst version of these similar bizarre arguments. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

What bizarre arguments? Arguing a term doesn't mean what a dictionary says it means because you insist on breaking it down? See: pineapple. "Anti-Semitic" does not mean "hatered of Semites". It means "hatered of Jews". That's what a dictionary will tell you. Your bizarre arguments about spoons and dogs notwithstanding. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

<< Agree that the "you must be a recent Muslim conert" comment is ludicrously out of order. The general behaviour of the user, combined with this, and including the "you don't know how to type a coherent sentence" abuse just above, makes a case for a general disruptive editing block, for maybe 48 hours? ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 09:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Blah, Bleh, Mebleh? Cryptonio (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

What would 48 hours do? That's just 2 free days for him to plan his next move!!! :D If we are seeking punishment, yeah it makes sense. But it certainly isn't a solution and will likely just exacerbate whatever perceived problem exists. I think editing violations are more important then civility issues anyways, plus I/P zones are vulnerable to hostility. It is likely everyone involved in the Gaza War deserves a block for violating civil policy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this a big deal?

Special:contributions/90.43.116.96 is nothing but blanking of spam notices on IP pages. See [91], [92], [93] etc. If I'm making mountains out of mole hills, please ignore. Thanks. Tiderolls 18:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It is significant, and he's been blocked for 3 hours by an admin. I would expect that if it continues, the block will be extended. These seem to be out of Paris, and presumably all related in some way. If you see it happening again, recommend you take it to WP:AIV, as it appears there's some kind of evasion attempt here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

And since this activity is continuing, from other IP's on the list, I think some broader admin intervention is needed here - a range block or something. These IP's are all related, and they don't like that fact posted on their pages. But unlike registered users, IP's cannot take quasi-ownership of their talk pages. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If it continues, from another similar ip possibly, it would be best to make an SPI report with a request for a CU to determine if a rangeblock would quell the problem without too much collateral damage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Now it is User:80.12.213.34 doing the blankings. I suggest an increased block on both accounts for blatant block evasion.

• 80.12.213.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

On-going dispute at ME. Various violations by editors, etc..

I posted something at BLP noticeboard but the post was hijacked by an IP involved in the mediation. There has been great difficulty facilitating an amicable resolve to the dispute. The article was locked for excessive edit warring and request for resolution, which began some 4 weeks ago. I disputed the level of unreliable sources and dependency on IAEA promotion sites to support events. I believe sources such as Tehran Times, Xinhua News Agency, and Press TV are totally unacceptable references and could not believe why they were allowed to be in the article. I've been trying to create an outline according to available information and strict BLP-policy, but some users have disagreed uncompromisingly. This might take awhile to read: 1, 2, 3, 4. I had a discussion with the mediator where I listed (briefly) the complaints made by some users and why they were not valid according to BLP here. I'm now being accused of assuming "bad faith" and not "understanding" other user's perspectives, and most recently been told to "put up or shut up" (exact words). I don't want to canvass for friendly admins and our mediator has resigned. I really don't know what else to do. If we could get some eyes on this that would be great. BLP violations have occurred without recognition but at this point I doubt there is little any one could do about it. Thanks for any help! Also, for the users involved in the mediation who will likely attack this, please keep it to a minimum. I just want to get a couple uninvolved people to see what's going on. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2009

Seeing as there is not a single editor among the several at Talk:Mohamed_ElBaradei who you agree with, have you considered the possibility that they are in fact correct? And that it is you who are behaving disruptively, editing tendentiously and generally being difficult to get along with? Others have expressed a similar view - [94], [95], [96].

You accuse others of misunderstanding policy ([97], [98], [99], [100]) when you also have some issues in that regard ("Your insistence that we have to "convince" each other is completely backwards" is pretty much the opposite of consensus, "BLP policies are subject to interpretation by editors. Wrong" misunderstands the implementation of policy, "phony Iranian doctors" calling a doctor a "phony" is a textbook breach of the BLP policy).

When others suggest you write out your proposal [101], you refuse.

I think you need to take a serious look at your own editing, and realise that you are a good part of the problem there. Kevin (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Extended discussion

I didn't simply accuse others of misunderstanding policy. I accused editors of habitually violating and then misrepresentation policy to illustrate a point. Get your facts right. : ) IP dubiously cited a bizarre criticism and undue weight guideline, which was debunked and dropped here. Scroll 4 or 5 paragraphs down. :D I really don't appreciate your quoting edits out of context. That is extremely bad faith and downright malicious: There is no consensus, and you haven't even read the references posted or else you wouldn't continue to refer to them as criticism (your entire bizarre dispute) and editorials. Discussion is not a debate. Your insistence that we have to "convince" each other is completely backwards, though I suppose if you wear a user down with rhetoric and libel they'll eventually leave. As I stated explicitly in the discussion page, the "consensus" (if you want to call it that) requires a mutual understanding of what consensus actually means. Simply saying "I disagree, you are a horrible editor, here is why" does not mean we are roadblocked and I have to spend more time trying to convince you. That is what happened. And that is what I meant. I provided reasons, accompanied with policies (outlined, specifics, etc..) then included dozens of certified-reliable sources which were denied outright. I'm really surprised you missed that. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Scroll down to the last 2 paragraphs of mediation 2. No, I didn't refuse. I was overjoyed in fact, under the pretense that it logically be included in the outline. No response was given. NPguy, out of nowhere, suggested I put up or shutup after he ignored the references I posted. I told the IP it isn't logistically possible to write a draft-section in such a complicated BLP without a full-rough-outline and a general understanding of the proceeding and succeeding sections. I guess Kevin failed to mention that diff. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Probably. I'm not perfect, certainly not righteous, but all my suggestions were sourced by available information. Not "I think," not "My opinion," and not POV. I try not to evaluate the motives and characterize editors as disruptive, volatile, and abusive because that is name-calling. I do however know the difference between Tehran Times and the Jerusalem Post, which some users believe are equal in terms of reliability. If I remember correctly, the IP had a fond admiration for Chinese propaganda. I could probably find the diff if I had 4 hours to spare. :D I left a nice, concise, and shortened version of out 15 page dispute at your talk page. You decided to "ignore" (your words) it. I encourage every editor to review it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC) I'm really surprised you took the time to cherry-pick all those diff's to convey a POV that was never demonstrated in the discussion when you were a supposedly impartial mediator. As we all know, this isn't a yes or no discuss. Therefore, your "no one agrees with you" is hardly a fitting representation of what is going on. The first dispute is whether or not BLP violations have occurred during the editing process. Yeah, R2 reverted the article to a month-old state because of BLP wild abuses by the IP. The 15+ propaganda references in the article are also a BLP violation. Then there is discussion over whether or not mediation suggestions did not qualify under BLP policies, which according the discussion, yeah they did. The second dispute is about an Israel/ME connection. That was at first dismissed as not-notable by the collective and endorsed by you. Then when I posted references (which can be found here it was determined to be only regionally-based and therefore not relevant. Then when I posted unique references from various continents, it was dubiously accused of being supported by a biased editorials. Then when that wasn't the case, it was said that the idea violated criticism and undue weight policy. Then, when that wasn't the case...I was hindering the mediation process and "compromise." This was followed by a nice lengthy observation of my personality, which can be found in the opinions that Kevin linked. NPguy posted inconsistently and tended to leave disputes he started, such as the charge that the Israel/ME relationship was somehow being propagated by only Israeli-based media. Much of NPguys posts were editor reflective and didn't necessarily follow the posts he was responding to. I encourage admins to click on the links Kevin included and review my post above it. I really don't have the time to fish for dozens of unsummarized diff's in a sea of 200+ like some users here but for those who are curious the information is there. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC) I welcome more eyes on the article, but I am not sure if he needs to post it here, at WP:BLPN#BLP concerns at Mohamed ElBaradei and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel#For those who are familiar with Mohamed Elbaradei. I feel WF may continue appealing and canvassing until he hears exactly what he wants to hear, as he hasn't shown much recognition for changing his argument based off of past or present discussion. The article has been through two previous dispute resolution processes, and the most current DR process of mediation broke down after WF expressed concerns that I didn't understand about our mediator. I have recently tried to remind WF that the talk page is a place for civility and discussing improvements to the article, but somehow the discussion always become off-topic. I also don't understand why Wikifan has asked others to stop attacking him when they are simply asking him to just discuss improvements to the article. As this has been occuring awhile, I definitely think it deserves attention one way or another. I have found it quite hard to solicit feedback to improve the article though.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 03:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC) No one was active in the discussion aside from the IP and myself. NPguy dropped in and left so that made it very difficult to finish disputes (though I ultimately responded to all of his "challenges.) The WP Israel had nothing to do with the BLP violations, and was solely about the Israel/ME notability disagreement. I don't think that is considered canvassing. Your feeling is extreme bad faith. You yourself said in our latest dispute that you knew nothing about the Israel/ME dispute. And based off the luke-warm beliefs from NPguy and Kevin, who didn't even compute the dozens of referenced I cited that showed broad coverage and extreme notability, I didn't think they know anything either. Or didn't want to know. Or care to know. I don't know, that's not my issue. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC) What? the mediation broke down when Kevin resigned. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Uh? Provide a diff please? Everyone one of my posts has either been in response to a dispute from you (i.e, you are a disruptive editor WF, or your reliable articles are editorials, you are inflexible, etc..) or posting a suggestion with policy-endorsed references. I had one nice tangent on the importance of BLP standards when Kevin claimed BLP-policies (NPOV, OR, VER) were subject to "interpretation" by editors. That is just utterly bizarre, after we agreed the mediation would be proceeded with strict-BLP policies. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC) I am not sure if past issues should be relevant or not, but I just thought that Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive33#User:Wikifan12345_and_User:Brewcrewer and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive534#User:Wikifan12345 might be relevant as well. I will point out that I filed the second instance.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Definitely relevant. You filed the second one after it was agreed upon that we would drop past disputes. I was about to file an incident against you for ownership, revert warring, and dependence on propaganda references and reverting those who remove them in spite of discussion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Hmmmm. What are you guys disputing? We had these same discussions at the talk page which I gladly wasted time continuing. It is extreme bad faith to misrepresent disputes. IP filed a civility charge following a mediation agreement where past actions would be annulled. Of course, I threatened to submit a notice against the IP for gross BLP violations (using propaganda and unreliable sources to support the article, and reverting those who try to remove them) and incivility. This is nothing less than a disgusting foil and I will be crafting a nice response in a second. Thanks guys, really. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC) For much more accurate picture, it would be best to actually read the talk discussion instead of the textbites posted here. This wasn't supposed to be a battle. All I wanted was for a uninvolved admins/editors to see what's going on. Maybe I am totally wrong and this whole ME/Israel relationship is one big conspiracy. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC) I have invited other users who were involved in the mediation to share their comment as well.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC) I think it would be handy if more people with an interest could join the discussion, although it should be noted that with four or five people on one side and one person arguing in opposition adding new people is just a numbers game. The rest of the thread above, rehashing arguments in the dispute, should probably be collapsed if we hope to actually draw people to the talkpage. Nathan T 16:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC) The problem is that the discussion is going in a loop with the same argument being repeated ad infitum. I'm not sure how that should be dealt with. I agree a fair amount of the material above could be collapsed.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC) I do not intend to engage in discussion on this page, except for this note. I do not believe Wikifan has a legitimate complaint. If anything, the other editors have a legitimate complaint about Wikifan's confrontational behavior. He has wasted a lot of people's time. Simply look at the discussion page Talk:Mohamed ElBaradei and judge for yourself. NPguy (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Well, I responded to all the claims against me here. Feel free to directly respond when time is available. I do agree, please review the talk discussion page at ME. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of socket puppetry and disruptive editing

Not long ago, user Moshe-paz vandalized the article Salvador Allende adding an ironic remark in a somewhat controversial graph [102]. I reverted his edit and went to his talk page to explain why I did so. As it might be seen from the edit history, and the talk page, the article about Allende is sometimes polemic and people usually use it to push their political viewpoints.

User Moshe-paz now thinks I'm several other users and is using the summary description box to accuse me of socket puppetry. [103]

I don't know under what grounds he's basing his accusations, but I believe he should be warned (at least by an administrator) that the edit description field should be used only to summarize one's edits, and no to make spurious personal attacks. Likeminas (talk) 00:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

In my defense, there are many terms in wikipedia, many more which I might not know about. What is socket puppetry?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

They can be hard to dislodge. Sometimes they require a socket wrench. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It might not take a craftsman to snap on to the meaning here. PhGustaf (talk) 05:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

When we find multiple account abuse, we socket to 'em. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

In other words, they're screwed. MuZemike 17:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't be a smartass. //roux   02:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

undocumented bots redux

I started a thread on a poorly documented bot. Someone marked that thread as "resolved" before I had a chance to reply to the comments of those who assert that everything is under control.

Sorry, I don't agree. There are a bunch of new bots, which may have been authorized, and may be doing what the authors said they would do. But they are not doing so in a clear or transparent manner.

As I noted in the other thread, I checked the approval discussion for the last bot that troubled me, there was absolutely no mention of what kind of explanation the bot author would supply for the rest of community.

I regard a clear and meaningful document that explains the bot's activity as an essential component of every bot or robot editing tool. I regard it as essential that those charged with approving bots review that explanation document, and make sure it is clear for even those unfamiliar with whatever problem the bot is meant to address. I regard it as very unfortunate that the approval process so far has skipped this step. Geo Swan (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the wrong venue. You should post this at Wikipedia talk:Bot policy, Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group, or Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard. Also, you should include specific examples of your concerns as its hard to work from such generalities. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

And getting the bots reviewed without any thought given to clear and transparent documentation stopped before they have finished doing all their very had to revert damage? Geo Swan (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are asking as that sentence is hard to parse. This is not an issue that requires administrator intervention. Bots are not going to get blocked simply because their documentation is not up to snuff. The bot pages are the best place for this concern. If there is a specific bot (or bots) you have concern with, you should consider asking the bot operator to improve their description.

The bottom line is that everyone is going to agree that bots should have a "clear and meaningful" description of the work being done. The problem is that not everyone is going to agree whether a given description is "clear and meaningful". That is why specifics of your concerns are going to be more useful over generalities. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust denier from Canada

Resolved

 – IP blocked 48h for disruptive editing. Icestorm815 • Talk 19:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

142.46.214.106 (talk · contribs) is pulling no punches when it comes to claim that the Holocaust is one big hoax, lie, fraud etc. Could this - sorry - freak be prevented from editing any further, on the simple ground that he is being offensive, disruptive etc. etc.? Or am i being too sensitive here? (i admit i could be)? Thank you, --RCS (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I've heard the same thing about Canada. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

There user has also been disruptive in the 9/11 venue, where I sometimes edit. This is a hard core soapboxer who persistently violates WP:NOT.[104][105][106] I recommend blocking the IP for 3 months. Hopefully that will be long enough to convince them to take their activities to some other website that is more in line with their objectives. Jehochman ^Talk 14:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The user is writing about this in talk space, not article space. He's brief and writes in complete sentences. He may be annoying, but he's not damaging Wikipedia. --John Nagle (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It's clear he has absolutely no interest in improving articles, so why allow blatant talk page trolls to waste volunteer time? He's been warned, endorse block per Jehochman if it continues, would've done it myself if he had not left one of his diatribes on an article I've written. WilliamH (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that the editor in question is moderately annoying. So are many other editors. That's not grounds for blocking. As long as he stays in talk space, he's not, strictly speaking, violating WP:NOT. So just ignore him. Either he'll go away, or do something that actually requires administrator intervention. Wikipedia:Vandals versus Trolls seems to be relevant here. --John Nagle (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, he is violating WP:NOT, specifically, WP:NOTFORUM. RBI already.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 18:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Is now insulting other editors. WilliamH (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

IP socks

Hello! I've recently blocked

• 86.45.217.99
• 86.45.214.46
• 86.40.108.54
• 86.40.192.168

via AIV and vandalism on my talk page. They are claiming to be part of the The Wikipedian Reform Trust, whatever that is. I think a range block would probably be helpful, but have no idea how to do one. Could someone have a look please? Ta. GedUK  17:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, for range blocks I use this tool here. From the IPs listed, it doesn't look like a range block would be feasible because there would be too much collateral damage. Icestorm815 • Talk 17:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The mention of user:Schuminweb here and here rang a bell. This is, I think, banned editor User:Johnjoecavanagh, who has been harassing user:Schuminweb for a considerable time, over a year; see. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive527#Long-term_harrassment.3F. A range block is not really an option in my opinion. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly does seem to be the same person. RBI then. GedUK  19:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, edit warring and potential vandalism in Arash (entertainer) article by a trio of editors

• Raayen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Iroony (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• St._Hubert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The following users User:Iroony, User:Raayen and St._Hubert have become a very disruptive and repeatedly over the past several days engaged in edit warring and reverts of multiple authoritative sources in the Arash (entertainer) article. They remove, sometimes with no explanation at all, other times with hard to read and comprehend "rational" that since only Arash's grandfather is Azeri, thus the Azeri ethnic roots of Arash should be completely supressed from everywhere in the article, even though:

• There are at least half-dozen authoritative sources mentioning the Azeri roots of Arash
• Arash himself has proudly declared it numerous times, as is reported per above
• Being 1/4 (25%) Azeri is definitely worth mentioning
• In Iran, like in Azerbaijan and Sweden, nationality of the child is passed/determined by the male line, hence having a grandFATHER is an important and major detail
• Arash accepted the offer from Azerbaijan to sing in a duet with another Azerbaijani singer, and his ethnic roots are key to explain his decision, according to his own interviews in which he touts his ethnic Azeri roots and says he is very proud of it.

All these users have been warned in Edit Summary and in the Talk Page numerous times by many editors ( [107], [108], [109], [110], [111]), but continue to engage in such unfortunate disruptions. I've been trying to reason with them, but they seem uninterested in listening and understanding. Please make the page semi-protected and explain to those users to stop removing sourced information and be so disruptive, edit warring and vandal-like. Here are the diffs:

• Revision as of 07:10, 19 May 2009 against Goldorack by an anon 92.2.207.180

• Revision as of 15:51, 19 May 2009 by Raayen against Proger

• Revision as of 16:15, 19 May 2009 by Iroony against Proger

• Revision as of 17:13, 19 May 2009 by anon 92.5.31.246 against Proger

• Revision as of 17:42, 19 May 2009 by Raayen against Proger

• Revision as of 17:48, 19 May 2009 by Raayen against Proger

• Revision as of 18:55, 19 May 2009 by Iroony against Goldorack

• Revision as of 23:03, 19 May 2009 by St Hubert against Proger

• Revision as of 14:55, 22 May 2009 by St Hubert against Goldorack

• Revision as of 10:46, 23 May 2009 by Iroony against Goldorack

Thank you. --Goldorack (talk) 12:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, sources and what Arash has said in an interview imply that one of Arash's great-grand fathers was Azeri not his grand father. The origin of someone's great-grand father is trivial, doesn't belong in the lead. I removed this information to a sub-section about the artist early life. I should add that this user is using poor sources on the biography of a living person and I ask admins to warn him for violation of WP:BLP.--St. Hubert (talk) 01:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope, the sources say it's his grandfather. Then, it is not trivial (and you have never edited the page, you just reverted it, removing all that information), and can be both in the lead and in the body, since Arash has been talking a lot about his Azeri roots, and it explains why he was invited, and accepted, to co-represent Azerbaijan. --Goldorack (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Protected due to it being a content dispute for now. I'm willing to bet there's some weird socking/meating going on somewhere in there, and Goldorack (talk · contribs) seems to be quacking with his adept use and knowledge of wikipedia policies and processes as a new user. Combined with his similar edits to a recently-blocked user, Xaghan (talk · contribs), on Erich Feigl, I'm suspicious— especially since three other editors oppose his edits, the ips involved are from the same ISP (turktelecom) as in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Azturkk/Archive, and a bunch of other weird things, there's nothing really definite without a checkuser, and I don't even know if it's definite enough for that. For now, it's protected, and please attempt to gain consensus on the talk page. --slakr^\ talk / 04:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

First of, all should be happy that users know Wikipedia rules, and not complain about knowing them. Secondly, please checkuser everyone involved, as well as with any blocked/banner users - better, if done transparently and by a group of administrators. The violations of the trio of users above are well documented and presented, those editors should be warned, and the page semi-protected or protected on the correct version, not the one which is a result of the violation of Wikipedia policies and rules. thanks. --Goldorack (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I have received an email from the office of one of the subjects whose biography this user has been edit warring on. I'll forward a copy of it to the Wikimedia Foundation.

Given the user's advanced familiarity with Wikipedia, and given the controversial topic area (Armenian-Azeri articles), I have blocked Goldorack (talk · contribs) indefinitely as an SPA and likely sockpuppet used for POV-pushing, edit warring and adding original research, mainly on biographies of living persons. Even if he is not a banned user, his behavior still violates WP:GHBH, considering that virtually all of Goldorack's edits consist of disruption. Khoikhoi 20:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse the block Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Brent Harding

Could an administrator please ban 75.59.177.1 as soon as possible?

He (or she) continues to vandalize the Brent Harding by removing the paragraph about him appearing on the next Social Distortion album and resuses to stop doing that. He thinks that paragraph is not notable enough to be on the page and thinks that my sources are not proof. IT IS a fact that he will appear on the new album and the band members themselves also confirmed that he will be in it as well, which means that it is notable being in the article and that there's no sense in not being in the article. Next time 75.59.177.1 or someone else keeps removing the paragraph about him being on the next Social D album, a page protection will be filed. This edit war should stop, because I'm already getting tired of reverting back.

So, please block 75.59.177.1 or just protect the page, so that the argument could stop for good. Alex (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ultimate Guitar does not seem like a reliable source. I see a link to submit articles, does that mean anyone can write an article and then submit it? If so, it cannot be used as a source. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 22:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Reports on UG are the only sources I know that say that Brent will be on the next Social D record. Alex (talk) 22:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't it strike you as odd that there is only one source for this? Perhaps you should omit that section until better sources come along. It appears you and the IP have been edit warring over this information, which is a blockable offense. I would suggest WP:3O and form a consensus on whether or not to include the information. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 23:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The IP user is the one who continues this edit war, he won't stop removing what appears to be accurate and does belong in its article. Alex (talk) 23:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It takes two people to edit war. If the source is in question, find a better one--Jac16888^Talk 23:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Sensitive information reported and undone. Please help delete edit history

Resolved

No harm intended, and none was done. Law _{type! snype?} 04:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Jay Bennett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hello. I need help editing a page 'history'. I regretfully edited a page and it has come to light that this hurt many people and may damage the reputation of another. I undid my edits on the page, but for the sake of all parties involved I need to go a couple of steps further and delete the 'edit history' for my account 'maehem' before it can cause further damage. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maehem (talk • contribs)

I've gone ahead and done so. I know you realize your mistake, but I cannot stress enough that WP:BLP is very important, especially for the reason you mentioned. Law _{type! snype?} 00:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the oversight works, but did you remove it from the page's history, and his contributions?Drew Smith What I've done 00:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't oversight it - I don't have that function. I deleted the edits. In theory, an administrator can still see them. The edits were more of a bad joke; not anything that needed to be obliterated from Wikipedia. Law _{type! snype?} 00:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this is resolved. I don't know if "bad joke" is the best description (was anyone trying to be funny?), I'd just call it vandalism. As the vandalism edits are no longer evident in the user's edit history, I've left them a warning against vandalizing. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I would ask given the circumstances that you remove the warning. This wasn't vandalism at all. In fact, the user apparently did not want to be the first to report that the individual was deceased. This is a very odd situation. Law _{type! snype?} 03:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Eeep, I see now. I mistakenly thought this was another example of vandalism false death report. I'll remove the warning. Curious stuff... -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

...actually this wasn't a bad joke or vandalism, it seems as though the user "leaked" to Wikipedia. Jay Bennett passed away this weekend, and this user who appears to be connected to Wilco through acquaintance posted the news of his death before it was announced by his record label. It's now being carried in the Chicago Sun-Times[112]. So this wasn't a BLP or vandalism issue. Keegan^talk 03:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Very odd. And before I read that it was Jay Bennett, I though we were talking about the sean connery thing.Drew Smith What I've done 03:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well Drew, thanks for bringing that to my attention. I protected Sir Connery. Law _{type! snype?} 04:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait, you mean you guys didn't know about that? I saw the edit immediatly after it happened, using huggle, but AdGF, and simply sent a message asking for sources. Afterwards I looked it up and found a blog saying that somebody's screwing with wikipedia again.Drew Smith What I've done 07:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sock needs a block

Resolved

 – sock blocked.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Justme89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Thewiki289 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The second noted user has been confirmed as a sock of the first, does anyone mind blocking it while I revert their edits?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You know there is a whole other forum for this type of stuff--Jojhutton (talk) 04:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I certainly don't mind blocking, but you're going to have to show me where this confirmation occurred. AniMate^draw 04:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

They were just confirmed as one in the same at the SPI case, yet no blocks have been handed out. Where would you suggest I ask for a block on a confirmed account, then? Is there some AIV like noticeboard for that?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Justme89.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, looks like the checking CU beat you to the punch.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Eseverance

Resolved

Could we please get an admin over there? Eseverance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is trying to start a "petition" against the CSD criterion G11 (blatant advertising) on his/her talk page, calling it a "wiki law." This is after s/he attempted to repeatedly spam Wikipedia with something called "Wonder Lilly Inc." Some of the pages s/he created were Wonder Lilly Inc., www.wonderlilly.scriptmania.com (which was recreated so many times that Dank (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) had to salt it), and even his/her own userpage. According to a previous revision of the userpage, a subject of the spamming is Jack Russell Terrier; one should probably take a look at his/her contributions to the article. Now I really regret approving his/her request for an account.

Seriously, enough is enough; COI, spamming, switching to plain disruption after a final warning from Backslash Forwardslash (talk · contribs) – I recommend slapping a nice block on Eseverance (want a quick link?). → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 09:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Update: Moved from AN for greater visibility. → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 09:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

They appear to have no productive contributions whatsoever. There was disruption after the final warning, so I have blocked them. Jehochman ^Talk 10:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Banned user User:USEDfan has returned

Seicer dealt with this user in the past, and his never ending sock puppets, but since Seicer retired I am requesting help here. I am hoping this user can be blocked per WP:DUCK. Landon1980 (talk) 05:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

USEDfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) hasn't contributed in almost a year, so you'll need to be more specific. Which user is quacking? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Felix 12 22 (talk · contribs), apparently. --auburnpilot talk 06:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Well damn, I thought I listed his new account. Sorry about that. Landon1980 (talk) 06:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If you know the history of USEDfan it is very easy to tell without a doubt this is him, everything fits. Raul uncovered his last 3 or 4 socks and blocked them after running a checkuser. I suppose I could ask him if he would care to take a look again. Landon1980 (talk) 06:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely a problem. Can an admin think about full protection on The Used for a short term, perhaps a few days? (and hi to bugs) tedder (talk) 06:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

A full protection wouldn't really solve anything. I'll not revert him any more. I'll just wait for the checkuser to come back. I couldn't care less what "version" the article is currently. I was just attempting to stop a banned user. If you know the history of USEDfan, and have seen his edits it is blatantly obvious, and that is why I was reverting. Landon1980 (talk) 06:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Short term full protection doesn't solve anything, except stop the edit war from escalating while a checkuser is going on: ("Full protection is used to stop edit warring between multiple users"). tedder (talk) 06:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but now that I have stopped who is left other than him? If he continues to edit war with multiple users (meaning multiple users all reverting him and not one another) he can be blocked for 3RR while awaiting the results. Landon1980 (talk) 06:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the articles that I keep an eye on. I didn't realize that Felix was a problem, his edits seemed generally helpful, though now I see that things have escalated overnight.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

USEDfan's edits never were all that bad, he was banned for edit warring, ownership issues, etc, etc, etc. If someone would take the time to look at USEDfan, and his listed sock puppets (which is only a fraction of them) they would see they are one and the same. Everything is the same i.e. his editing style, the edits themselves, how he reacts when called a sock, the username is even similar to the ones he chooses. I have asked Raul to take a look, so hopefully he will. I would bet my life (well a whole lot of money) on this, it's that obvious. Landon1980 (talk) 07:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I've issued a 24-hour block for edit-warring while someone more familiar with this user's edits takes a look to determine whether it's the same person. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely quacks like a duck, all the same articles, same MO. We tried a course of rehabilitation once, which made things a bit better. When that didn't work there used to be an IP which could be hardblocked, but it will be worth getting a checkuser to check that. Btw the original account for this user is Xotheusedguyox (talk · contribs · block log). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

There have been multiple IP's hard-blocked in attempt to stop this guy. Raul most recently blocked an entire range trying to stop him. I am 15 for 15 with this guy, I have never been wrong about an account being a sock of his in the past. I really don't understand why WP:DUCK even exists if such an obvious block evading sock cannot blocked in the name of it. The MO is the same, all the articles are the same, the edits themselves are very similar, the editing style is the same, the reaction when called a sock is exactly the same. The username is even similar to some of his most recent socks. One thing that worries me is USEDfan (according to him) used to edit from school, and now that it's near summer I'm wondering if he may be back home, and home be in a completely different area. Rauls blocks seem to have stopped him for a while, so he obviously is no longer using that same range, as it's still blocked. Landon1980 (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Despite your winning percentage, if we can't prove it is him, we have to let him edit, keeping a close eye on him. You've blocked him once. Escalating blocks for 3RR could ruin his whole summer in a hurry. Don't sweat it too much. I'm sure you are right, his editing pattern is very unusual for a new editor. But we have to prove it. Did Raul get back with the checkuser?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have asked if several of his socks were not blocked per wp duck in the past. They were later confirmed by a checkuser though. I would have already requested a SPI, though based on my experience they will say "obvious socks do not warrant a checkuser." Have you looked at the edits of some of his most recent sock puppets? I don't see how a person can look at this and not feel confident this is in fact USEDfan. I asked Raul to help out, but the last time I checked he hasn't been editing any. Landon1980 (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

User:BGC

It appears this user is choosing to ignore reminders, warnings, etc. that do not please him, and simply erases them from his talk page, while he continues to do the same things he was reminded and warned about (e.g. edit summaries, naming/citing sources, etc.). His edit history dates back to 2005, so he really ought to know the rules and guidelines by now. Would someone please look into the matter? Thanks. Zephyrad (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked indefinitely, pending explanation/resolution, for disruption. I am watching the page, and will unblock just as soon as a good reason is provided. Are there any article talkpage discussions, or project pages, where these issues are being/were discussed? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Not that I have come across, but you might want to check his talk page's history, and the articles referenced in the entries he has deleted. (Mine was not the only reminder deleted; there were several others, including a preceding one about The Cure, saying much the same thing – "Where are you getting your information? Where are your edit summaries?" etc.) I noticed a pattern of selective deletions from his talk page, going back some time. (Kinda like ignoring parking tickets, 'til suddenly your car's towed away.) With an edit history going back about four years, I'm surprised he's slipped by for so long... it's not like anyone's asking for the extraordinary, from him. Thanks for checking this out. Zephyrad (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Rude series of edits

Resolved.

I had been gone for the majority of the day today, and the first edit I saw today was this edit by TAway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I knew that I was no longer going to have administrative rights, but I felt that it was extremely rude for some random user to remove the item from my user page without any permission. I subsequently undid the edit and under my own name. An hour later, I received this message from TAway. I had already been in contact with DragonflySixtyseven and Versageek for their input on the situation as I took care of other matters, leading to this revert and these two messages. This led TAway to place these two messages on each user's talk page and then place this on his/her user page. A cursory glance into this user's edits shows this !vote at a recent RFA and the subsequent explanation of the change in opinion.

I don't know what to say of the user's article edits (less than 100 in ~6 months editing), but certainly civility and general courtesy could use some work.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

TAway's behavior was inappropriate. It looks as though DragonflySixtyseven and Versageek have already left notes on TAway's talk page. That seems sufficient unless there are further issues. Marking this as resolved. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Might want to check page again looks like he has an inappropriate post about Ryulong. KoshVorlon (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that has got to be the most intrusive signature I've seen yet. --64.85.220.141 (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's absurd. I'll remove it and message the creator. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 16:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

User Razzinator

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

User has been repeatedly warned, and blocked twice, for repeated behavior pattern of disruptive edits with zero discussion, often in the form of unsourced changes and addition of unsourced content to multiple articles. Most recent block for this pattern of disruptive editing was for duration of one week. A longer block is in order here.

I have repeatedly warned the user myself, and the user disrupted an article I later successfully took to Featured List quality status, so I would appreciate it if a previously uninvolved administrator could take action here. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Posted one last warning, hopefully will get the message. I left the option open for someone to block immediately if they know the facts better than me. GDonato (talk) 11:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Cirt (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

User:SchmuckyTheCat

• SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Re-instate the same red link "[[China, Hong Kong]]" for three times within six hours. [113] Baksando 00:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for obvious vandals and spammers only. Consider taking this report to Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• This is obviously not edit warring but simple vandalism. Where would be the suitable venue? Baksando 00:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• The fourth time in slightly more than 6 hours. [114] Baksando 00:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You both need to take this to the talk page of the article before the 3RR blocks get handed down. Law _{type! snype?} 00:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Similarly vandalised pages: [115] [116] Baksando 00:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Baksando is the latest incarnation of permanently and irrevocably banned User:Instantnood. His whining can be ignored, but it would be bad form of me to remove his complaint here. Also, Wikipedia:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits are not vandalism. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Note The above has been moved here from AIV, in case that helps with the context. Law _{type! snype?} 00:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Baksando 00:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on here, but I changed "China, Hong Kong" to "Hong Kong", because it's clear to me that the former is incorrect. If there's another form that's better, please fix it. --NE2 01:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Reading the complaint, I saw the typo. This is really about his long term history of returning to the same articles as Instantnood and doing POV re-orgs, not about a single typo. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 01:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait... is "Hong Kong, China" really correct for the location column, when the country column is just "Hong Kong"? --NE2 01:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It should be corrected to be Hong Kong, China, so that HK does not appear as an independent country in the same article as the PRC. The inconsistency is a sideshow compared to the classic IN behaviors of reverting templates and re-org'ing lists which is what got him banned by Arbcom to begin with.

Part of the point, is that banned users should be reverted, even to bad revisions. If it was a valid edit that needed fixing, someone else will do it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Then, in your edit, why does the country column read "Hong Kong"? Actually, if we're not supposed to show Hong Kong as an independent country, why does {{HKG}} exist? --NE2 01:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to break out the popcorn can do a little history [117], running to admins to bitch about me is part of the sockpuppet pattern. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It was not just about China, Hong Kong (for the List of largest cable-stayed bridges article). Two of the three Hong Kong bridges are listed to be in Hong Kong with the {{HKG}} template. For the other one, the {{PRC}} template is applied. SchmuckyTheCat keeps putting back the inconsistency.

This is obvious vandalism, given that he is an experienced editor [118] who edited extensively in Hong Kong- and China-related topics. For the other two entries (Talk:Mainland China and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/hist/manual), the act of vandalism is even more apparent. Baksando 01:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

"Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning a user, the community has decided that their edits are prima facie unwanted and may be reverted without any further reason." This includes talk pages and RFC. Your edits are unwanted, removing them is not vandalism, and I'm always going to know it's you. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

My third opinion: I notice that SchmuckyTheCat had a series of edit-wars with user:Instantnood. I also had an edit-war with user:Instantnood long time ago, and I agree that he was a troublemaker. No body likes him. But I am afraid it is a little bit too sensitive to suspect that every account on Wikipedia is a sockpuppet of user:Instantnood. I can see that user:Baksando is actually making quite a lot of constructive contributions to Hong Kong-related articles. He is probably not user:Instantnood. User:Instantnood would never be that constructive. :-p I think SchmuckyTheCat should relax. It's not cool to revert every edit that user:Baksando made. Let's all work together. :-) - Alan (talk) 04:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

My fourth opinion It sounds like SchmuckyTheCat is assuming user:Baksando is a sock puppet based on a difference of opinion as to whether HK should be listed in a country column as "Hong Kong, China" or just "Hong Kong", and based on user:Baksando bringing the edit war to the attention of the admins. I think we need more evidence. "Country" doesn't always imply independent country. Some editors seem to have an obsession with trying to classify every location by sovereignty no matter what the subject matter. This causes problems like this where editors have arguments about how to explain the issue of Hong Kong's sovereignty in an article about theme parks! The fact that more than one editor is arguing for a position similar to that argued for by Baksando is not surprising and does very little to argue for sockpuppetry. The second argument, that Basksando reacted in a similar manner to Instantnood by immediately running to the admins is certainly damaging to Baksando's case, but I don't think it is conclusive. Many new editors do that. And given that SchmuckyTheCat was reverting so much of Baksando's work, it is hardly surprising. I'm in agreement with Alan that Baksando should be given more time to show who he is and what he's about. Readin (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Baksando has been editing since 1 September 2007, about 5 months after Instantnood stopped. The timing is a bit suspicious, but it has been 20 months now since Baksando started. How often during that time has SchmuckyTheCat seen Baksando exhibiting Instantnood-like behavior? Readin (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a matter for WP:SPI? Durova^Charge! 17:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been keeping eye on Baksando for more than a year. This edit made me watch, [119]. This edit made me pretty sure [120]. Then all was quiet and nnocent, but this revisit confirmed it [121] and since then I followed closer.

There have also been a small number of IPs in use as well, which I haven't made a huge deal out of. [122], for instance would probably CU as Baksando, unless he uses Baksando over Tor, which he used to do.

Instantnood is a serial sockpuppeteer, who is well aware of the log timeouts of checkuser. He makes handfuls of accounts, uses them innocently, then goes on a bender. When one gets used up, he lies low for a few months (to clear CheckUser) on a new one making minor edits to build a little history. He uncovers himself when he revisits old revert wars because my watchlist suddenly lists changes to several dozen old articles at a time. He has several styles, both editing, and grammatical, that are easy to identify once you've noticed it.

It's not just a difference of opinion. You've seen me disagree with plenty of editors, even belligerent ones, on Chinese topics without saying "OMG, sockpuppet." I've rooted out at least a dozen of these accounts, almost all eventually being confirmed with CU or other meta log data. I've never made a claim that an account was a sock of IN and been wrong. You might also notice I'm not the only one reverting him, but I'm willing to engage him and call him out. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with [123]. What he said is 100% correct and in the right place.

The other diffs you provide do seem strange. Some just appear to be non-sense.

I do give you the benefit of the doubt Schmucky. That's why I didn't immediately revert your revert of comments made by Baksando on a talk page. Normally I don't tolerate reversion of talk page comments unless they are clearly vandalism. You've been around a while and are one of the very few long time editors on the pages I frequent for whom I've never been able to identify a strong bias and I can't recall every seeing you make a frivolous edit.

I guess I've said my piece. Readin (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with that edit, I'll show you why it confirms for me when I can spend a few more minutes. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 01:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Nunamiut

This editor is being quite disruptive of late. He apparently has repeatedly recreated The Money Masters after it was deleted in an AfD, under both that name and some others. They have repeatedly been CSDed, per policy, but he continues recreating. Tonight, he also began broadcasting messages all over the place, including editing the closed AfD, (Ctrl-click)">[124] adding a talk page to it, repeatedly trying to post a nearly unintelligible message at the Films notability page (Ctrl-click)">[125], and repeating a version on my talk page (Ctrl-click)">[126], and recreating a talk page for one of his earlier creations (Ctrl-click)">[127]. Looking at his other edits, I'm not seeing that he is doing much value here. Most are just his posting forum-like messages to other article pages. There is currently an RPP/Creation for the article itself, but though an admin might want to look further into this as his continued attempts are getting annoying.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I have salted the article and am leaving the editor a message about community consensus and other relevant topics to serve as a warning against further disruption. Mfield (Oi!) 05:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably just blowing off some steam, but he's not too pleased about the deletes - see User:Nunamiut#Unacceptable_behaviour. FYI - I marked one of the articles for speedy, based on previous version being deleted. He has, however, finally taken this to deletion review, so hopefully that will resolve matters. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Boron!

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive537 § request for a correction, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GFZLab, and User talk:Uncle G § Re: request_for_correction

We have a wonderful edit war on our hands with users that are not Wikipedians, but are internationally published physicists.

Talk:Boron

If any kind expert at dispute resolution could take a gander and try to sort this mess out, it'd be great. Keegan^talk 08:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamma boron discovery controversy. Mathsci (talk) 09:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • … and the prior ANI discussions. Uncle G (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

YTCracker

User:Ytcracker editing article YTCracker, making personal attacks, and recruiting meatpuppets to block the afd

Please see edits such as [[128]] and the sockpuppetry on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/YTCracker_(3rd_nomination), recruited by him, on his website www.digitalgangster.com Theserialcomma (talk) 11:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

YT has been indeffed by User:Toddst1. Now if that pathetic 'AfD' could only face the same fate. Law _{type! snype?} 11:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The sockpuppets at the AfD should also be blocked. Cirt (talk) 11:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It's obvious from his website that he has meatpuppets, but wouldn't it take a checkuser to find TY's socks? I'd be all for it. Law _{type! snype?} 12:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:DUCK? Cirt (talk) 12:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

When the AfD gets closed as delete, state "If it had not been for the preponderance of Sock- and meat-puppets, the arguments to keep may have been strong enough to keep. However, winners never cheat, and cheaters never win" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The same users that are voting delete have been making destructive edits and vandalizing the page, forcing fans like myself and others to come to the defense. How users defend a page has nothing to do with the notability of the page, the content of the page SHOULD determine the notability, and that's hard to do when its being purposefully degraded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.47.216 (talk) 12:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Theserialcomma editing article YTCracker, making personal attacks and false accusations.

This user has removed my additions and clean-up of the said article. All additions are cited and show no bias, regardless of the "meatpuppet" accusations. I find these attempts pathetic and assinine. Theredspecial (talk) 12:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this user is a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet, but as it's clearly one or the other, I hope no one minds that I took the liberty of blocking it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Law _{type! snype?} 12:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you block the other socks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YTCracker (3rd nomination)? Cirt (talk) 12:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The ironic thing is that the article itself is kind of in the gray area, on the borderline- it had a much better chance of passing before you created all the accounts (or sent all your friends). In a decision this close, though, a bunch of obvious puppet accounts disrupting the AfD makes experienced editors more likely to vote 'delete.' -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x2 I sure don't mind, go right ahead. And while you're at it, would you care to block these guys, please? Thank you! → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 12:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Took care of user:chozo_ninpo, who is a self-admitted meatpuppet/sled dog of YT. Law _{type! snype?} 12:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

I'm currently using another tab to file an SPI; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ytcracker should be bluelinked shortly. → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 12:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate blocks

I did some checking myself when all the "!votes" started happening and these seem to be fans of YTCracker and not "sockpuppets". Considering his fanbase I'm honestly not surprised at all but I wish they'd make better arguments in the AfD. That said however, I feel both of these two blocks are inappropriate and premature: [129] [130]
--Tothwolf (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Chozo's unblocked and another admin is working with YT. Law _{type! snype?} 13:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no intention of undoing the blocking admin's block- I strongly support an unblock of YT after the AfD closes, but whether it would be more useful to leave it in place until then or to unblock YT is a matter on which I'm happy to yield to User:Toddst1's judgement. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Two others I noticed (due to their ranting on their forums after the blocks occured) are: User:Theredspecial [131] and User:Edwardwoltin [132], both with the reason "Abusing multiple accounts". The first was done before Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ytcracker was even created and the second was done just as the SPI page was being created. Tothwolf (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Without reviewing, if all these accounts only started to edit to participate in the afd then they are meatpuppets by definition and are thus treated as sockpuppets per WP:SOCK - and all the worse if they were canvassed off-Wiki to attempt to sway the debate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

What I'm feeling is that, right now, the meatpuppets are very disruptive. But that any of them who would like to stay and become Wikipedia editors should be unblocked at their request- after the AfD is over. I used the 'multiple accounts' key when i blocked because WP:MEAT applied to them; I can't tell if any of them even want to edit the encyclopedia outside of this area. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I won't disagree that some of the "!voters" seem to be disruptive, although in my mind they are well within their right to discuss and vent their outrage over the AfD on their own forum. I wouldn't mind their participation in the AfD itself if more of it was actually constructive. Some of the earlier fan participants seem to have had their accounts awhile and appear to have previous editing experience. That said, I still believe AfD nomination itself was also disruptive; the nom didn't check the refs and he either did not notice or did not care that the article had been gutted by another editor. The turnout of YTCracker's fans really is not an entirely unexpected event. Tothwolf (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The point being - as made previously - that the obvious use of puppets chilled the other participants to the legitimate point that there were problems with the nom (per reading above, no opinion on unread afd). If a DRV were to be opened on the result, both the absence of puppets from that discussion and their unfortunate effect on the delete debate would certainly be very strong points to make. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

guh, I read the whole AfD and my brain liquefied from some of the hipspeak thrown around. If it's a problem for the closing admin, restarting it with semiprotection to allow editors who aren't being waved in off message boards to discuss it rationally might be an option. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) FWIW, there is no consensus right now considering only arguments from more established users. I would not oppose simply closing it as no consensus and leaving it there. However, this Reichstag climbing and personal attacks need to stop and now. MuZemike 16:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The AFD could probably close now, given the references I've since embedded. Individually and in summation, he pretty clearly passes WP:N. Closing the AFD would shut the meatpuppets up. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Did you add those sources? Please tell me if I mis-stated that in my closing.--chaser (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Undent. Which sources? I took the ones that were reliable from here and embedded them as inline citations. The remainder I put on the talk page (after removing the unreliable). I can't see anyone disputing reliability now, he's got whole articles about him in The Gazette (Colorado Springs) and Wired (magazine), there's no way to argue he doesn't pass WP:N. Your closing looks fine to me, I'd say that this is an ignore all procedures moment. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Continuing disruption and threats

See User talk:Ytcracker for the aftermath of the indef blocking. I think some further action need be taken, like talk page deletion and/or taking away ability to edit own talk page. MuZemike 01:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're looking at. He was pretty angry when the article about him was nominated for deletion, behaved badly, we had a nice conversation, he calmed down a lot, and he hasn't edited in hours. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

As someone who's actually had words with him, he chilled out and admitted his mistake. He hasn't edited in over 10 hours, and the blocking admin has agreed to unblock him. Law _{type! snype?} 01:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)