Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive529

Unsourced OR at Kali Yuga

Resolved

 – Even though no one responded here, other editors jumped in and helped. Abecedare (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Can some admin take a look at the edits by RANA DEVENDRA SINGH (talk · contribs), 121.245.126.123 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 121.245.86.240 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (definitely the same user) at Kali Yuga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ? The information being added is unsourced and fringe OR. The user has been warned about adding unsourced information and the 3RR rule, but instead of discussing the edits on the talk page, he simply logged off and started editing anonymously. I don't wish to keep reverting and violate 3RR myself; so more eyes and hands will be helpful. Abecedare (talk) 05:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Problems with a Senator's press office

An edit was made to remove sourced information from the Tammy Duckworth article which could be considered unflattering to U.S. Senator Richard Burr (R-NC). Since the deleting editor's username was User:Burr press office, I reverted the deletion and blocked the username as a role account (it was their first and only edit, so s.p.a. also applies, as well as COI, but that's not a reason to block as a rule). I later got an e-mail from an e-mail address that seems to be the senator's actual press office, demanding that I reverse the block and remove the unflattering information, because it was inaccurate. I forwarded my response to Mike Godwin, but did not unblock, explaining our rules about role accounts and welcoming the individual human being behind the role account to become an editor here on his own behalf (but warning about COI). I did follow-up on the accuracy issue raised, and updated the article with newer information which might be considered less unflattering to the senator. I thought folks should know what is going on; but is there anything else I should be doing? Is there anybody besides Godwin who deals with political entanglements of this kind? --Orange Mike | Talk 12:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As long as you're satisfied that the article is now verifiable, neutral and accurate, then the Senator's office will basically have to get stuffed. You can point them to this thread, and to the relevant policies; I think that Mike Godwin's the right person to take this further if it needs to go on, however. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 12:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey T-Tag? Since this is the government we're dealing with, with their penchant to get fired up over infinitesimal details of address and honorifics, though it's true to say that they'll have to accept the article once it's NPOV and verifiable, might we not find a slightly more-gentlemanly manner of saying so than "(they)'ll basically have to get stuffed"? Don't want the senators up our....er, don't want the senators upset about our word choice.GJC 18:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I kind of think that if they're going to do such ludicrously unwise things such as edit encyclopedia articles about themselves in their favour, then they've probably got a fairly low image the Wiki anyway... but point taken. They'll have to be content with the status quo. How's that for gentlemanly? ;-) ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Like a garden-party in the Queen Mother's backyard. :) GJC 19:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

There is always the OFFICE/OTRS avenue, but again there is likely to be little change as this is an wiki and verifiable content is permitted no matter how disparaging to the subject it is. I am glad you didn't point the Senators office to Free speech, however; that may have come as a bit of a shock... LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The contention of the press agent was that the verb used ("blocked") has a technical meaning in these matters, and thus was false; that is a legitimate concern, which in fact has been addressed. The difficulties involved were their violation of s.p.a., COI and role account rules here. In my e-mail back to the press agent, I tried very hard not to bite the newbie. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The more things change the more they stay insane. Send the good press office a link to this article: USA Congressional staff edits to Wikipedia. And oh the heck with it, I'll out myself: two years ago I wrote this article about the right way to manage this sort of thing. Must've been useful--it got 784 Diggs. So much for pseudonymity. Durova^Charge! 15:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Just making sure...

Resolved

Anyone familiar with the history of User:Simulation12--her "mother" logged in today and apologized on my talk page for her darling daughter's transgressions. Shall I block? (Of special note: the Sim13 account, back from "back then" when "she didn't quite understand the policy", was created three days ago and blocked shortly thereafter.) GJC 18:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Block.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Aye. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have enacted the block, as a third party after review, under WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets, point 3. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Gracias, mon peeps. GJC 19:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Linguistic contamination, Gladys? I see three different languages in three words, an impressive feat. (big grin) Horologium (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be "Gracias, mes peeps?" We do strive for accuracy here at Wikipedia... ;-)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I dunno from languages. My parents made me take four years of LATIN. And you know what? There's no such thing as "conversational Latin". You wanna talk about Caesar and the Gauls, I'm your girl. (Which actually, okay, I am totally NOT, because my high-school years were spent in a puberty-induced state of hormone-soaked emotional idiocy, leaving little time for any Caesar (unless he was a particular hottie with eyes for a dumpy, fashion-compromised word-nerd. And the Caesar in question? Was not. Old dead Roman dudes were waaaay outside my purview, then as now.))GJC 02:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Posted by User:Lpi-english

Resolved

 – Reporting user blocked for edit warring.  Sandstein  05:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I have had correct and unbiased information deleted by someone who is not an administrator.

The aricle I wrote is both accurate and I am personally aware of the integity of the facts and presented both "sides" of this issue.

There are 20 different choises of "dispute reosolution" and as this is my first (and probably last) time to post on Wikipedia, I cannot spend days trying to determine the precise process which of the mryiad of possible choices for a resolution is the correct one for me. Like you, I am astoundingly busy.

If what I wrote has no references, it is because there are none. The only "reference" is a book published by the test (the LPI) that I am writing about. Nobody needs this on Wikipedia, because the booklet does not tell the whole story.

I am intimately inviolved and extremely knowledgeable of what I am writing. The Wikipedia forum is open to those who may disagree. Let them disagree rather than censoring me. Since getting my IP address blocked (but not right now),I have been unable to revert the information about what I am writing back to the form I spent 10-20 hours writing (about 150 edits!). Read it please.

I did not think Wikipedia is what I though it is, and this is my mistake. Some things that are important to the people to whom I am writing to on that page (university students in Canada) were provided correct information available nowhere else, including people who are paid a lot of money to teach students something they really don't know about because the LPI (as noted in my page) is quite secretive about the process. Nevertheless, out of respect for the confidentiality given to me, I have not discussed some aspects of the test that were told to me in confidence, but have written an accurate, unbiased, and frank page that would be of interest to the people who use Wikipedia daily (university students).

I have neither the time or interest to battle Wikipedia. I have seen endless things on Wikipedia which cannot be foot-noted because the subject discussed has not been a part of the academic literature (something of which I know more about than most).

I am angry that the endless hours of work that I have put into this page was made inaccessible to the hundreds or thousands of people who would be grateful for the honest view that it provides.

If there is a short way to resolve this, I would like to do so. If not, I wish to leave Wikipedia alone, have my name deleted from your databank and just realize that I need to find a forum that is open to truthful dialogue about a subject that is of interest to the people I serve.

Yes! I am angry. But there is a reason. Sometimes anger is the best emotion, but if this cannot be resolved in a short perion of time, I wish to withdraw from this small battle.

If you do not allow me to write the truth about the subject I addressed, the just post "Read The LPI Book" on that Wikipedia page, because no one else will write what I did, and that book has not told students what they really need to know.

I am not even sure how we can communicate on this issue...or even if Wikipedia will respond.

If this letter is addressed to the wrong person, please forward it to someone who is willing to talk to me.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lpi-english (talk • contribs) 21:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That was a lot of words just to request a block for edit-warring. "I am edit-warring; please block me" would have been just as effective. I've honored this user's request, as he has multiple warnings about edit-warring on his talk page, and also left a more personal note trying to explain the rules. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Could someone have a talk with him/her?

Resolved

 – None of the commenting administrators sees anything actionable here.  Sandstein  05:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello. As is often the case with long-disputed issues, a certain article talk page has started to get a little heated.
I won't get into specifics about the nature of the dispute, as that's immaterial for the matter at hand, but sufficed to say, it concerns whether or not a certain 'urban legend' belongs in the Richard Gere article. Anyways, as with most issues, it's possible to make arguments either way, but I'm becoming increasingly troubled with the tone that's being taken with me.
The most significant examples can be found here.

• To bring out the WP:CIVIL gun for something so trite in an effort to reduce an opponent's argument is gaming the system. A bit of an AGF issue, but not terrible in and of itself (particularly since good people can disagree on what is or isn't civil).
• I'm not in a position to know whether you inhabit the real world or not so I can't tell if you are being obtuse, pedantic or naively innocent, as such I will assume good faith and presume the latter. I'd made the mistake of using the dictionary definition of a word, thinking that would be logical. Apparently, big mistake. How many insults are crammed into that one sentence? 4? 5? If you think that dictionaries are overly constricted in their definitions, say so. But that doesn't mean I don't inhabit the real word, or that I'm obtuse, etc. etc.
• Oh I forgot, it seems I can't use the term "reasonably" as that presumes that I'm talking to someone who knows reason. My great 'crime' here was to suggest that someone claiming that it's "reasonably accepted" that people primarily know the article's subject for an urban legend rather than his decades-long acting career was incorrect. I deigned to request proof of such a claim, and suggested that until it was proven, it obviously can't be "reasonably accepted" (after all, if nobody accepts it, it isn't accepted, right?). I don't see the need to question whether or not I know reason.
• It then goes into a muddle of accusations about 'wiki-lawyers', 'blinkered editors', etc.

I'm not suggesting that something direct be done to him, but I'd request that someone politely remind him that insults don't really contribute to the articles, and should be avoided. It's hard to get anything done when others involved are so grossly disrespectful.
I'm not asking anyone to take my side in the overall dispute (indeed, quite the contrary. it would look quite bad if I suddenly got a lot of support after making an ANI report). I don't even expect anyone to be particularly offended by his(/her) comments. I just don't want to waste all my time arguing about who said what to whom, ignoring the issue at hand. And, besides, that talk page is already getting long enough over such a trivial issue; the last thing it needs is completely pointless bickering.
I thank you for your time. 209.90.133.75 (talk) 22:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Block - 209.90.133.75 for baiting and wasting our time. Rklawton (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• I think it's highly unlikely that you'll get lots of support as a result of making this report. Quite the contrary in fact. If you're seriously concerned about the language or behaviour of another editor the best thing to do is to discuss it with them before opting for the nuclear option. What is it that you expect an administrator to do exactly? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Erm... seriously?
Rklawton, when was I baiting? I've tried my darndest to be logical and to the point, and yet have been hit by some very unwarranted nonsense.
Malleus, I'd tried pointing out the lack of civility earlier (because of issues in both discussions and edit summaries). This was hardly my first choice. What's more, I'm not the first person on that page to criticize his lack of civility. It's been mentioned on that article's talk page, and you can even see another discussion he had about it here. Can you really read his replies there, as well as on the article's talk page, and think this is something that's so easily resolved? As for what I'd like to be done, I've already said it: could someone have a word with him. He's been threatened with a block, which didn't go so good (and not really surprisingly so. I mean, lots of people don't like threats, myself included), but that isn't where I'd like to see it go. I'd like to see someone simply telling him that calling people "obtuse", "naive", unreasonable, or any number of other insults isn't constructive. I don't see why I should be blocked for wanting to simply get this stupid issue (that's been dragging on for about a week now) finally resolved, without having to deal with this crap as well. 209.90.133.75 (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, this report here is a waste of everyone's time. Webhamster was actually correct in suggesting that you grow some "thicker skin", no one was attacking or insulting you, and you seemed to be making a big deal out of nothing...WackoJackO 23:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

209.90.133.75: To be totaly honest, your tone could have been construed as slightly mocking, such comments as "The third reference suffers from precisely the same problem (seriously, did you even read what I asked for before posting? It's disheartening to say the least. Read and reply, or ignore me, but don't insult me by removing all doubt that you replied without knowing what you were replying to)." and "Please be serious." WackoJackO 23:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Editing wikipedia is about negotiating with other editors, not about getting huffy when they don't agree with you. I don't recommend that you should be blocked, that's a sanction all too often handed out without proper justification, I simply recommend that you learn to collaborate. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(bit of an edit conflict, so bear with me)

I don't argue that I don't have a 'thin-skin' (I've never seen it that way, but I've been told it often enough that I'm willing to acknowledge my own personal bias in that regard), but I think it's a little silly to say that no one was attacking or insulting. Everything I quoted above was insulting. The article talk pages are for discussing the articles or, when necessary, disputes over said articles. When about half of a large block of text consists of insults, general complaints about other editors, or really anything other than the actual topic at hand, I'd say that's a problem. I just want to get this bloody dispute resolved. And I don't see how people can really contribute to the discussion when they have to wade through that sort of thing. 209.90.133.75 (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Malleus: I'd love to collaborate. I put up with a lot of silly arguments without getting insulting about them. I mean, frig, by now I think you know what it is they're trying to put into the article, and yet I'm taking care to make it about the policies and the logic, not based on what they want to put in. (I even avoided the obvious, and common, joke about one editor's username and its relation to the subject) I only had a problem when the insults and such were starting to really derail the discussion.

Wacko (uh, this is in reference to your additional comment), I realize that I sometimes come across as sarcastic (something else I don't see myself, but have been told frequently enough to not dismiss), but, to be fair, look at the context of that comment. If I were to ask you for proof that Aldrin was the second person on the moon, and you repeatedly showed me proof solely that Armstrong was the first, wouldn't you expect me to eventually start wondering if you were paying attention? I was very clear in my request, in terms of what I was asking for sources on. And, as it turns out, even though he posted them as a reply to my request, he later confirmed that they were, indeed, for the very opposite of what I was requesting (ie. it was a reply that directly ignored what it was replying to). So, if my tone really is bothering someone, then I'll take it to heart, but are you saying how you took that, considering the context, or just how it could be taken? 209.90.133.75 (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No, that is definitely how I took that. However, I didn't come here and file a report about it, because it's no big deal. I only mentioned here now in light of your "report" about WebHamster.WackoJackO 23:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Now, I'll bow out, so I don't waste anymore time here with such a trivial issue.WackoJackO 23:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh... you equate my suggesting that someone wasn't paying attention is on the same level as multiple insults within the same comment? That's a bit of a stretch.

Incidentally, I said to 'please be serious' because you suggested that a single comment (made in this interview), wherein a person said, "I've also heard that 'Notting Hill' is fun, but I'm not sure I can ever look at Hugh Grant quite the same way again. I'm still having trouble with Richard Gere's alleged affection for gerbils.", was actually proof that someone (notably) believed that urban legend.

That was your reply to my request for proof that someone really believed it. So... which was it? were you really saying that was proof that it was notably believed (in which case, I'd again question if you were being serious), or was your source entirely ignoring the request to which you were replying? Bah. Either way, it's beside the point. It isn't particularly insulting to suggest that you aren't being serious with something like that. It isn't related to whether or not people should resort to outright insults when others are trying to get something done. I guess I'll try to be more careful with my tone, but our (two-way, incidentally) small disputes are entirely unrelated to this. 209.90.133.75 (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk about this somewhere else please. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd very seriously suggest that you leave this now. There is nothing in your complaint that requires the attention of an administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

67.194.198.99 strange behavior

Resolved

 – Warned and blocked.  Sandstein  05:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

User:67.194.198.99 is repeatedly reverting his own edits. His edits revert the edits of User:Mbinebri and then reverts his own edits. These happen on the article Marios Lekkas. I don't think this is exactly edit warring. Please stop this IP from making this unconstructive edits and from wasting bandwidth.--Edward130603 (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a fixed IP address at the University of Michigan. I've left a note on the talk page pointing out that this leaves the editor in a bit of an exposed position. Looie496 (talk) 00:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Given that the address is fixed, does not listen to warnings and appears to have no productive contributions, I've also blocked it for a month.  Sandstein  05:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

User:82.4.220.242

Resolved

 – User blocked for three months. Timmeh! 03:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This IP has been repeatedly making edits against consensus on United States presidential election articles over a span of several months. Most notably, he has been bolding the popular vote totals of winning candidates, contrary to established consensus, and he has repeatedly been changing the candidate images at United States presidential election, 2008, here, here, and here. After repeatedly being warned (and blocked) for his disruptive editing, he has refused to discuss any of the issues on the article talk pages, only making few short responses on his own talk page saying he would stop. However, he did not stop; he went back to doing what he said he wouldn't a week later and has been doing mass editing to multiple election related articles since then, bolding popular votes. A very long or indefinite block is suggested. Timmeh! 00:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. The Talk page shows this as an NTL proxy IP, but the contribs, which are massive, all appear to come from the same editor over the past few months -- an editor who has repeatedly been warned and has never once deigned to use an edit summary. Looie496 (talk) 01:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This IP has cause continued vandalism, and appears to have no intention of stopping despite numerous warning and notices from multiple users. Over the course of User talk:82.4.220.242 editing history every single one of his edits have had to be reverted because of his none compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines. In spite of this the user continues to demonstrate the same behavior over and over again. I am of the opinion that this user should be banned for an extensive period of time if not permanently. With out banishment the user has demonstrated they will continue to disregard the work of other users. It is clear they just do not care. Highground79 (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I've filed a report an WP:AIV. Looie496 (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Looie! Timmeh! 03:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

User(s) blocked: three months (talk · contribs). — Kralizec! (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Sock engaging in edit war

Spanish Empire is being repeatedly reverted by User:Resvoluci, a suspected sockpuppet of confirmed serial sockpuppeteer User:Cosialscastells. The article was semi-protected as Cosialscastells has been returning to it on an almost daily basis for well over a month. He has resurrected this old account to get past this block, and has already made 4 reverts. Is it possible to get the account blocked? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

As you noted - that's an older account than the other accounts (created in 2007, with the rest from late 2008 and early 2009). However, the behavior is all similar. Resvoluci could be the parent account for the activity.

I have indefinitely blocked. However, I support a checkuser review of this block. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Prodding spree

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

This was brought to my attention again [1] after the user added a notability tag to Graeae Theatre Company [2] (and re-added [3] after DreamGuy (talk · contribs) reverted it), also shortly after its AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graeae Theatre Company, closed as a speedy keep. Take a look at his contribs, though, as he has prodded over 50 articles within roughly a 25-minute timeframe. I smell POINT or similar. Can anyone make sense of this? MuZemike 18:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me add that all the prods pertain to Theme Time Radio Hour - something I didn't readily notice. I still sense something fishy, however. MuZemike 18:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The Theme Time Radio Hour prods are sound; most of those articles are just tracklistings for episodes of a radio show. Previous deletion attempts have been dubious or just plain wrong, and he's also created articles which have been PRODded straight away for being non-notable, and uploaded non-free images into articles where they don't belong. I, too, sense something very fishy. (Edit: look at his user page). Black Kite 18:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I informed Azviz about this discussion. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we ec'd when I was going to notify him. I went ahead and notified User:DreamGuy. MuZemike 18:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This account seems pretty fishy to me, but it seems to be part of a larger problem. It was created recently and jumped immediately to participating almost exclusively in edits related to deleting articles. It's nomination of Graeae Theatre Company for deletion was odd, as that's a little known article, and one of a few targeted for deletion by another recent editor that shot straight to AFD matters after creating a new account, User:Wordssuch, an account now abandoned. The Wordssuch account also targeted a bunch of articles for deletion -- Gloom (card game), Sploofus and a number of others -- whose sole commonality was that I had created them. User:Unionsoap, another relatively recent account focused primarily on AFD-type matters, recently tried getting Gloom (card game) deleted. User:Untick, also a recently created account, tried getting Sploofus deleted and has a user page similar to Azviz's. All of these account have taken actions that appear to be trying to harass me in some way, though usually not as blatantly as Wordssuch did. These all were created in the last month and a half or so and jumped immediately to making strange edits, including nominating very obscure articles of mine for deletion under very shoddy reasons. I'd list User:Esasus as someone who also seems to make very similar edits (mainly AFD-and related edits, harassment of other editors), but that account wasn't created as recently as these others... his user page is reminiscent of some of these others, though...

Also, for those who didn't poke around Azviz's history, he recently deleted warnings on his talk page, so theolder version shows some recent activity there.DreamGuy (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Detailed response by Azviz

I have been reading wikipolicy, and it seems to me that I am the target of WP:UNCIVIL. If the reason for the report against me is proding, then the issue should have already been closed. As stated by [[User:Black Kite] "The Theme Time Radio Hour prods are sound; most of those articles are just tracklistings for episodes of a radio show."

I suggest that there is a background concerning the two reporting editors that needs to be examined in detail.

The following is my evidence that both User:DreamGuy and User:MuZemike have violated WP:UNCIVIL. Several days prior to nominating the "Theme Time" episodes, (and in addition to other helpful edits made) I nominated three articles for deletion:

• Rephormula - Proded March 31st and still in AfD (likely a KEEP).
• Live Armageddon - Proded April 1st and still in AfD (likely a DELETE).
• Graeae Theatre Company Proded April 2nd with AfD closed as KEEP.

Upon my good faith prod of the article Graeae Theatre Company, two editors made me the subject of their unwarranted personal attacks and harassment. All of edits have been made in good faith, and I strongly object to the two editors assuming bad faith, and are making personal attacks against me. I have been reading wiki policy, and it seems to me that I am the target of WP:UNCIVIL.

Contrary to the policy listed at Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, and for reasons that I do not know, both editors User:DreamGuy and User:MuZemike have targeted me for harassment. Both of these editors have accused me of acting in of bad faith. Wiki policy states at WP:AOBF "Making accusations of bad faith can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may be unhelpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is actually in bad faith. The result is often accusations of bad faith on your part, which tends to create a nasty cycle."

The timeline of their attacks against me are as follows:

• 1st at 17:14, 2 April 2009 User:DreamGuy accused me of being a sockpuppet Link

• 2nd at 23:03, 2 April 2009 User:MuZemike accused me of being a sock puppet Link

• 3rd, at April 2 2009, 23:03 User:MuZemike then made a false report against me of as a "Suspected sockpuppets", which was quickly closed as unsubstantiated. Link

• 4th, at 17:16, 10 April 2009 (today), within a few hours of me performing a minor tagging edit on Graeae Theatre Company (the same article that prompted the false sockpuppet report report against me), User:DreamGuy posts a message to User:MuZemike's talk page Link.

• 5th, at 18:08, 10 April 2009, assuming "bad faith", User:MuZemike replies on his talk page Link

• 6th, at 18:19, 10 April 2009, Without giving me any king of warning or notification, User:MuZemike files this report against me about a "Prodding spree" for the reason that he senses "something fishy" This report is a clear violation of WP:AOBF. Link

• 7th, at 22:13, 10 April 2009, User:DreamGuy posts comments on the notice board also using the similar words as User:MuZemike stating that it "seems pretty fishy", and posting further examples of his accusations of bad faith against me. Link

• Neither of the complaining editors User:MuZemike or User:DreamGuy brought their concerns to me first, which is another violation of wiki policy. I was not even aware that the community was discussing my edits until User:Jauerback properly made me aware of these discussions Link.

• User:DreamGuy's Block Log is extensive, demonstrating that he has been a long time problem in the wiki community, which make me wonder why his complaint to User:MuZemike was given any credibility.

I hope that my above lengthy response to the bad faith accusations made against me will enlighten some editors to the fact that certain editors harass and make unwarranted personal attacks on new editors, making it very difficult for a new editor to have a good first impression and therefore to become involved in the wiki community. Azviz (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

New editor? I seriously doubt that. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 23:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

My question is that how do "new" users learn how to prod and add maintenance tags on articles so quickly? The only reason the first sockpuppetry case could not be proven was because I was unaware that the other account was stale. I should also point to a sockpuppetry accusation made against me here in retaliation for that. MuZemike 23:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have never claimed to be a new user. Please see WP:SOCK#LEGIT for wiki policy on Legitimate uses of alternative accounts which states "Alternative accounts have legitimate uses. For example, prominent users might create a new account to experience how the community functions for new users." Azviz (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I did not know that, nor was I expected to; I apologize for that. However, there are more collegial ways of informing other users of that, such as a civil reminder on a talk page or even via email if privacy is necessary, instead of retaliating with accusations and baseless threats. MuZemike 01:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't be so quick to apologize. "I have never claimed to be a new user" is a false statement. At least twice in this post [4] he claims to be a new user. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to note that contradiction. I don't understand exclaiming BITE when it is clear to many users here that none of these accounts are from new users. MuZemike 01:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

And when called on it, he suddenly invoked the "legitimate" sockpuppet defense, perhaps to try to pre-empt a sockpuppet investigation. All the more reason to conduct such an investigation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I repeat - I never claimed to be a new user. Nowhere in my response do I make that claim. Please point to a quote if you wish to prove otherwise. Azviz (talk) 02:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

My mistake - I forgot to predict in my last post that you would argue exactly what you just did above. Your user ID is new, and you talk about not biting the newbies, and talk about how new editors suffer personal attacks. So you leave the impression you're new without actually saying those exact words. So here's another word: "Weasel". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The wiki community will internalize the information they get from this report, and my response, as it sees fit. But as you read this please note that this matter was brought to this forum based on no violation of any policy. I suggest that the report was made to this page for the purpose of harassment. Such uncivil behaviour happens all too often in the Wikipedia community. Hopefully the wise editors and admins will realize the negative effect such actions create, and will work towards sanctioning those who make such frivolous and harassing reports. Azviz (talk) 02:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't push your luck. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Prodding OK. Socking not OK. One account to a customer, please. (The legitimate exceptions to this are very limited.) --John Nagle (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Obvious sock

Resolved

 – Blocked.  Sandstein  05:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

FunMan17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is obviously a return of indefinitely blocked Bun39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Creating pages in Wikipedia namespace to make announcements, and other various disruptive edits ongoing. Would appreciate someone looking into this more. --Onorem♠Dil 22:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment He put a {{helpme}} template on my userpage [5], either not understanding what that tag is used for, or to make it look like I was asking the question instead of him. - 2 ... says you, says me 23:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. He threw up an unblock request within 2 minutes. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That had to hurt! Reminds me of the radio announcer who reported that a relief pitcher was "throwing up in the bullpen". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

...and declined due to quacking noises. Looking at the topics this account is editing, it is indeed an obvious sock of Bun39. —Travis^talk 23:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I deleted Wikipedia:Bun39 is now Defunct per G3 as well. —Travis^talk 23:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Postscript: I have reblocked him with talk-page editing turned off. He was just screwing around, and was not using his ability to edit his own talk page to legitimately contest his block. Given that, I thought we didn't need it anymore... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Reporting anon user 89.130.28.68 behaviour

Resolved

 – Blocked for 1 week by FyssalFZ. --GedUK  11:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Today when I woke up, I found a whole lot of personal attacks from anon user 89.130.28.68 against me.

Messages such as:

• "THIS USER IS SUCH A STUPID AND BIASED WIKIPEDIA EDITOR. SHOULD BE BANNED FOREVER!" on my user page.
• A blanking of my talk-page with the following message "buaagh i'm sick only reading this user please..remove him from wiki!!!!".
• "that is fucking stupid and haves no sense!!!! That is a person with various nationalities NOT A NATIONALITY OF SPAIN . ONLY MAURICE27 CAN SAY THAT!" in the Nationalities of Spain article.
• "WTF!!! IS NOT POSSIBLE THAT MAURICE27 IS STILL EDITING THIS ARTICLE FROM A SUCH BIASED AND STUPID POV!!!!!!" in the Catalonia article. (NOTICE that I hadn't edit that article since January 17, 2009

I ask the admins to urgently stop this kind of behaviour with a ban from a user who has been attacking me since April 2, 2007 and who I'm pretty sure is a sockpuppet from User:Martorell due to him removing this text [6] from my user page. Thanks. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 10:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

There was another personal attack posted here by 81.154.183.54 - they also posted an uncivil unblock request review. I have reverted their edits and blocked them for 1 week as well. Camw (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that; there were 6 sleeper vandal accounts there. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

User:QuackGuru

Something needs to be done. -download | sign! 21:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I've already warned him. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

He's been warned numerous times. [7] -download | sign! 21:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Difs, anyone? "something needs to be done" is rather vague. (grumpy puppy) KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh bother. Tilting at windmills again I see. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The concern here is QuackGuru editing Jimbo's userpage to state that he was co-founder, not founder of Wikipedia. See the history for more details. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the worry is also Jimmy Wales. By the way Download, Quack can blank warnings from his talk page as he pleases, let him. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this the longest running edit war in history?!? He's been doing this semi-regularly for YEARS now. Can we just establish a consensus for a community ban on editing related to this issue? He's just doing it to make a WP:POINT, and its getting quite old now... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

We as a community should think really fucking hard about two things:

1. Jimbo is making quite provably false statements about his role in Wikipedia. Is this acceptable? Non-admins are not allowed to claim they are admins. Why should Jimbo be allowed to claim he is the sole founder when in his own words he was not?
2. More prosaically, is topic- or community-banning Sanger an intelligent response to this situation, whatever your feelings about his veracity, given the potential for truly awful PR?

Point #1, feel free to dismiss if you like. Clearly there are some people on both sides who are immovable. Point #2, however, is something the entire community needs to consider very, very carefully. //roux   02:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, this isn't a discussion for banning Sanger. The discussion is about QG. Now in that regard, Jimbo can say whatever he wants on his userpage clearly. Editing the page in that way is more or less vandalism. The next issue is whether he should be banned from Jimbo Wales. I'm inclined to say no given that QG has a plausibly valid point. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

People are generally allowed wide leeway with regards to their userpages. It is important (relatively) that Jimmy Wales comply with NPOV and OR, that User:Jimbo do so is not. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue, as with ALL edit wars, is not the veracity of the information being warred over. It's over the behavior. If it is verifiable and relevent, let someone else add it. Follow dispute resolution and establish consensus. The issue is not the inclusion or not of some nugget of information, its the constant refusal to use proper means to resolve disputes, and the insistance on simple edit warring as the means by which to force through ones edits, whether or not the substance of those edits is "true". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite topic ban on the Jimbo-related articles. UPDATE: My original reasoning for this was based on a glance through his actions at the userspace in conjunction with Jayron32's comment that a slow edit-war had been going on for years, which I took as credible given the actions at the userspace. I don't think there was much of an excuse for adding the co-founder bit into Jimbo's userpage; a comment below said it shouldn't be done, and Jimbo can keep his page the way he wants. QG further readded Larry Sanger's letter after it has been deleted by Jimbo [8]. There's no excuse for this type of harassment. Deletion of messages by the talk page owner should be respected. There are a lot of people on Wikipedia, and losing one who seems driven to push the limits far past where they should be pushed, and does not seem to be an impartial voice on the subject, is not the end of the world. Jimbo may have his faults, but he was generous enough to donate this project to "the community", and there's no reason to harass him. He considers QG's actions to be harassment [9]. Incidentally, I just got an email from QG for my support saying that my "personal attack has been noted". II | (t - c) 16:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

We have evidence of him causing trouble on User:Jimbo Wales. Please provide evidence of bad faith editing on anything Article-space related to Wikipedia. rootology (C)(T) 17:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support banning him from touching User:Jimbo Wales (users can say whatever they want, true or not, subject to normal rules that apply equally to all of us, including Jimmy), Oppose banning him from touching Jimmy Wales. The funny thing is, it turns out QG was right and has been defending NPOV as seen here. If we're going to ban him from the Article itself, then it's preposterous to not do so for the other chief edit warrior on the other side, User:SqueakBox. They've both been going at it in spades, and it's not just QG. The entire co-founder issue is moot now anyway, with the sourcing from the Wikimedia Foundation itself having been added as the definitive source, so there's nothing else to edit war over there. Add in that a ban on QG would not give any protection to the encyclopedia--whats the point? See also here, currently on AN, where SqueakBox is also edit warring with my sole edit removal of an NPOV tag. This is not just a QG issue by any means. rootology (C)(T) 16:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support a ban from User:Jimbo Wales, but nothing else. He's only causing disruption there. Timmeh! 17:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose QG will very likely stop if he sees a consensus his edits are being taken as disruptive. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Surely a topic-ban would have the same effect (he'd stop such edits) without any unwanted side-effects? ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's needed. Yet. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• We don't ban people that are innocent. If we do, we need to string up those that did the banning. rootology (C)(T) 17:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support a ban from Jimbo-related pages, and history-of-Wikipedia-related pages. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  We have evidence of him causing trouble on User:Jimbo Wales. Please provide evidence of bad faith editing on anything Article-space related to Wikipedia. rootology (C)(T) 17:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  I am unaware of any specific instances, but I am doubtful of his ability to edit neutrally and in line with policy in relation to Jimbo Wales. (not sure if this next bit makes any sense :-P but it does to me!) He either thinks that he's the co-founder, or he doesn't; he thinks what the sources say to be incorrect, and his belief won't change between namespaces. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  Er... that's why I'm board with you in the bit of keeping QG off of the Jimmy userpage, but not the article. QG's article work there is fine and 100% backed up by the sources, such as here. Jimmy can say he's the founder or co-founder of Wikipedia on his user page, or he can see he's the living reincarnation of Abraham Lincoln. I can also say I'm the founder or co-founder of Wikipedia, or the reincarnation of Abraham Lincoln on my user page. If it's not a policy violation, I can WP:OR to my heart's content with any wild nonsense, or my interpretation of the truth. Jimmy's page has other advertising type issues that are a separate problem (his booking agent or whatever that is?) but he can say whatever he wants for his role. That's the only QG issue here. rootology (C)(T) 18:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, I understand what you're saying, but edits such as this indicate not only a complete disregard for basic civility (editing another's words in a basically false way) but also suggest that he is unable to edit appropriately with regard to this issue. I accept that others' views may differ, but personally, I don't believe that one person can make such edits on one page and not on another covering the same topic. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  First: how is it false? Yes, Jimmy believes one thing, Larry another, the sources overwhelmingly from before 2004 say co-founder, and from about 2004-onwards say sole founder. That's not false, that's dug-up evidence of revisionist history which I demonstrated on the sourcing I added to the Jimmy Wales article. And, that edit is not uncivil in any way. The subject says, "He did write that he is the co-founder of Wikipedia. See Talk:Jimmy Wales#August 2002. (Jimmy Wales identified himself in August 2002 as "co-founder" of Wikipedia." and QG added the "co-" prefix to founder as the actual edit. Where is that lacking in civility? The problem is that QG is trying to treat Jimmy's user page as if it was Article space, holding it to WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and the rest. He doesn't seem to be grasping it's not, so that's why we're supporting a ban on USER:Jimbo Wales, but not "Jimmy Wales". His article work is usually from what I've seen mercilessly accurate and even-handed. rootology (C)(T) 18:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  As you wish.

  I do understand what you're saying, and I stand by my opinions, and by what I wrote, but I see I'm fighting a losing battle in an issue that actually doesn't bother me that much! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose ban from article pages. No strong opinion on the user page.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• He was doing the right thing for the article. Keep him from messing with the user page, fine. But don't try to keep him out of articles without some evidence he's been damaging articles. Friday (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose any ban from the article pages. His edits on Wales's user page are already against policy, so I see no need to take action on the matter here. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - The "co-founder" issue, IMO, has now been factually and concretely settled by reliable sources, as seen in the lead of the article. This also supports the addition of the "co-" prefix where appropriate, e.g. Wikipedia:Verifiability. Removal of verified, sourced material can be considered vandalism, and what this user is doing is fighting that. No topic ban is warranted. As for the Jimbo Wales page, if Wales says "stay away", then QuackGuru has to respect that. As far as I know, we don't allow users to misrepresent their Wikipedia role (i.e. "I'm an admin" when they really aren't), but I don't think we police real-life misrepresentations. If someone wants to proclaim "I'm the President of Mars" on their page, hey, its all good. Tarc (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• I invite anyone to review your history of tendentious editing, almost entirely single-purpose most of the time, that single purpose being to push a particular agenda against me, including harassment on my user page and user talk page. To be clear, I ask you - as one user to another, not in any official role - to please leave me alone and not edit my user page. And I ask you, as a human being, to reconsider your behavior and perhaps find something more useful to do with your life than attacking me. I leave the disposition of your case to others, but to my mind, you're exactly the kind of person who should have been banned from the project a long time ago as a persistent BLP troublemaker. If it were anybody but me (because I am tolerant and kind), I imagine the victim would have complained to OTRS a long time ago. I have a clear and obvious conflict of interest in this case, but I think anyone reviewing your history will be inclined to agree that your behavior has been unacceptable, and that you are clearly here for motives that are not consistent with our values of neutrality and goodwill.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  The above was originally written on User talk:Jimbo Wales, copied here by David Shankbone.

• Oppose ban on article space. I've been involved fairly heavily at times on Jimmy Wales and I think he does well to work within our community standards there. He utilizes the talk page and works for consensus without edit-warring. Use regular warn/block methods for edits in user space, I think. Although, I don't believe it is appropriate for Jimbo's user page to contradict the rest of the project which is accurate and verified. لennavecia 20:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

One agenda-driven Anti-Wales editor shows up to support another. --David Shankbone 20:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support article- and user-space topic ban, per Wales and Jayron32. User, who was previously indefinitely banned, does not appear to be here for WP:ENC, but here for an anti-Wales agenda, per his contributions, block log and behavior. --David Shankbone 20:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not denying that this user has pushed relentlessly to get the "co-founder" atttribute added to Jimmy's articles on here, but to see he's an SPA is simply an out and out falsehood. See here. He's one of the main editors that built up the Larry Sanger article, Chiropractic, and several others. He seems to split his time evenly between articles on science and articles about Wikipedia itself. This is the essence of one of those "classic" BLP situations, where the BLP subject doesn't care for what is written about them, but it remains 100% BLP-compliant, sourced, and due to the way both individuals on both sides in various ways created a Barbara Streisand Effect, it's now a notable thing to discuss in the article at length. QuackGuru is anything but a perfect editor, but his biggest fault in this was not leaving Jimmy's user page alone. If we can see evidence of his misbehavior on the Jimmy Wales article, I'll happily endorse a topic ban there too.

Do we have such evidence? So far all I've seen him is his relentlessly trying to get the co-founder in, and it turned out based on actual historical documents from WP and WMF's early days that QuackGuru was right on the sourcing, leaving it all BLP-compliant. Give evidence of article space wrongdoing, and he'll get a topic ban. But this must be treated like any other BLP, with not a centimeter more or less deference because of who it is. Shitty, but that's the price to be paid to keep policy fair for all parties, no matter who they are. rootology (C)(T) 20:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose ban on article space. It's almost Orwellian to let Wales rewrite history regarding his own credentials. ("He who controls the present controls the past. He who controls the past controls the future".) Embarrassing for Wikipedia, too. See Essjay controversy. --John Nagle (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support ban on topic "Wales" for this user User talk:QuackGuru he is not going to / never going to stop this aggressive single purpose POV pushing behavior, which is destructive to Wikipedia...(Off2riorob (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

• It's already been demonstrated here that calling QG a SPA is an outright falsehood. How is getting the "co-founder" added to Jimmy Wales destructive or harmful in any way to Wikipedia? The co-founder description is also totally BLP-compliant, as well as it's been demonstrated effectively with historical sources now. Keep in mind, the sources uncovered now demonstrate that his efforts were accurate. rootology (C)(T) 22:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

well your idea and my idea of absolute falsehood must be different ..I just had a look at his edits and it's shouting at me ..j wales and sanger ..and I disagree with you when you say he is not harmful to wikipedia ..he is very harmful ..I personally couldn't care less who is correct here between wales and sanger ..what I disagree with is the aggresive way that QuackGuru is going about his business.(Off2riorob (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

• Recuse Given QG's treatment of me at Larry Sanger when I was a new user, I wouldn't be able to provide an objective opinion. I'll have to abstain in this particular case. — Ched :  ?  22:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support This isn't about who is right or wrong (Sanger or Wales; co-founder or founder). This is about editor behavior. It seems some people here are "voting" based on their stance on the Sanger/Wales content issue, rather than QuackGuru's reprehensible behavior. I think that "WP:SPA" is a good characterization of QuackGuru. As an editor who has experienced QuackGuru in the non-Wales related articles (Chiropractic, Stephen Barrett, et cetera), I can safely say that QuackGuru contributes very little other than rudeness, edit warring and total disruption. I may seem biased because QuackGuru and I are at odds all of the time in terms of content, but with that said, I have heard from other editors on QuackGuru's "side" of content disputes that they would prefer that he doesn't contribute to the discussion because his incivility and childish antics only weakens their arguments. IMHO, QuackGuru needs to be shown that his brand of petulant POV pushing is not welcome at Wikipedia. I think a topic ban is just what the doctor ordered (even though I fear that a topic ban from Wales will mean that he will then have much more time to devote to disrupting the articles which I enjoying working on). -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Ban from user page and article space concerning said user. Even if he is -right-, he is still an SPA, and from the looks of things, a disruptive one at that. He needs to learn to cease this behavior, and this just might be the way to do it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

SPA? QG mainly edits altmed related articles, not BLPs (with one notable exception). Mathsci (talk) 09:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose ban from article or main space and should be blocked if continues editing Jimbo's user page. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose any ban whatsoever, he has absolutely correct identifing Wales as the co-founder, and the sources he provides back him up. Jumping to a ban from editing a userpage without going through blocks is ridiculous. Viridae^Talk 09:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. What I see in the edits here is that the information added is correctly referenced with excellent sources. I don't understand why this is even posted and a discussion of banning is being talked about other than some editors don't seem to like QG. This is not a reason to take a ban on the editor. He is not a WP:SPA as people are consistently saying. He might be guilty of WP:POV issues but if he is giving WP:RS then I don't see a problem. Since he has been asked to stay away from User:Jimbo Wales page, then that should be honored as long as he doesn't need to post to the user page about something serious. QG does work a lot of different articles which his contributions show. He is WP:TE at times which can be quite frustrating for some so I would recommend to QG to calm down in this respect. But I find that some of the comments above are editors own POV's vs QG's which isn't good either. The editor who started this thread Edit warred on QG's talk page which went way over the 3 RR rules. QG reverted that editor, and some other editors, but kept reverting QG's removal at his talk page. Really this is starting to look really silly to outsiders, which I consider myself. No banning period, but a notice to leave Jimbo alone at his talk page should be enough. Thanks for listening to me, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• strong oppose as he shouldn't be banned or topic banned for adding reality and WP:NPOV to articles, banned for not backing up a lie. Especially as his edits are backed up by WP:RS. Sticky Parkin 17:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose banning from article space. Ridiculous idea, and I note that a number of editors above are supporting on the basis of their own issues with QuackGuru that are nothing to do with the issue in hand. I don't have a strong view on the Wales' userpage issue though. Black Kite 17:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support ban on editing Jimbo's userpage, meh on articlespace. Userpages frequently contain information – 'true' or not – not supported by reliable sources. We don't demand footnotes or NPOV in userspace pages. If this were any other user's page, would we need to even have this discussion? There's no need to poke at another user over and over and over and over again by making 'corrections' to perceived errors on their user page, and this has risen to the level of pointless (or perhaps POINTy) disruption. Enough. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose main space ban. Above reads like something out of the cultural revolution or Macarthyism where people try and settle their own scores by implicating their enemies. Sorry but i don't buy that he has been disruptive. Persistent possibly, and good for him, in general apathy drives off good users who have to battle advocates. David D. (Talk) 20:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Robert Falcon Scott

Resolved

 – No admin action needed.  Sandstein  05:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody please step in here and refactor the discussion threads? I tried to do so earlier and it apparently didn't help. I would suggest you split along the lines of:

• Initial outline of problems
• Proposals
• Sourcing
• Weight
• Further proposals
• Final draft
• Editor conduct

Ottre 00:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

That isn't a job that needs an admin. If you have a problem that requires admin intervention, please explain it more clearly. Looie496 (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

In the end, it didn't have to go to 3RR, but editing could get out of hand again. We could def use more eyes on the page to make sure things stay civil. Ottre 05:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Ottre, are you aware that your signature must contain at least one wikilink to your userspace? Please add one, as it's otherwise difficult to reply directly to comments you make. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

He is aware of it and he is also aware that it's not required. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive513#Refusal to comply with WP:SIG and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive477#User:Docu's signature. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 19:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Itisnotme

Resolved

 – blocked for 3 days by Slrubenstein --KP Botany (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Would an admin just block this user long enough to discuss the issue of his adding spam links to his soapbox (an on wiki soapbox that has been reverted) and irrelevant discussions to article talk pages? He's active now, his edits have been reverted, he's added some of them back, then changed his tone. I have other things to do than continue to revert him, and he is not listening. This is a block for discussion request as opposed to a block for vandalism request, where he's heading, because, heck, he might listen if he stopped long enough to hear another voice.[10][11] Although he's going to make it an easy block for vandalism request. --KP Botany (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I gave him a final warning, if he does this again in the next half hour I'll block him, if not someone else will have to. Dougweller (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Rschen7754

Resolved

 – There is no consensus for administrator action against Rschen7754. I-15 (talk · contribs), you should heed the advice of many and perform edits in compliance with policy, guidelines and general common sense. Continued disruptive editing can lead to a block. seicer | talk | contribs 04:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

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.

---

Can someone deal with this issue here? This has become extremely frustrating for me to let this administrator to try to cause me more problems than good. --I-210 (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Try making good edits rather than bad ones like [12] and [13] and you might have better luck. --NE2 20:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

How is that an issue? It's a legitimate warning. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It seem obvious to me. --I-210 (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not obvious to the rest of us, and you're trying to convince us, not the other way around. —kurykh 20:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

My viewpoint on the matter is that we've given this editor way too many chances. We need to consider banning / blocking this user in order to protect the encyclopedia and not have to repeatedly clean up after this user. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This question you answered here Rschen7754, is irrelevant and hearsay. How do you know about this We need to consider banning / blocking this user in order to protect the encyclopedia and not have to repeatedly clean up after this user. Mgillfr and i are not going to buy that question anyway. --I-210 (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia, Mgillfr, i have real life consequences here, Wikipedia is not a video game and we don't intend to play policy games to make a point. --I-210 (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Also i didn't even use the twinkle at that time and i was a good vandalism reverter and deleter by using twinkle. --I-210 (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

If Friendly was a twinkle then i would have not commented, even it is not a twinkle then i would have commented to try to stay active for me from this outrageous block as long as possible. --I-210 (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't even know what the above statement means, but if you are blocked and you come back and edit as another user or as anon/IP while your main account is blocked, that's block-evasion and is a serious problem that as you have seen leads to rapidly-escalating consequences. If you have a problem with a block, you need to resolve it, not dig a deep hole for yourself. Secondly, once you come for mediation/dispute-resolution, you need to accept that everyone will look at all facets of the dispute, including your own behavior and actions, not just the narrow problem you mention at first. I've seen you have a long history of tenacious editing and repeated and long blocks for IP-based block-evasion. DMacks (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

DMacks, no one will ever respond to this question by answering it like that. --I-210 (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it's not a valid one. —kurykh 21:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Guys, i'm not going this question here again since this situation is starting to get much worse than better since Wikipedia is failing. --I-210 (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm coming here because I-210 (talk · contribs) left this message [14] on my talk page. I don't really want to deal with the drama, since I really don't care about it anyway. But I do want to say that most of I-210's edits are basically "fixing" stuff, including fixing redirects. I'm not defending I-210's position here, but it seems to me that I-210 makes changes to articles similar to what I would do if I had the time or patience. However, there are times when I-210 edits by putting tags up other people's userspace, including mine. That can be very annoying. Basically, the moral is that I-210 makes legitimate edits, with a blend of bad faith. Again, I only posted this up because I-210 has been trying to get me involved in his situations, which I really don't want to. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 21:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I think its best we end this now, because its getting its getting way out of hand. Rschen did nothing wrong in this case, and as much I have been mad at him the last few days, I can say I am still willing to back him up. I-210 is not a great editor, causing more problems than we need for a project. Can we put a (discussion header Top & Bottom) on this. There really isn't going to be a solveable ending.Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 21:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

"I feel like I'm babysitting children on Wikipedia. This is awful." [15]

Just in case you didn't know yet Rschen7754, it's your own choice whether you want to revert after people on Wikipedia or not. If you don't like babysitting, you can just stop reverting our edits. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 00:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you tell the people who revert vandalism that. That would be great. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Just as a note, User:I-210 has been renamed to User:I-15. DMacks (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Rouge admin required

Hi, apologies if I'm posting this in the wrong place - this is nearly a breach of etiquette issue, but I believe it goes a little deeper. User:Fasach Nua appears to be following a pattern of behaviour that may be problematic.

• Fasach objects to fair use images on Wikipedia as a matter of policy. I infer this from his reference to User:Angr#A_parable on his user page. Many of us are not delighted about the need for non-free images on Wikipedia (owing to the world unreasonably failing to recognise our monopoly on Truth and Beauty), but the argument regarding whether they should be allowed or not should not be conducted via FAC reviews.
• I offer Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Zanzibar Revolution/archive2 as an example. Fasach writes "oppose the article has three non-free image none of which are allowed under WP:NFCC Fasach Nua (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)". This continues Fasach's long history of similar opposes - as is blatantly clear from the 16 messages on his talk page requesting review of his oppose votes to articles containing free-use images (which he typically declines to do). No specific comment regarding how or why images violate fair use is given: complaints are pure, meaningless boilerplate.
• Whether this constitutes something to panic about I don't know. It 'merely' puts many articles in arts and history at a one vote disadvantage. I suspect that it may become a problem if others choose to join his crusade. On the other hand, maybe a rouge admin would like to eviscerate him for disruptive, unethical wikilawyering. I don't know. Dhatfield (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe the assistance of a beige admin would be more effective in this situation, as rouge admins lack the necessary l33t skills to get around this particular crusader's immunities. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't that really be Admin Rouge to get that proper Franco-Marxist flavor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd just say that I doubt the arts articles are at a "one vote disadvantage", as FAC is no more a vote than any other process. I very much doubt either Raul or SandyGeorgia are terribly swayed by Fasach's frivolous opposes at FAC. As a note, however, he has been the subject of at least two RFC's regarding his image-related zealotry. Resolute 23:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The word "frivolous" here makes it very clear how clueless most editors are in terms of non-free images. Many articles have been promoted to featured status despite clearly violating WP:NFCC. Those of us that acutally understand that concept of fair-use images have realised very quickly that pointing out NF violations on articles that certain people want to promote is pointless, so largely we have given up. I can only assume that that those that promote articles don't really care about the "Free" part of "The Free Encyclopedia". Such is life. Meanwhile, Fasach Nua is usually correct in his edits, not that this matters to those that want to plaster copyright violations all over Wikipedia. Black Kite 23:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

What gets me about that is that he makes the allegations that free use photos are available without any evidence, and then doesn't listen to reason.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

His objections in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Zanzibar Revolution/archive2 were far from frivolous, though. The images he objected to don't really belong in that article ... it's pretty hard to make the claim that they significantly enhance the reader's understanding.—Kww(talk) 01:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Aha! Now we can have a real conversation regarding what is appropriate with regards to the use of non-free images in articles. I believe this gets at the heart of the non-debate Fasach has been having with himself for some time. Dhatfield (talk) 04:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Game Swap

Resolved

 – article gone, requester pointed to appropriate venue for future reference. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi I tagged this page for deletion, and the author keeps removing it. Help?? Leaf shaped ant (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is deleted. In future, authors removing CSD tags can be reported to WP:AIV for generally quicker responses. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data

Anyone suddenly getting this a lot and finding yourself logged out? rootology (C)(T) 05:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I get this if I have had an edit window open too long. Copy the information you added to the page, refresh your browser, and then try again. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 12, 2009 @ 05:35

Its happening more frequently, as are warnings of time delays. --Snowded (talk) 06:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it is associated with my problem above. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 12, 2009 @ 06:25

Lucas081094 and Brazilian IPs pushing incorrect info

Over the last few years (first try here), there has been a consistent pattern of Brazilian editors (usually from unregistered IPs, but lately with usernames) continually inserting false and/or unsourced information into some articles (Timeline of CGI in film and television & Computer-generated imagery both now semi-protected because of this) about Cassiopéia, a 1996 Brazilian film - usually claiming it to be the first CGI film, when the true first CGI film was 1995's Toy Story. I'm frankly at a loss as to how to deal with this - the fact that Toy Story was the first CGI film is well documented, and unassailable, as far as I'm concerned - but these editors refuse to discuss. They rarely provide edit summaries, refuse to discuss their reasons, and consistently fail to provide reliable sources. The latest attempt has been by Lucas081094, who was recently blocked for 72 hours for this - Lucas081094 first edit after the block was lifted was to immediately resume pushing his change, with no discussion. I could certainly use some eyeballs on this, and hopefully another block on Lucas081094. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 05:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Review of block; invitation to deliberative participants, please

Resolved

Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is under 24 hour sanction for violation of WP:NPA. I have opined at Giano's talkpage that he has not violated the policy, and have some support, while the blocking admin remains content in their interpretation, and also has some support. As Giano + sanctions related issues have some history in growing into major drama, can I ask some of our more even tempered and less politicized contributors glance over and give a calm consideration of the case. My hope is that when we do block Giano it has to be seen that the community is largely content that violations have indeed taken place, and a dignified discussion there may achieve that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A claim was made on his talk page that there was an off-wiki aspect to this, but it's not evident to me on first review. Can someone clarify that please? Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The off-wiki context was here (scroll down to the replies, or search for "Giano"). Quite frankly, if someone were posting the kind of abuse about me that Neurolysis was posting about Giano on a national newspaper's website, I'd be more than a little snarky as well. – iridescent 00:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been reviewing the situation on his talk page, and I'd rather see a wider discussion on this situation. I believe its getting heated, and conversation needs be moved here if we're going to poll for his unblock. Synergy 23:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Preemptive oppose unblock. Giano knows precisely what he is saying and when, and he is under zero misapprehension about what the rules call for here. He knew what he was doing, the block is entirely justified. We have to stop coddling him because he lashes out--he needs to stop lashing out on a depressingly regular basis. If it were once a year? Fine! It's not. //roux   00:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(reply to Synergy)I feel the discussion there is more civil than has previously been the case when on the 'Boards - which allow passing comments to be made that doesn't help with considered debate. Hi, Roux! LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Part of the argument on the talk page seems to be about whether terms effective through February are still effective. Avruch says they are not. If there are no specific statements to the effect that the term was prolonged, and it doesn't seem that there were, I have every reason to believe the block is probably perfectly acceptable. I can't see any immediate need to lift the block, particularly when it is as short as it is. John Carter (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

@LessHeard vanU: Civil is subjective, which is why I chose to say plainly, that it was getting heated. Regardless. A poll should be done here, not on a blocked users talk page. My primary reason for posting here. Synergy 00:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

@John Carter: the summary for the block was NPA violation - my and others comments can be found below. Synergy: Well, it has been done. I felt the less visited area of Giano's talkpage was easier to moderate, but transparency is also a creed to me so I am content for it to be here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Moved from talk page. Seddσn ^talk 00:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• (sigh)Is there a link to the Giano ArbCom where blocks, particularly under civility/attack criteria, are only to be made after consultation... Do I have to don my fucking "Protector of Poor Giano" every fucking time someone blocks Giano without reviewing the history (and if said admin isn't aware, on what basis are they blocking without warning or discussion). LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on the substance of the block... You are referring to the enforcement motion from the SlimVirgin case, which applied specifically to Giano's civility parole. That parole expired in February, presumably rendering the enforcement restriction moot. Avruch ^T 20:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Do you refer to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Motion: re SlimVirgin#Restriction on further enforcement? I was vaguely aware that there was something like that, so I looked it up before issuing this block. The motion prohibits "enforcement action relating to Giano's civility parole". I did not block this user to enforce any civility parole, just to prevent ongoing ordinary policy violations that I came across when viewing an ongoing RfA. Moreover, the parole that must not be enforced according to this motion appears to have expired anyway. But if you feel that the motion must be construed so as to prohibit any block of this user for civility reasons ever (which would surprise me very much, since it would in effect exempt him from the policy), we can make a request for clarification to that effect.  Sandstein  20:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein did provide diffs, so perhaps perusing them before passing judgement might be a good way to go. I think it's fair to say Giano did not take the "high road", and a 24 hour block seems like a pretty appropriate action in this instance. Giano's opinions have certainly been noted, but I think it's reasonable to expect conduct that is slighlty less confrontational. Sorry Giano! I can certainly understand where he's coming from. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Although upon reflection there is a question about whether a warning was given? Rules is rules... ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)*That is the one; fair enough it has expired, so there is no need for it to be examined. As for the purported violations of NPA, I would quote Wikipedia:NPA#What is considered to be a personal attack?, bullet point (4) "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki...". Giano has made it quite clear, since it has lead further editors to oppose or strike their supports, that this is in regard to off-Wiki comments made by the candidate in respect of Giano and the Hattersley claims debacle. Unless you are arguing that Giano's perception of events are wrong (which would make your block problematic under COI) I suggest that Giano has provided reason for his claims of the candidate being capable of pronouncing falsehoods; I am uninterested in the veracity of Giano's claims, other than he has provided sufficient evidence to make it fair comment rather than an attack on the individual. Lastly, I have seen worse in the bearpit that is WP:RfA - it isn't right but I have not seen editors blocked without warning before. I feel you should reconsider your action. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

To CoM, of course I reviewed the diffs - which is why I am making the point that Giano is referring specifically to events/comments made by the candidate (in an off-Wiki but public page) which he considers varies considerably from the truth to which the comments cited by Sandstein refer. I do not don my mask and cape without making sure that the stitching is still in place... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Lets take as granted that any one of Giano's comments were correct and not personal attacks. In fact, lets take them all as true and not uncivil, not personal attacks. Does the collective effect of Giano repeating himself stridently and in multiple forums create a significant problem? Perhaps a more useful and functional test: "Did Giano's comment disrupt the normalized editing environment?" I have no answer yet. Also stopping in to confirm that Giano's probation has expired, and thus the related ruling has no effect as well. Its a wash: Giano is, procedurally, like any other long term contributor.--Tznkai (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• (ec)My apologies LessH. I misread your "Do I have to don my fucking "Protector of Poor Giano" every fucking time someone blocks Giano without reviewing the history" comment. Clearly you were referring to the Arbcom issue and not the history of today's edits. And I see you had in fact noted that a warning wasn't granted, and that would most certainly have been best protocol. My apologies to you and to Giano for cluttering up his page. I suggest an unblock would be appropriate, as only now with the block has warning been clearly served. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

My exasperated comment did, in fact, refer to the deprecated civility parole - so my bad there, and therefore nothing for you to apologise for. However, when I reviewed the basis of the block as logged I found another problematic area. My luck not to appear a complete bozo (the mask and cape helps a lot, too). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Concur with CholdofMidnight; unblock is indicated. Also, I have to wonder, did Neuro lie? Its not a personal attack if its a just charge, as there is no nicer way to phrase it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

As I just said on my talk page, in view of the block log of Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I believe he did not need a warning to know that we have a policy prohibiting personal attacks, and that it may be enforced with blocks. A warning would accordingly have been superfluous. I'll be offline for about 24h soon, and assume that any administrator considering an unblock will be so collegial as to seek consensus for it in an open forum such as WP:ANI. I'd like to note that, if the diffs cited above are not incivil and disruptive, I do not know what is, and accordingly would not support an unblock absent a convincing apology.  Sandstein  21:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

On the merits, even if one were to consider "liar" not (as I do) to be a personal attack, "deluded" and "half baked candidact" (sic) certainly are personal attacks.  Sandstein  21:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have invited (dignified) discussion to take place here, where it might not descend into the two usual warring camps, over at ANI. I have made my position clear, so I shall act further only as a moderator to hopefully stop excessive and off-topic postings. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec):::You could have asked him to stop first, before blocking. If what he claims neuro did is the truth I would be upset too, especially if he never apologized until his request for adminship. Giano's comments were certainly uncivil, but blocking was getting pretty carried away IMO. Landon1980 (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

E/cIn an attempt to head any possible drama off at the pass (and in the spirit of the season for certain folks), would you consider an unblock as clemency? That is, Giano requests an unblock, neither denigrating you, nor Neurolysis, nor apologizing either, and that it be granted time served. The implicit understanding of course, is that Giano leave the issue alone, which is biw moot now I believe as Neurolysis has withdrawn.--Tznkai (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Doubly moot as Giano has surely gone to bed. Talk amongst yourselves. Bishonen | talk 22:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC).

• He is not enjoying an evening that may end with a Midnight Mass? I am disappointed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A quick word on the matter: there is no possible situation under which calling another editor a liar is remotely acceptable. Accuracy of statements can be disputed, certainly, but "liar" means someone who makes intentionally false statements or willfully deceives. Given that it posits malice (which is the opposite of assuming good faith), it cannot be anything but a personal attack.

I make no comment on whether a block was an appropriate response, or whether its duration is adequate, but arguing that it was not a violation of NPA is ridiculous on its face. I'll grant that no warning was given, but I am under no delusion that Giano is not aware of the meaning of the terms he uses, or that he has somehow forgotten our policies. — Coren ^(talk) 23:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That is clearly untrue. If an editor has admitted to being a liar, or has been demonstrated to be a liar, then the statement is simply one of fact. Is it your intention to suppress all statements of fact, or just those that you find inconvenient? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I, of course, disagree. A statement made without regard to the facts, and not corrected in the face of such evidence, which impunes the integrity and contributions of another person, may be termed a lie - and the utterer of such statements is thus a liar. I am using the term "mistruths" because it sounds less offensive, but the fact remains that the candidate was caught in a lie, Giano provides the evidence of it, and therefore NPA is satisfied. NPA defends editors against unfounded claims, not protects practitioners of poor behaviour, conduct, morals whatever from being castigated for their actions. Finally, Giano's obvious contempt for abiding by certain policies does not constrict our absolute adherence to the word as well as the spirit in sanctioning violations of them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

But how do we know that Thingy deliberately lied? He might have been mistaken, or just giving his opinion. To WP:AGF or be collegial, we should say he was mistaken, rather than lied. Sticky Parkin 23:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The same AGF that Giano is justified in terming it a lie. I may have given the impression that I am sold on Giano's interpretation - I am answering for him in reply to Corens points (I am sure I am going to be royally thanked and praise by G for doing so...) without taking a view upon it. Neurolysis may have been in error for all sorts of reasons, but in only admitting the error when deeming it expedient for the purposes of applying for adminship but being content to allow the mistaken comments to remain unaltered for that until that time is extremely insulting, I suggest. You might not wish to take such liberties with the many calm editors of this project; doing so with Giano invites responses that we are very familiar with. Again, we appear to be punishing the bear for responding to the poking. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's be clear, there was incivility here. Giano went too far and should have received a warning to cease and desist. He's now been blocked. We've had the ensuing drama. I don't think asking Giano to apologize is a good idea in this instance. I suggest he be unblocked in good faith and asked to refrain from engaging further with Neuro. He is of course reminded that no matter the provocation, editors are expected to abide by the civility guidelines.

• Support Unblocking. No need for further drama. Message has been communicated. Giano knows what is expected of him. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• Coren, whilst your statements are correct, we also know that Giano flies off the handle the odd time or two. In statistical terms, we ignore the outlier data and we also correct for systemic bias (read here, poke Giano - Giano snarls - whack Giano - Giano roars - block Giano - hilarity ensues) The present case is an obvious injustice done off-wiki, which should be considered as a provoking factor. It's pretty well-established that if you hit Giano with a stick, he doesn't react well. Neuro hit Giano with an off-wiki stick. Support unblocking. Franamax (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

What was done offsite in this? Please provide context... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry GWH for not providing a link, for some reason I thought everyone else clicked the same things I do. :) Anyway, what LHvU says just below. Franamax (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This 09:48 post]. He misrepresented Giano (I suggest - you may disagree) in making points which, later, transpired to be not altogether accurate either. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Wikipedia is NOT a battleground, remember? Don't hit people with sticks, and if someone hits you with an "off wiki stick", don't bring your anger and aggression on wiki. Flame away, but go elsewhere. Further, Wikipedia isn't therapy. If you've got a bad temper and fly off the handle, don't expect us to make allowances for you. Keep you temper off the wiki. But really? This is the same old script, with just a few actors changing. Can't we get a new script? These repeats are boring me. And, for me, boring is worse than incivility. (Oh, and I don't care whether you unblock or not. Frankly it will not make any difference to the boring script.)--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    • DocG, you're right - but whoah, statements on the website of a national newspaper? Where is the "go elsewhere"? You really can't get any more uncivil or NPA or whatever you want to term it - calling out another editor in front of the world and basically saying "he's not one of us". Hell no, Giano bloody well is one of us, dysfunctional family that we are. I'd support your imprecation to keep our temper off of the wiki (in fact I do, wholeheartedly) - but what about the sarcasm; talking-down, references to inferior knowledge, experience and/or scholarship; use of wikinyms (TLAs) to cow new editors; or any of the myriad ways that editors are mean to other editors? It certainly is easy to pick out a well-definable instance from a known editor and say "this one thing is wrong". I'm not sure exactly how that solves the overall problem. Franamax (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• I think I support Giano's underlying point - Neurolysis' behavior on the blog post wasn't remotely good form. I can understand why Giano would still be angry about it a couple of months later.

But I think two months is long enough that the initial poke should have faded, and Giano should have expressed himself in a civil way regarding this. Especially to the RFA supporters he went after [16] [17].

Even if we absolve him of guilt in the direct attacks on Neurolysis, the attacks on others were temper getting the better of him... fahadsadah and FlyingToaster are certainly innocent victims in this.

I propose that for the purposes of this unblock discussion, administrators ignore the attacks on Neurolysis and consider whether the behavior against the other two was sufficient to justify retaining the 24 hr block, or not. Whatever the anger at Neurolysis justifies or doesn't, it clearly should not extend as far as allowing anyone to go off attacking random third parties. If those two attacks are sufficient for a block then he should remain blocked. If not, then not. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Question: does the allowance for the statements apply to only those on the RfA? .. or do they also extend to the attacks made on Neuro's talk page? Note: Giano did request that Neuro not post to his talk page, and Neuro did offer an apology. I would think it could be expected that the claims could stop after the apology. — Ched :  ?  00:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there's some disagreement in the discussion over whether the Giano / Neuro back and forth justifies the block. I think it's less ambiguous, considering the unblock now, to consider the other two victims separately from the Neuro stuff.

I have an opinion on the Neuro stuff but I also have a history of controversy with Giano blocks, so I think it's easier to not push my opinion on that out into the debate here and possibly go sideways over that history. The issue with the two innocent bystanders is easier to define and review without having to delve into the things we're likely to not get consensus on. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock - Reading over that blog, Neuro's behavior was slightly troubling, but I honestly couldn't agree more with Roux. With how UNBELIEVABLY MONUMENTALLY GINORMOUS Giano's block log is, I think that Giano's lucky that his block isn't a good 5 or 10 times longer than it is. --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 00:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• Coren: "there is no possible situation under which calling another editor a liar is remotely acceptable.". I'm sorry, but if I have diff evidence that an editor has been lying about an issue, I'll call them a liar. To do otherwise would be lying myself. Withdraw that one, please. Black Kite 00:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  You could have evidence that a statement is false; not that the one who made the statement knew it was false when he made it— for all you know, they might have been mistaken, deluded or just confused. Arguably, even an admission of lying is no proof given that the admission itself might be mistaken and such.

  That's entirely besides the point anyways, even if the accusation is absolutely true, it would still be an attack and not acceptable as such. There are many ways of calling attention to a statement that is false that are not attacks; calling someone a liar isn't one of them. — Coren ^(talk) 01:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  I agree with your exceptions, but you're skirting round the issue there really; accusing someone of being a liar when they have clearly and deliberately lied about an issue is not a personal attack. it's merely a factual statement. Black Kite 01:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  Nice of people to tell me about this thread. Is the suggestion that I have blatantly lied, and if so, where? — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 01:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  I wasn't actually making a comment about yourself; I was merely replying to Coren's comment. Apologies for going off-topic. Black Kite 01:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• (e/c) Yes, heh, don't worry too much Neuro. This discussion has gone far beyond what you may or may not have intended to say at the newsblog and is soaring to the meta-sphere of the wiki. :) Do you think Giano should be unblocked? Franamax (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

He may have made the wrong decision in making such comments as he did, but I also made the wrong decision posting those comments on the blog. I see no reason to keep him blocked, no, it takes two to tango. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 01:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Look, I'm not condoning anyone's actions, and I can even understand Giano being upset, even if I do question the timing of it all. But, I really think that this is over the top. Neuro apologized, and the badgering continues. I understand emotions, but refusing to not only accept an apology, but continually berating another editor simply isn't right either. — Ched :  ?  01:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Giano has a point about both the location and timing of the apology in my opinion. Assuming that neuro never made an apology before the RFA (I never saw a link to an apology aside from the one he made on the RFA, if one exists sorry for not seeing it), and assuming that he never apologized on the forum where the post was originally made, his apology is indeed both rather belated and in the wrong forum. The damage the post made was done there, and if no apology is made there than the damage will continue to be done every time someone reads it. Furthermore, (and I know this isn't even remotely assuming good faith) the fact that he only apologized for something like that when called on it during an RFA would give the appearance that the point of the apology was to mitigate damage to his RFA. If Giano honestly believes those things to be true, his reaction is rather understandable. Even given that though, I'm not sure I would support an unblock because of his treatment of the other participants in the RFA, which I do not believe was justified under any circumstances.--Dycedarg ж 01:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC) (Note that the preceding statements were trying to see this from Giano's points of view. I'm not really sure of what comments Neuro made where aside from the initial posts on the blog and the ones he made on the RFA and I don't know enough about Neuro to be able to judge whether or not he was lying/mistaken/what have you.)--Dycedarg ж 01:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If I apologised, it looked like I was simply trying to sway voters. If I didn't apologise, it would be the incorrect thing to do. What would you have suggested? — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 01:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

What I would have suggested? Apologize. It was the only thing you could have done under the circumstances. It just would have been a good idea to have apologized sooner, preferably within a week or so of the incident. Belated apologies coming months after the initial incident just don't have the same impact.--Dycedarg ж 01:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) You are right Neuro - a very tricky (read no-win) situation - would have been prudent to apologise at some stage before RfA. However, the nature of the comments was such that you should have made a considerably more concerted effort to really put them in the past and make up for it. The airing of dirty laundry like that is hard to get over. I do feel for you man, but it makes pretty poor reading. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

As I have said, I had believed I did, until Giano told me otherwise. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 10:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support unblock of Giano. As someone who's recently went through Wikipedia drama related to off-wiki communication, and after reading what Neuro posted at telegraph.co.uk, I'd say Giano's human reaction is appropriate. Would we even be having this discussion if Giano had called Neuro out at telegraph.co.uk instead of here on-wiki? I doubt it. Nevertheless, it has been done. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 01:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support unblock of Giano. I feel his reaction was understandable given what was written in the blog of a national newspaper. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock A 24 hour block on someone with a history of incivility for bringing off-wiki anger on-wiki and lashing out in an RfA seems lenient and just. Serve the block and learn from it. --John (talk) 02:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Giano can't have it both ways, he can either consider neuro "unworthy of my time and attention" and leave it at that, or he can turn up at the time of the comments and call him a "disgrace to the project" and a monumental liar and everything else he wants to, at a time when it was actually relevant. I don't think for one minute he would have accepted any earlier apologies had they come, but turning up 60 days later to grandstand over the guy's RfA that he didn't even put himself up for, crowing that it's too late/the wrong venue for sincere or even insincere apologies, is just a bit lame really, and should not detract in any way from the fact the language used by Giano in the prolonged exchanges constitutes a nailed on npa block, from someone who should know better. MickMacNee (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock, The reasons for blocking are consistent with the evidence and the relevant policies. Come on community, how many times are we going to do this? Chillum 04:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support unblock of Giano per Casliber. - Josette (talk) 05:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Casliber's rationale might be true, except, I don't think that it can be considered so mitigating when commentary that can legitimately be perceived as personal attacks, extended to users other than just Neuro - see here. The meaning of 'deluded' can vary in harshness depending on how it was perceived, but I know my own interpretation would not be on the softer side. I don't see how I could've support an unblock in light of this; FlyingToaster's concern should have been handled with more care. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• in the meantime I have a block log (thoughtfully linked to from a newspaper website by Neurolysis) claiming I have personally attacked and harassed someone, with no mention as to exactly what happened or who that "someone" was or what terrible form this personal attack or harassment took, for all the readers of that newspaper know, I may be in the habit of mugging and attacking old ladies for their pension, but of course that would not be a wiki-crime. Not one Admin has the bolox, gumption or integrity to sort that misunderstanding on the block log out, and yes, I have emailed some Arbs about it, and to date nothing! So much for Wikipedia and its sense of honour and justice - quite frankly , it stinks. Those who supported such a state of affairs are, in my view, a bunch if shits, or in Wikipedia language, if you prefer "a collection of editors who seem intentionally unable to see the reality of a situation, brought about my me being hostilely referred to on the website of national newspaper by a Wikipedia editor who was confused as to the truth and failed to do his research." Giano (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

PS:I don't mug old ladies, as much as some of you would like to beleive I do! Giano (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This matter is now resolved to my complete satisfaction, the block log is suitably ammended to reflect the situation. Those who supported this wrongful block remain "persona non grata" on my talk page, that situation will not be changing. Giano (talk) 08:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Technical Problem?

Probably the wrong board for this, but I am currently experiencing a technical issue with Wikipedia that others might be experiencing as well. When clicking on the history tab for any page, the history will load partially, then freeze my browser up. All other aspects of Wikipedia do not do this. Not sure if this is an ongoing issue, but needed to be addressed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 12, 2009 @ 05:22

I've had this as well (though I am not overly concerned). I suggest you join in the discussion at WP:VPT.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Planecrash111

Resolved

 – Continuing to edit war, and attempting to hide the fact by use of misleading edit summary? Blocked indefinitely. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Would an admin mind stepping in to have a few words with Planecrash111 (talk · contribs)? The user's had a brief career here punctuated by a block [18] for copyright violations and confirmed socking through it. Since his return, PC111 has gone back to updating baseball articles and adding game-by-game summaries and stats, sometimes while the game is still ongoing [19].

I've tried to explain to him politely on his talk page that Wikipedia isn't for running play-by-play or posting in-game stats. He responded by telling me to [20] "just fix it," and continuing to update career totals for players[21] while the game was still ongoing. On at least one occasion, his totals were wrong [22].

I explained the best way to update stats was to wait until after the game, then use reliable sources to update the totals. There's no need to do the math in-game, especially when you've been shown to be wrong before. However, he blanks the discussions [23] and continues to post stats from games he's watching. As I write this, he's also inserting large game summaries again [24] even after a discussion about that very topic [25] on the WP:BASEBALL page.

He seems like (and I've mentioned this to him) he could be a productive baseball editor, but multiple editors have tried to talk to him and he seems to ignore every piece of advice and request for discussion. Would an admin mind having a word with him? Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

That "dude" needs to be blocked. Here he is deleting discussion from the project talk page [26] just because he doesn't like it. That alone is a rules violation, on top of his notion, ignoring all advice, that he has the right to treat wikipedia like a game-action blog. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

As an update, Planecrash111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now also using deceptive edit summaries to avoid seeming to edit war, as he did here [27] where his summary said "just taking out the update on the k's" when in reality, he was readding a long play-by-play section that's been removed by several other editors. I've tried to talk to him several times, he just refuses to listen or discuss. Dayewalker (talk) 03:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

He's right at 3 reverts on Randy Johnson, but he might have quit for the night. As have the admins, perhaps. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

User is now requesting an unblock. After my failed try to settile Planecrash111 after his run-in with another user, I would ask that the admin who looks at the unblock request look into my posts with him and his actions with User:JustSomeRandomGuy32 before thinking about unblocking. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 12, 2009 @ 21:29

Declined. I suggested he might be able to be unblocked if he agrees to listen to other's concerns and some form of editing restriction, but that's up to the community. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

WTF

Resolved

 – copyvio deleted from Commons - issue explained to presumably confused user

My userbox image says "non free image removed" even though the image I used is from Wikipedia.WorldChampion392 (talk) 12:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I changed it back, but it could change to that image again. WorldChampion392 (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've changed it back, and explained why on your talkpage. Black Kite 12:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The user is now using File:Partido Republicano (logo).PNG instead, which is exactly the same logo but claims to be in the public domain. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Tagged for speedy deletion from Commons. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've just fixed this; two places: [28] [29]. G'day, Jack Merridew 14:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

  He's tried restoring it again ;( G'night, Jack Merridew 14:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Flooding edits

Resolved

 – Use of (possibly) a bot that was non-disruptive, but not approved. Frequent edits has ceased, and couple of people in conversation with the editor now towards proper approval. Sancho 18:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bugboy52.40 (look at the time stamps)

Can someone look over what this person is doing? Im not sure if he is doing anything wrong but this seems to be a bit disruptive Leaf shaped ant (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

He's fixing self-referential links with a bot. It isn't harmful, but I don't know anything about bot policy. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

No sign that he does either. I left an inquiry on his talk page. Looie496 (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Certainly not disruptive. WHy is it when somebody creates lots of articles people come running to ANI. This editor needs to be whitelisted so his articles get automatically patrolled and if possible get permission to create them at a high rate from WP:BAG Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize you people were talking about me, but I would make a useful coment, if I new what you were talking about, whitlist? Buɡboy52.4 (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

sock frenzy

Resolved

 – Possibly under control. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

We have some pretty frenzied multi-socking going on -- see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SchnitzelMannGreek. The latest sock has just vandalized the SPI page and my user page. This affair would benefit from a bit of energetic intervention -- maybe giving a short semi-protect to everything in sight would be a reasonable start. Looie496 (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The SPI page may not need protection. User:Ged UK has just blocked two of the socks. Your user page can be protected on request. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

User:ArnoldZippo

Resolved

 – Articles redirected - editor informed of issues

• ArnoldZippo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Undertow (CHiPs episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dog Gone (CHiPs episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Moving Violation (CHiPs episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• CHiPs (Pilot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User has been copying and pasting content from http://www.chips-tv.com/wiki/, which I do not believe is GFDL-compatible with our Wiki. In other words, they constitute a series of copyvios. I have tagged all four above articles as possible copyvios (and hence reported to WP:CP, but the user as reverted them without explanation nor any responses on the article talk pages or his or my talk page. From looking at the user's contribs and other warnings given on his talk, I am not sure that this user understands our copyright policy; that is unless I am wrong and the content on that Wiki is GFDL-compatible and hence okay to copy and paste here. I don't want to revert-war over this, and I realize that copyvios are obviously very serious issues, so that's why I'm bringing this here to hopefully have someone look into this. MuZemike 19:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

"Chips Wiki" apparently contains no explicit copyright statement at all, which of course means that everything there is copyrighted, but it seems possible that this editor might not have understood that, since in appearance it very closely resembles Wikipedia. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Looie496 (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Given the possible issues with copyright I have redirected the articles to List of CHiPs episodes for the time being. In any case, since the episode articles consist of nothing but plot summaries with no real-world analysis at all, they also fail WP:NOT#PLOT. I will notify the user. Black Kite 20:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

There's also a concern in that overly detailed plot summaries become derivative works of the original (ala Copyright#Derivative works). I don't know the shows, but they were rather brief, weren't they? It seems like going into great detail could cross that line. (Let me also publicize {{Plot2}} while I'm here. :) TV shows are a big problem for copyright infringement.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I have seen a few here that did come close to that line, but very few. They usually far exceed the common-sense idea of a reasonable summary long before they start having trouble with fair use. There remains no real agreement about just what NOT PLOT should say, though we are getting there, so I do not think any thing can fail it at present. In my view, it applies to total Wikipedia coverage of an entire fiction, not individual articles, which are just convenient devices for rearranging it. But copying from a non-GFDL compatible wiki, if that's the direction of the copy & not the reverse, is of course another matter & nobody will defend that. My own feeling is that in deleting copy vio, it's usually clearer to stick to that reason alone. DGG (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

BUG: Unfixable categorizing problem, manifesting on the ext4 article

Resolved

Problem/Bug: Category listing rendered at bottom of page persistently includes an entry for a category that:

A) Doesn't even exist B) the article doesn't even ahve a Category membership template for the non-existent category.

Refreshing the page in question has been absolutely no help. Adding and removing the category templates didn't even work either, although I would surmise such a workaround shouldn't even be needed.

There's some strange voodoo going on that I don't understand, don't have requisite access to fix, or both.

Shentino (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• It's the {{condense}} tag that's causing it ... looking now. Black Kite 21:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed. Black Kite 21:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Confirming that it now works. Thanks for your promptness. Shentino (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

previously blocked IP for unnecessarily archiving discussions is back trying to archive the same discussion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.11.100.50 was previously blocked for a week for disruption via repeatedly trying to archive this same talk page and they've started again. first they started slowly, now they're back to edit warring at full pace to archive the discussion. they've been warned repeatedly. [[30]] [[31]] [[32]][[33]]. Here is their response to their final warning: [[34]]. Theserialcomma (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, regardless of their conduct, why the warring by others to keep the old discussions on the talk page? I'll shoot a request at the talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll ask for some outside review because I can't figure out why User:Theserialcomma is now reverting my archiving. And because someone else wants it archived seems like nothing more than a WP:POINT argument to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Vicini

Resolved

 – Fastily (talk · contribs) has apologized for his mistakes and has given his word that he will be more careful in future. Chamal ^talk 03:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I was adding internal and external links, and also category to this article Vicini and this user reverted them with these messages (cur) (prev) 03:28, 12 April 2009 Fastily (talk | contribs) m (3,992 bytes) (Reverted edits by Juliaaltagracia to last revision by 205.132.42.220 (HG)) (undo) - April 2009. Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Vicini has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Fastily (talk) 03:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the page to one of the edits. My question is, is it really productive to revert edits so fast and to create a problem without even asking the editor? Is this right? I'm I taking the risk of being block? --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 03:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The edit in question seems to be this, made by Fastily (talk · contribs). The revert could have been a mistake or maybe he thought you were making the edit in bad faith. I suggest you contact him on his talk page and ask what was the reason for the revert. Reverting must be quickly done in the case of unconstructive edits like vandalism and there is no need to contact the editor in such a case. This is perfectly acceptable by our policies and guidelines, but honest mistakes do happen. And no, there is no danger of you being blocked right now either. There is no need of administrator intervention here. Chamal ^talk 04:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... taking a look at this, it seems User:Fastily has started using huggle recently. He's still probably a little too lose on the revert button. Maybe he should AGF a bit more as well :) Chamal ^talk 04:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing user fastily talk page. Somebody should warn him, because it consumes to much time for inexpirienced users like me to edit correctly a page, and to include reputable sources and then to have it revert it. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 04:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It's very likely that he hit the wrong button in Huggle. I've seen this happen before -- not very often, though. For future reference, if somebody makes a revert that doesn't make sense to you, try asking them why. It's very rare for Huggle (HG) users to revert maliciously, but mistakes do happen once in a while. Looie496 (talk) 06:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You will see from his talk page that he has received a few complaints, also see his revert on 'ask a ninja'. Also done some good vandalism fighting, but should take extra notice of edits by non-IP users to make sure. Unomi (talk) 06:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This user seems a bit 'fast' on the trigger finger... Nantucketnoon (talk) 09:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Not again.... and he doesn't seem to want to respond to our messages either. Everybody makes mistakes in reverting vandalism, but this is quite a lot. He needs to be more careful or he's going to do some real damage to the articles and also to himself. Can an admin talk to him about this, before something like that happens? Chamal ^talk 09:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for the late response, I have been trying to fix several other reverts I made. After seeing all the errors made, I will definitely be sure to slow down and take more caution in pressing the revert button. And, I'd also like to the take the opportunity to publicly apologize to anyone whose hard work was reverted. Regards, Fastily (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. And my apologies for thinking you were not responding. I should AGF more :) Chamal ^talk 03:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

distorting other users' comments on talk pages

Resolved

 – Indefblocked as self-admitted compromised account

• MultiScholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) refactoring comments on talk page by other users to yield opposite meaning. No warnings issued before, but blatant vandalism which merits an immediate block in my opinion [35] Jasy jatere (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

add one more instance of vandalism http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACanada_Merit_Scholarship_Foundation&diff=283269261&oldid=269441824 Jasy jatere (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The editor hasn't vandalized since being warned. Note by the way that your own template was malformed -- not sure how you added it -- and didn't include a time, date, or signature, which makes it not very useful. I added a clearer warning on the editor's talk page. Looie496 (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

While this editor edits relatively infrequently (fewer than 30 edits in four months), I see a lot that troubles me. I suspect that if he were a more frequent contributor he would have been banned already, but as it is he's flying under our radar.

This isn't the first time he's (ahem) rephrased a talk page comment to invert its meaning, and he seems intent on doing so to comments which have some pretty heavy racial overtones. Recently: [36], [37]. In January, he made a very racist attack on another editor's userpage ([38]). As his third edit (in late December), he made a similar modification to another editor's comments, again inverting the meaning: [39].

I am inclined to argue that we're past the 'warnings' stage here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree. This editor needs an indefinite block IMO Theresa Knott | token threats 20:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I am totally out of my allotment of "Blocked Indef per Discussion Elsewhere" sanctions, else I would have done it. (I also have a COI since I have past very pleasant experiences of Sri Lankan hospitality and cuisine.) I support a block for both the attitude and the methods. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I am a college student living with 4 other room-mates. The 5 of us share one desktop computer (mine). I frequently use Wikipedia but seldom edit / alter anything (simply read articles that are interesting to me at the time). I often forget to log-out and I imagine one of my other 4 room-mates use this as an opportunity to make nonconstructive edits and reversions etc. I sincerely apologize for this and assure you that such forms of blatant vandalism will not occur in the future. Please note, however, that Jasy jatere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) deleted, without explanation and without reason, a well-researched and sourced edit I recently made to a talk page that was a continuation of an intellectual discussion with another user. This is a form of vandalism and, in my opinion, Jasy jatere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) requires a stern warning as one has not been previously issued (to the best of my knowledge). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MultiScholar (talk • contribs) 23:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Allegedly compromised account. Should be indefinitely blocked, yes? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

A compromised account, that logs on only to read stuff, yet is very adamant that another editor should be sanctioned for removing one of the very few edits they have made... Perhaps it would be best if the account was confined to the graveyard, and they start again with a new identity and a secure password. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Account indefblocked as compromised IP blocked for 1 week for deleting other peoples comments from the talk page. MultiScholar, if you return don't edit anyone else comments on a talk page ever again and don't assume that we were all born yesterday. Theresa Knott | token threats 06:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Trains

Resolved. Wrong venue. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Getting ready to work on the end of the article: What would be the plural for "Caboose"? Not sure if it pluralizes as does Moose, or if it changes as does Goose?22:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.152.202.31 (talk)

Your question would probably be more appropriately answered at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. I'll just mark this as resolved, and leave you to your moosey fate. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Gotta be "cabeese". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, please don't contradict my responses at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Trains. You'll just make me look bad, and I'll go ballistic and do things you won't want to contemplate. :-) Deor (talk) 02:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like fun. :) Without looking at that page, I can say with confidence that the actual plural is "cabooses". It follows normal English pluralization rules. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

No no, caboosi Soxwon (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Caboosim have been out of fashion for many years now. They have been replaced by blinky lights on the hindmost couplers. 03:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Now, here's something weird: I checked under "Caboose" and it redirected to Jennifer Lopez. Complete with blinking lights. Go figure. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

So many sick and twisted puns come to mind...Soxwon (talk) 03:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

If the Baseball man wants to comment, perhaps Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Bugs on my car! would be the appropriate venue. I know that if I owned a car, I wouldn't mind seeing Bugs splashed on its foreparts! Deor (talk) 03:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Eww. Gross. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

If the plural of Bug is Bugs, would the plural of gross be grease? — Ched :  ?  07:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Definitive answer: "cabooses", per Order of Railway Conductors and Brakemen and Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, Plaintiffs-appellees, v. Clinchfield Railroad Company, Defendant-appellant, United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit. - 407 F.2d 985 [40] --John Nagle (talk) 01:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought we had a rule against legal threads. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy, now we're training lawyers... HalfShadow 02:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

That reminds me, I had wondered why J-Lo had blinky lights on her bridal train. Now we know. Who says wikipedia ain't educational? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD for Susan Boyle‎

Resolved

 – AfD cannot be snowed at this time because people are still !voting to delete. Oren0 (talk) 06:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder whether some admin might consider closing WP:Articles for deletion/Susan Boyle as a snow keep. The article got over 3000 hits on its first day of existence, and the AfD doesn't serve any purpose except to create drama. I'm not quite bold enough to do a non-admin close. Looie496 (talk) 05:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No, definitely not snow keep, but I just voted keep.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd really like to close this, but given that an established editor just recently !voted to delete based on BLP1E (which really doesn't apply here IMO, but I digress), a snow closure would be inappropriate. Oren0 (talk) 06:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, in the next 6 days 20000 people will read the article and see the AfD template, and 1000 of them will go to the delete page to cast angry Keep votes -- but so be it, that's Wikipedia! Looie496 (talk) 06:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

In theory we're not a bureaucracy and it seems very unlikely the page will be deleted. But throwing around WP:IAR to close a deletion discussion tends to piss people off. Maybe in another day or so if there really are a flood of keeps then it can be snow closed. Oren0 (talk) 07:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Re User:Humdum555

Resolved

 – It's just Gra...p. Soon to be oversighted. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm striking this through, because we can't be sure if it's fake or not, and for reasons that can be found below.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Humdum555 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Regarding of course, this diff.

Should we take this guy seriously? Perhaps do a checkuser on him, call the police? This sounds to me like a college death threat.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm filling an SPI to see if anything can be found.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(editconflictx2)Last I checked, death threats are supposed to be taken seriously, and the authorities are supposed to be contacted in cases like this. Can a CU please check this users' IP to see if it does indeed come from the place noted in the diff? And if so, the authorities do need to be contacted. My feeling is that this is too specific to be grawp(he/she cites a specific name/place).— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

SPI wouldn't be necessary. The named individual could take care of it all himself, if he so chooses. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oversight is done. Really, things are taken care of. Move along, nothing to see. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

How do you know this is Grawp and not someone really planning to commit homocide?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Trust me, we know the circumstances here. Risker (talk) 07:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Admin user account [[41]] invalid blocking

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

Evading block user blocked indefinitely. No comment on the actual substantive issue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Admin Jersey_Devil is blocking users without giving reason on the block page. I suggest you take up this person's admin privilege and revoke his administrator right immediately. This block violation by Jersey_Devil was caused by the discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans#SamEV. He shouldn't violate his admin privilege by blocking someone when that user didn't insult anyone on this matter. The user blocked is: 24.9.96.166.

I immediatily request Jersey_Devil's violation and revoke of admin privilege immediatily. He also reverted this very contentious topic with "npov" tag and removed the npov tag where there is heated discussion about the article going on for days. Here is his unexplained gross negligence revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans&diff=283512854&oldid=283470015 Someone people respond to this matter appropriately and revoke this user's admin account asap. Onetwo1 (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I am the administrator this above user is referring to. I blocked two IPs that had been harassing User:SamEV and had been edit warring on the article Hispanic and Latino Americans. ([42] [43]) I strongly suspect that these IPs and accounts are related as this revert warring and harassment has been going on for over half a year now at that article. For instance this is my first contact ever with this user and he emerged immediately after I blocked the IPs. I am in the process of requesting a checkuser on the above user and other suspected accounts. If there is anyone here with checkuser ability please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Atlpedia. Thank you.--Jersey Devil (talk) 07:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm the IPs OneTwo1 is the account of the IPs. I use the account sometimes, but I apologize for writing information on SamEV users page. That is inappropriate and rude, but you reverted back an article to your liking and blocked me when you didn't like me, which means you are abusing your rights blocking people and edits you don't like. I won't edit SamEV user page from now on. I just wanted the point to get across, but Hispanic and Latino Americans article is having a lot of edit warring right now. I didn't edit war from 6 months ago. I started editing 2 days ago. There is Mediation Cabal opened on that article and I will challenge an administrator if he/she is blocking user and reverting edits he/she don't like. We need to resolve this article and don't remove the "NPOV" tag until every editors are satsfied. SamEV also accused me of being "racist" and "Nordicist," which is a personal attack on wikipedia. I didn't personally attack him or you. We need to resolve this dispute and don't be blocking user and his/her edits when you don't like it. You also shouldn't muscle in on a conversation and force people into submission. If you keep pushing this dispute and blocking, I will immediatily notify all administrators to revoke your admin rights immediately and higher up the chain even unless you work with me and others to constructively improve Latino and Hispanic Americans articles and not take sides with SamEV and by blocking. That is cardinal violation of Wikipedia rule and Wikipedia administrator rule and you can't muscle people on Wikipedia on any fashion, but I was rude writing something on SamEV user account, but I didn't insult and vandalize anything. Onetwo1 (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You realize that by being here, you are evading your block right? The above account should be blocked for block evasion, if the owner of the IP wishes to contest his block, he needs to put an unblock review on the talk page for that IP.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if I'm blocked, my only concern is Hispanic and Latino Americans article. Jersey_Devil is blocking user so that he can save the version of the article to his liking. We need to look legimitimatly about this issue and my only concern is the NPOV tag on Hispanic and Latino Americans and resolve the dispute that has been going on for 3 days. Jersey_Devil and SamEV are muscling me into submission by starting with reverts and then tag teaming me into submission by blocking me when I didn't vandalize and insult anyone. I also suggest you look at SamEV's edit and personal attack on me on that talk page. Onetwo1 (talk) 08:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well we do care. If you were blocked from the article, and you wish to contest your block, then do so on the account that was blocked. You are not allowed to edit while blocked. Admins, I suggest you close this thread and block the above editor for block evasion.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

But can we at least agree on the Hispanic and Latin Americans article and that needs to be improved and still hold the position that NPOV is a valid and serious tag? This thread is not closed in any fashion. Onetwo1 (talk) 08:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No, we can't, as you are the only user that thinks that way, not to mention you are evading your block in order to push your POV regarding the article, which is not allowed.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No, first you can stop with the block evasion and then we can discuss whatever you want. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Who's that I see on the horizon? Might it be... Could it be... "Plaxico"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Housemost123

Resolved

• Housemost123 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

I just reverted some appaling edits from this user. I strongly suggest an immediate indefinite block. And hopefully these claims in its posts are bogus. Not sure if we notify police in such instances or what. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 08:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked by Daniel, who I assume will also alert Oversight.  Sandstein  08:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've also notified the threatened user in case they want to contact the police about this death threat.  Sandstein  08:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I see you notified Dominic. The blocked account also claims to have already done harm to NawlinWiki who hasn't edited since the 9th. Has anyone contacted him? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 08:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparent campaign to accuse Google of censoring Norman Finkelstein search results

There appears to be a campaign by multiple accounts (socks?) to accuse Google of censoring Norman Finkelstein's website from its search results, lacking verifiable evidence from reliable sources. See histories at Censorship by Google, Norman Finkelstein, Internet censorship, and Internet censorship in the United States. Involved accounts include Kennedypie (talk · contribs), Eva SK (talk · contribs), and Bendelay (talk · contribs). What is the appropriate response? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Assuming they're obvious socks, play whack-a-mole, or get a checkuser to hardblock a range for a few days. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that "http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/robots.txt" is a redirect to ""http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/robots.txt/" (note trailing slash), which is an error. Try putting the robots.txt url into this robots.txt checker, and you will get the message "ERROR: Redirect detected. Please insert the actual file URL". Google may have interpreted this as an opt-out. --John Nagle (talk) 01:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've given a "final" warning[44] and a note of report[45] to Kennedypie. Would someone mind blocking that account, and does anyone object if I revert? Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 10:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems s/he continued the campaign after the final warnings [46][47][48]. Can a non-involved admin consider a block? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 12:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours, with a request to join the discussion upon expiry of the sanction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Reuploading deleting image

Resolved

 – Deleted images don't hurt the server kitties. //roux   15:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There has been a long running disagreement at Spanish Empire about the various headline maps that have graced the article over the last couple of years. One involved party, User:EuroHistoryTeacher, was active from November to February and uploaded a series of maps that were in contravention of WP:NOR. He left the project (temporarily at least), things moved on and we got a new map. However, since a serial sockpuppeteer started adding it back (in spite of the talk page consensus) I requested that EHT's map be deleted [49].

EHT returned for one day in April and uploaded the image again [50] in - seemingly - a fit of pique. [51] Note, he hasn't used the image anywhere, he's just uploaded it because it was deleted. Is this acceptable? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Since it appears to comply with the license requirements, it is likely permissable. Of course, it is when it is placed into an article it becomes problematic... Perhaps we should consider it then? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. It's just that it seems to me like a misuse of server space and the Wiki infrastructure in general. Disk space isn't free, after all. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleting images does not save space. Disk space is not recovered when an image is deleted; the image is generally retained but inaccessible and can be restored by an admin. --Gadget850 (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless the image itself is blatant original research or otherwise in violation of image policy, per WP:OI it's fine to keep up here. We generally don't worry about performance issues. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Truthbetoldnow9 and The Sirius Mystery

Truthbetoldnow9 (talk · contribs) is an SPA whose only edits are their own pov version of The Sirius Mystery, e.g. [52]. I've edited the article, so I don't want to block him, but (presuming others agree with me) could someone else please do the necessary? I've warned the editor several times, no response. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 04:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

User blocked indefinitely, with invitation to contest after reading OR, NPOV, and FRINGE (properly linked to, without the acronyms). Xavexgoem (talk) 05:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

IP block evading

This IP, a persistent genre troll, is block evading. — R² 13:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've reblocked two IP ranges, 86.29.240.0/20 and 86.25.48.0/21 for a week each. These two ranges cover all IPs listed in the sockpuppet category for this user, as well as the IP you've listed now. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. — R² 16:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks of User:Shannon Rose

Resolved

 – Blocked for 220 hours, 2x previous NPA block.

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

On April 4th, after numerous warnings, Rose was banned by User:Kralizec! for 55 hours for some serious repeated personal attacks. The time was extended by admin User:Sandstein to 110 hours "due to continued personal attacks in unblock request", and Rose's page was protected that day by User:Chillum because of these continued personal attacks on her talk page during the block.[53]

Today she was warned by Chillum to cease having edit summaries in which she calls others "stupid editors".[54]. She reverted this warning, calling Chillium a "wikistalker".[55]

Can an uninvolved admin block Rose again, this time for a longer period, in the hopes that she realizes that such behavior is not acceptable? Ikip (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Endorse block. I really should not be so soft. I and others have had warnings regarding personal attacks removed by that user in the past. I should realize when warning a user who is already informed is futile and just move on to the next logical step. Chillum 16:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote on your talk page Sarek, thank you.

Thanks for your efforts Chillum. I think you have been very fair. There is a fine line between being fair and being harsh. fair does not equal "soft". Ikip (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

token threats 17:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

 – No evidence presented to back up accusation Theresa Knott

On Talk:Hak Ja Han User:PeterSymonds popped in with the seeming purpose to back up User:Cirt, whose views were not supported by any of the other editors involved with the article. This may not be a case of sockpuppetry, but it seems rather odd.Steve Dufour (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Eh? Theresa Knott | token threats 16:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The page for investigating sockpuppets is WP:SPI, and users are asked to present evidence to back up their claims. Cirt (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Please also see this comment by admin PeterSymonds to Steve Dufour (talk · contribs): [56]. Cirt (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Cirt. I will go to that page. I don't have a clue how a person would gather evidence about this except by observing the people's edits. If one seems to be acting only to support the other that looks like a sockpuppet to me. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

OK this needs to stop. You accusation is absurd so please don't make it again without substantial evidence to back it up. Theresa Knott | token threats 17:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest not wasting your time (and everyone else's) at WP:SPI if all you have as evidence is that they agreed with each other on a talk page. --Onorem♠Dil 17:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to be disruptive. Nor do I want to be a private investigator, which would be way over my head anyway. I just thought this might be the place to report potential problems. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, Steve Dufour (talk · contribs) was already warned by admin PeterSymonds at his talk page not to make these baseless claims without evidence [57]. At this point it seems Steve Dufour (talk · contribs) is falling back on his habitual disruptive ways of pushing WP:POINT in an attempt to gain the upper hand in a content dispute to which he is an active party. Cirt (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: Now we see in this action that this ANI report by Steve Dufour (talk · contribs) is indeed an attempt to game the system in an ongoing content dispute to which he is a party. Steve Dufour (talk · contribs) just removed material from the article Hak Ja Han, in the process also removing 12 reliable sources [58]. Cirt (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Steve Dufour (talk · contribs) is continuing to make baseless claims of sockpuppetry with zero evidence to back it up, despite warnings on his talk page as mentioned above, and here. [59]. Cirt (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

What kind of evidence would be possible? I don't have any way to track people's IP addresses, nor would I want to.Steve Dufour (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Update

I have started a content RFC at Talk:Hak_Ja_Han#RfC:_Sentence_about_marriage_to_Sun_Myung_Moon to address the content dispute issue. Cirt (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Rockiesfan19 and misuse of Twinkle

Resolved

 – contributions blocked indef per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cutlerowns19. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Rockiesfan19 (talk · contribs) registered on April 3, but did not edit until April 7th. His first edit was to install Twinkle and he apparently activated Friendly using the preferences. His first edits are "okay" tagging articles, though usually with stuff that doesn't need tagging (like tagging a stub with expand - well duh). However, today he used Twinkle for the first time. He reverted an edit on one article that doesn't look like vandalism to me, then proceeded to nominate the on-going AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Buffyverse objects for MfD[60]. I reverted the nom and tagged the MfD as being disruptive, but this seems like a pretty clear misuse of Twinkle. He also then used it to report a new user to AIV for non-vandalism.[61] On my talk page, he says "he's new to twinkle" but considered his first edit was adding it,[62] I smell something off here. In either case, his Twinkle access be removed until he learns what he's doing? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, something seems off. An editor doesn't add TWINKLE to the account for their first edit unless they are a sock of some kind. Erring on the side of caution, I would recommend a checkuser. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 12, 2009 @ 06:37

Sorry for this incident i will stop the use of twinkle. I was just wanting to help out but i see i caused a problemRockiesfan19 (talk) 06:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like this is handled, but let's all assume good faith here; unlikely as it may seem that a new user would know about Twinkle, keep in mind that a link to a page showing how to install it is in every edit summary made using it. Something like this should be handled by contacting the user and asking them to quit it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. We need to drop the "proper newbies must be dumb" kind of idea. It is possible that someone may be fairly familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines if he has contributed to or at least been reading our pages for a while before deciding to create an account here. I know that's what I did, and I got a "OMG SOCK!" message on my talk page one month later. Rather than being a sock, it might be an actually useful editor who wants to get his facts right before jumping in. We all see a lot of new editors who don't know what they are doing and receive a "welcome to wikipedia. the recent edit you made to..." messages after their first edit. Once in a blue moon we get someone who actually has read and understood the thing before making his first edit, we ABF and kick him out calling him a sock! There's no harm in at least monitoring him for a while before coming to that conclusion is there? Accusing him straight away is likely to scare him off and we lose a potential contributor who might have been of good use to Wikipedia. BTW I'm sorry if this seems too heated, but since this is something I came across during my early days here, I kind of lose my patience whenever I see this kind of thing. Not meaning to offend or accuse anybody here, but I'm talking about the whole community's attitude in general. Chamal ^talk 07:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

And a lot of us lose patience with this "AGF at all costs" approach, when experience tells us differently. When a "new" editor won't answer the question, "How did you know about this?", it undermines "good faith". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I try to AGF, but when one's first edits are a certain way, I do find it hard to do so, particularly when one of the edits is to try to delete a very heated on-going discussion debate. And then the other edits I see are also using what are generally "advanced" tools, but misusing pretty much all of them. It just concerned me enough that I felt someone else should look at it (and admin attention was needed in either case to remove that MfD). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying "AGF at all costs", and nor am I saying that obviously bad faith edits can be treated that way. Only thing I'm saying is that we shouldn't be too hasty in straight away accusing a new user because he does something "advanced". I'm also not denying that a sock is likely to behave this way either. But if we react in the wrong way to the wrong incident, it will just harm the project. As I said, I wasn't addressing it to any one individual and I'm not saying that this is necessarily the case here. Chamal ^talk 07:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, Bugs, the only indication he got that something was wrong was a templated warning that he might just have assumed was the result of a simple mistake (especially considering the deliberately non-BITEy wording of level-1 UW templates). The immediate next step was ANI and suggestions of sockpuppetry. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The next step was not a suggestion of sockpuppetry, but just a concern that something was wrong and asking an administrator to look at removing Twinkle until he learned how to use it (particularly, when I could have sworn you had to have a certain level of edits to use it) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I was familiar with Wikipedia before i created the account. I just wanted to go start using twinkle after i discovered the twinkle app by researching the different gadgets Wikipedians can use. It caught my eye sorry i didn't use it wisely yall just need to calm down i made a simple mistake. Rockiesfan19 (talk) 07:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

After the notes above, Rockiesfan19 also attempted to file an SPI on User:NuclearWarfare[63][64] and User:Mikey50[65] and is continuing to make false/incorrect AIV reports. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

At the very least take his toys away from him. HalfShadow 20:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the toys need to go back into the toy box until he learns to play nicely. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 12, 2009 @ 21:31

per: "I was familiar with Wikipedia before i created the account. As Rockiesfan19 has released us from the newbie clause, perhaps taking away the toys isn't all that can be done here. Looks to me like it may be getting very close to a "being sent to your room" issue. — Ched :  ?  23:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, something needs to be done, because accusing well established editors of sockpuppetry is going a little too far and is just plain disruptive. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 12, 2009 @ 23:02

To be fair, he did revert himself perhaps a minute later, and the original case was somewhat understandable, as I had created an account with a very similar name for ACC perhaps a minute before. But this recent edit suggests to me that he clearly needs to have his monobook cleared and fully protected. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 00:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Being sent to your room comment is unnecessary. I apologized and when i make a mistake i revert it! Lets follow Wikipedia guidelines that comment about sent to room is unneeded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockiesfan19 (talkRockiesfan19 (talk) 01:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars ([66], [67], [68]), and, unless it's vandalism, don't ever revert edits to another user's page ([69]) HalfShadow 01:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody please answer this question: If we can't trust this user to not to troll with Twinkle (or Huggle or AWB or any other tool), why would we trust him not to troll without it? Thanks. — CharlotteWebb 01:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Being assumptive of good faith perhaps? Looking at this user's edits with semi-automated tools, he doesn't know what he's doing but may think he does. Whether he's intentionally trolling or genuinely trying to figure things out here and contribute positively becomes less and less clear with each poorly-considered edit he makes. I agree with the above suggestion of blanking his monobook and protecting it temporarily; I don't know why he thought he should re-add it after being specifically told to remove it. But this should be viewed as a definite last chance; Wikipedia is not a game. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, assuming good faith, I'm thinking they were mistakes from not knowing how to use the tool properly or trying to experiment. I also agree to removing his access to these tools until he learns how things work here. There's nothing serious enough here to justify a block IMO. However, Rockiesfan19 should understand that he has acknowledged he is familiar with Wikipedia (which means he will no more be treated like a complete newbie), so if this kind of behaviour continues it's likely to get him in trouble. Chamal ^talk 02:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

And... blocked. Though just 24h. And to be honest, it looks like he started to go nuts immediately before. He's claiming innocence, but I agree with the block considering the excuse. Next time should be indef for sure. And, as much as it pains me to admit it, I wonder if there's a connection here to contributions. Someone may wish to open a new SPI for that. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

He's claiming someone else got on his computer and made the malicious edits. How's the "good faith" meter reading at this point? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Mine is going down like I've got a fuel tank with a big hole in it :( I now get the impression that he got the idea from my comment earlier to say that he was familiar with Wikipedia before he joined. Well, he'll get one more chance and if he keeps going like this again, indef it should be. Not sure about the sockpuppet thing though, is there enough evidence to go into this? Chamal ^talk 09:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Might be a good idea to persuade him to get adopted when he returns (if he's not a sock, that is). Chamal ^talk 09:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you've managed to panic him, and he's trying everything he can think of to keep from getting banned. --Carnildo (talk) 09:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You think so? But his contributions show that his editing hasn't changed much even after the post here and he admitted that he knows what he's doing. He's not exactly trying to stay low or anything. Chamal ^talk 09:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't know as we should be calling for a ban quite yet. I suspect that what we're dealing with is simply an over-eager editor who wants to be part of the community. Boldness to be sure, and I dare say that the desire to RfA is just a tad premature, but I'm willing to extend the last shred of AGF. Perhaps with a little mentorship and tutelage there may be a Wikipedian within this user. Perhaps when the block expires we'll see an attempt to tone it down a bit. I noticed that the user was very touchy about the "getting sent to his room" comment - perhaps it struck a nerve a little too close to home - so for that I'll apologize. I would strongly suggest the editor start reading up on the core policies and guidelines before continuing to edit however. Let it be known that he/she is on a very short leash for a while, and let's see where it goes when the block expires. A note to Rockiesfan19, just because something "caught your eye", doesn't mean it's a good idea to pick it up. Slow down, fix some typos and spelling errors in articles, and don't push the "bold" and "IAR" items until you understand the when and why to do it. — Ched :  ?  11:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ched; what we're seeing could easily just be an eager editor who, despite his/her insistence, does not have an appreciation of Wikipedia's core policies. A full ban is premature, but a ban from using automated editing tools for a time might be appropriate. Compulsory mentorship might also be a good idea, though it might seem kind of a shitty hand to be dealt for a relatively new editor. I'm still concerned about the possibility of a connection to contributions, considering the accusation made at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HalfShadow. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Obvious sock is obvious, come on. Brand new goodfaith users don't file badfaith SPI cases against random users. I'd be willing to bet it's a Cutlerowns19 sock. //roux   14:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable conclusion. Offhand I'd say the previous username is a reference to Jay Cutler (a Denver Bronco until last week) and that the other one represents a feigned interest in the local baseball team (rather than football as before), and furthermore Susan I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if checkuser places all four of them in central Colorado. — CharlotteWebb 15:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Susan? Well, it ain't easy being a boy named Sue... //roux   15:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, hell- so much for what was left of my good faith. Look at Rockiesfan's account creation time compared to Rwiki's block time. Someone want to request the checkuser, or would a WP:DUCK block be appropriate as per the previous case? It also might be worth pointing the user to WP:SO if he/she genuinely wishes to contribute here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cutlerowns19 filed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies: A statement of principle

I apologize in advance for closing this discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The situation with the failed RFA of Neurolysis had several bad aspects, but I would like to highlight one that has come up before and which I think we should prevent from coming up again by a clear statement. Apologies, if they are supposed to ameliorate a situation or mitigate guilt, must go to the aggrieved individual(s). Hypothetical #1: If I steal John's car, and I apologize to the policeman who arrests me for stealing it, the arrest will take place anyway. John is still out a car, a theft has still occurred. If I sleep with Mark's wife and then apologize to Mark's her friend, Alice, Mark will still be outraged. Additionally, apologies should come upon discovery of the injury, not discovery of the consequences for the injury. This is, of course, why we dislike politicians who accept bribes, write legislation making bribery illegal, accept more bribes, and then, when caught, burst into tears before television cameras. They repent when caught. We don't believe their apologies, because we see them not only as not signs of contrition, but as signs of further criminality -- as mechanisms for continued operation of personal graft. Hypothetical #2: If I insult the boss with my co-workers around the water cooler, and they laugh, I feel like a big man. One of them tells me it's wrong to do that. Next lunch, I come up with an even funnier, nastier insult. Again, big laughs and frowns. Finally, the boss comes in and wants to fire me, and I go into a long apology. He fires me anyway, most likely. The point I am making is that we should establish these as general principles. I am not saying that apologies can't be offered in general or to other people, etc. Of course they can. However, if anyone wishes for an apology to be part of mediating an offense, it needs to be before the consequence and to the aggrieved party. If it's only one of those, it's natural to expect the wounded party to still be sore about it. If it's neither of them, then it's natural for the wounded party to be in full outrage, whether the person should express it or not. Can I get an amen? Footnote for the suspicious: (I'm not imputing malice, by the way. Neurolysis "apologized" to Ryan Postlewhite for something he said on the Observer blog, but no one else heard of the apology, that I'm aware of, and so he said he'd apologized, past tense, and Giano said, "What apology?" The point is that we need to make it clear that even saying, "I apologized" needs to be understood before we start wheeling that out in explanations of actions.) (I.e. Those agreeing with the above indicate by signing below) Geogre (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Option #2 Let's not extend the drama Support - //roux   16:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Support - Geogre, make this an essay. I will support and reference it in my future admin actions where appropriate, but this is too soon and the wrong venue to make it a point of division between the sysop (and wider) community. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Support. Let's abide by the KISS principle. Agreed, this could sort out a lot of unblock requests and I don't mean any offense to Geogre, but this is probably going to start some nasty wikilawyering. —Admiral Norton (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose. If you're going to solicit support for a proposal, you need to state clearly and unambiguously what you are proposing. I can't support because I only have a general idea what I would be supporting. Looie496 (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Comment. I have strong opinions on the apology issue, but second the advice above that you take this to an essay page in your userspace where it can be discussed in greater detail. Cla68 (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Comment Maybe develop this as an essay in your userspace. Can't see what admin action is needed here though.--John (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Comments I think the moral of the story is that if you believe you should apologise for something you've done, you should do it to the face of the person you've wronged. Whether that be in private or public depends on what you're apologising for. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 16:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC) biut if the appology is so private that the person being appologised to, has no idea the appoloogy has taken place, what the fuck use is that? Giano (talk) Ryan, I'm not talking about Neurolysis. I'm not talking about Giano. I'm talking about Kelly saying she "had apologized," about Tony Sidaway saying he "had apologized," about David Gerard saying he "had apologized," and each time to someone other than the person who had been offended. I'm talking about people using "I apologized" as a "Get Out of Jail Free Card or the legendary "Free Pass." I'm saying that we, as a community of administrators, need to set out a clear set of expectations about what apologies are and when they should be employed rhetorically to have weight. If we're going to keep seeing them as counters in these "dramas," as yet another person quoting drag queen slang says, then let's at least set forth some rationality for them. Myself, I don't think apologies have any weight in these matters, but everyone else disagrees, so, since they do, let's have a minimal standard for reasonable definition. Geogre (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Don't mean to be rude, but... What incident here requires immediate attention? Protonk (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Perhaps the posting of the "Resolved" template? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC) The ability to spell "Apologised" seems the only likely one. Americans eh? :) Seriously - Archive. Pedro :  Chat  21:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Or, if you're a droogie, it's appy polly loggies. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Bloody Brits and their peculiar spellings... ;) —Travistalk 22:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Ahem, if only it were that simple. – ukexpat (talk) 02:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Aha! A, HAH! Or, as that same droogie would say: [70] 09:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC) On On Apology First, this would be better off at the Village Pump. Second, I'm pretty sure that we have an encyclopaedia somewhere around here. Since this is hardly the first time in human history that the subject of the sincerity, timing, and other characteristics of an apology has come up, I wouldn't be surprised if we couldn't document the subject of apology from sources, and then refer to it. We could start with On Apology (ISBN 9780195189117) by Aaron Lazare, which has two entire chapters — chapter 8, "The timing of apologies", and chapter 9, "Delayed apologies" — on this specific aspect alone. Then there's Graham G. Dodds (2003). "Political Apologies and Public Discourse". In Judith Rodin and Stephen P. Steinberg (ed.). Public Discourse in America: Conversation and Community in the Twenty-first Century. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 9780812237412., which discusses the timing of apologies (which can apparently be both too soon as well as too late) and the relationship of timing to effectiveness on pages 156–157. There are several other good sources, too. Some of them (such as the quite appropriately named Keith Michael Hearit (2005). Crisis management by apology. Routledge. p. 33. ISBN 9780805837889.) cite Nicholas Tavuchis (1993). Mea Culpa: A Sociology of Apology and Reconciliation. Stanford University Press. ISBN 9780804722230., whose discussion of the timing of apologies is to be found on pages 87 et seq.. Time is better spent writing encyclopaedia articles than project-space essays that will likely duplicate them, poorly. I offer no apology for suggesting that we write the encyclopaedia as a reference work that we can even use ourselves. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 05:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC) It may be more productive to focus on forgiveness (the outcome) than on apology (the process). On Forgiveness: How Can We Forgive the Unforgivable? by Richard Holloway (ISBN 184195358X) is a fascinating read. I recommend it to anybody. --John (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive IP on Talk:2009 Pittsburgh police shootings

Resolved

 – range 4.155.117.xxx blocked for a period of 1 month. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

and user matched with a past blocked user - FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

To start I am not sure if this is the correct location, the incidents in question are a combination of ongoing vandalism, civility issues, socking issues, and everything else, so I'm going to post here. There is one particular person who has an IP address that keeps rotating around the 4.155.117.xxx location. For example 4.155.117.213 (talk · contribs), 4.155.117.131 (talk · contribs), 4.155.117.254 (talk · contribs), 4.155.117.112 (talk · contribs), 4.155.117.214 (talk · contribs), 4.155.117.116 (talk · contribs), 4.155.117.252 (talk · contribs), and 4.155.117.235 (talk · contribs). Hence force he will be referred to as "the individual". The individual has been disrupting the Talk:2009 Pittsburgh police shootings, see Revision history of Talk:2009 Pittsburgh police shootings for the multiple edits by the individual.

A few highlights of the individual, the individual will refer to other editors as "gringo" [71] and has done this on other articles in the past [72]. The individual keeps ranting about crazy conspiracy theories and wants to turn the talk page into a blog about Zionist conspiracies and the legitimacy of the neo-nazi site Stormfront see [73] and [74]. The individual doesn't respond to the reasoned arguments provided by me [75] where I explain that we are not calling Richard Poplawski a racist or a skinhead or a neo-nazi, we are pointing out that he visited websites, such as Stormfront, that are considered such. The individual responds by saying "Are you americans stupid on purpose, or is it genetic?"[76]

The individual has posted a rant that ends with "You, Anglos and JEWS of the USA, YOU created him and the millions to come. What goes around comes around...!" [77]. This sort of hateful rhetoric with no connection to the incident does not belong on talk pages. The individual also keeps trying to bring up Hardy Lloyd [78] whose website can be seen here [79]. The individual also keeps mentioning that he is not from America, yet his IP address traces to Pittsburgh, PA. I am positive that the individual has engaged in this same behavior in the past, but I am unable to trace their full history as the IP address keeps jumping around. Also note that he has introduced Hardy Llloyd into other articles [80], and that Hardy Llloyd is based out of Pittsburgh, and on his blog he keeps using the term "gringos" like the individual does.

The individual been blocked multiple times before, stating "Also, OR WHAT? I've been banned 20 times!! LOL" [81].

Can some administrators please look into this and suggest what can/should be done? Any input and actions are greatly appreciated. Thanks! TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 18:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I've filed a request for semi-protection at WP:RPP. Looie496 (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I blocked the range for a month. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Given the disruptive history and above posts, checkuser work on the /16 suggests that this IP user is on the /24 only (many IPs from 4.155.117.3 to 4.155.117.254), plus is also  Confirmed as Josh Dean Roy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an indef blocked user.

The articles they are recently active on, are:

• 2009 Pittsburgh police shootings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Creativity Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Creativity Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Fascism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Julius Evola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of fascist movements by country U-Z (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Third Position (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Fascism (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:WikiProject Fascism|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wotanism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An SPI page under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Josh Dean Roy, may be helpful for future; I've copied the salient points from the above thread into it and a full list of IPs.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

User is back

I think the user is back. Please see the recent work of 216.183.185.100 (talk · contribs). I would be hesitant to file a request for page protection, as there are many helpful IP's who are popping in every so often to improve the article. What else can be done? Could some administrators keep a keen eye on the article, and also take a look at the user mentioned, 216.183.185.100 ? Thanks. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 17:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks, since there was a week long sanction from early March also for block evasion. Perhaps this should be noted in any ongoing SPI report? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Violation of topic ban: Neutralhomer

Resolved

 – Neutralhomer has apologized and agreed to abide by the restriction. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, in this discussion, Neutralhomer was asked to adhere to (and agreed to) a topic ban that prevented him from engaging with and commenting on the actions of Betacommand. When he was unblocked last year, Neutralhomer was warned that engaging with several users would result in his reblock. Betacommand was added to this list per his constant actions involving him (including revert warring through Twinkle and the like).

In the last few weeks, Neutralhomer has been going against this ban in commenting on discussions regarding Betacommand. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Betacommand#Return_of_Betacommand? and this comment. I believe that Neutralhomer should be blocked as it is obvious that he cannot adhere to the ban. either way (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You know what, that is on me. I actually forget of that ban. Honestly, it slipped me. My sincerest apologizes. I will strike my comments on Betacommand's talk page. Again, I apologize. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 13, 2009 @ 01:57

Comment struck per the above. I would also like to note that it would have been a tad polite to remind me of the ban before calling for my head. People forget, it happens. Either Way could have politely reminded me of the ban and I would have gladly struck my comments and backed away slowly. Calling for someone's head over what amounted to suggesting a checkuser is a tad rude. Again, I apologize for jumping my ban, I forgot and it will not happen again. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 13, 2009 @ 02:05

It is not our responsibility to remind people politely that they can't do certain things. You should remember your own restrictions. You commented, so far as I can see, four times in the last week or so on Betacommand. either way (talk) 02:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Being that Betacommand is banned and not likely to be allowed back for quite some time, if at all, doesn't that render the topic ban moot? Betacommand is gone; the whole point to the topic ban was so that they wouldn't snipe at each other, and you can't have a fight with one person. HalfShadow 02:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Betacommand's talk page should be cleared and protected, and that should take care of it. And there should be a new sweep for possible socks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

But, in essence, that allows Neutralhomer the ability to snipe with no return. Stating that the ban (on Beta) "hasn't gotten through his thick skull" isn't exactly a civil, polite comment to be leaving at the talk page of someone you're banned from interacting with. either way (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Banned users shouldn't even be on their talk pages unless they're posting a request for being unbanned. And none of us, me included, should be on his talk page. Clear the junk from it and protect it, and that should end any sniping in either direction. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Done Theresa Knott | token threats 08:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, run for socks, protect the page, archive all the dicussion and if Beta comes back to raise hell, then we start up another discussion, but it's time to take out the trash and not bring it back in. User:MrRadioGuy ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 02:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Do you remember all the restrictions you give out from week to week? Beta was silent for some six months. I should have, yes, been able to remember the topic ban from November, I didn't. That is on me. I take full responsibility for it. But calling for my head without so much as a warning...little much. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 13, 2009 @ 02:13

You're topic banned. That itself serves as the warning. either way (talk) 02:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to argue you on this. I have struck my comment, I have apologized, I think that is enough. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 13, 2009 @ 02:19

This is probably done for now. The topic ban wouldn't go away since Beta is gone for now; technically no user is truly banned "forever". You reading this from me is hint enough of that. But... unfortunately, Beta and Betacommandbot should be CU'd, probably... then we can archive this. Someone ping the CUs on IRC? rootology (C)(T) 02:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal Attacks by User:Theaveng

User:Theaveng is making personal attacks against me on Talk:DTV transition in the United States, as well as in his comments while editing on the main article. Please ban him. TomCat4680 (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Classic wikiquette alert material. I don't think a ban is likely; a polite discussion is probably going to produce the most productive outcome. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• I see nothing in Theavegn's recent contributions that constitutes a blatant breach of WP:NPA, while you have been less than civil yourself on that talk page. He shouldn't revive old heated exchanges however, but that's no basis for a block. Equendil Talk 19:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

He's being way more uncivil than me. How about a topic ban at least? TomCat4680 (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I just apologized to User:Vchimpanzee on his talk page. So water under the bridge. TomCat4680 (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well that's a start. I don't think there is anything we need to do here. Theresa Knott | token threats 19:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Not even a harassment warning? or a temporary block? or a topic ban? I think he deserves some kind of punishment, he's taking it too far. Vchimpazee even said so on my talk page. TomCat4680 (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You need to know that a "block" is meant to be preventative, and not punishment, so don't ask for one. If you haven't taken the time to discuss your issues with the user directly, then in WQA, then there's nothing to prevent. We don't do topic bans for incivility either, and begging for action to be taken when you haven't even done the bare minimum attempt at resolution is ... well ... disruptive. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 21:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Let some more water pass, I'll talk to User:Theaveng. Please remember yourself not to be rude to other editors in the future, antagonism only breeds antagonism. Equendil Talk 19:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Point taken, but it wasn't my intent, like I said on Vchimpazee's page. I'll try to be more civil in the future. Case closed.TomCat4680 (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

We've resolved this, and I've decided to let it go. The earlier comments bothered me, but I decided to ignore it. The exchange has resulted in settling the matter and all is well.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

need 1 page move over redirect

Please move Talk:Tanolies today back into User talk:Khalidpervezshaheen. It was accidentally moved to mainspace while moving his userpage, and now I can't put back. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight on Barney Frank BLP

Parties agree to move on. Wizardman takes User:ChildofMidnight's matter to the Obama ArbCom case and suggests a RfC for the Barney Frank article.--Caspian blue 23:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Initial ANI post with timeline of edits on article ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) has shown a disruptive, tenditious POV pattern on Barney Frank article. Frank heads the US Senate Finance Committee and is very prominent in mainstream media. He is also one of the most visible LGBT politicians, possibly in the world. He is also a continual source of derision from right-leaning commentators and our article is regularly vandalized. ChildofMidnight has made a few constructive edits but has been edit-warring to remove positive content overviewing Frank's career from the lede while inserting badly or unsourced negative-ish content. For instance we have that he's a defender of civil rights but ChildofMidnight insists we need to wedge in gay rights as well. The lede is rather short and the only other civil rights anyone wants to mention is also from ChildofMidnight as they want to insert marijuana reform, which does not seem to be a prominent issue. They may be doing other good work but I think their contributions to the Frank article have been a net loss and major time-and-energy-suck for the community. Timeline of ChildofMidnight's edits over the past 2.5 weeks on the Barney Frank article. 17 March Here they remove a positive, sourced and attributed statement and replace it with a "criticized by conservatives" one that is sourced to an editorial and a second source which doesn't support the statement at all. I reverted edits pointing out the sourcing problems. They repeated the edit almost exactly (slightly different placing in lede) with the same bad sources. These are again removed with explanation why the positive content is valid and the negative content is poorly sourced. They insert "Frank supports gay rights and medical marijuana." Even though a statement regarding Frank's civil rights support is already there and little evidence supports adding medical marijuana to the lede, both are covered in the article. It's removed with explanation. 18 March They remove the positive (attributed and sourced) quotes again stating "per NPOV. We can have balance. but not just one side". I reverted and encouraged them to find reliable sources for any criticism. They then simply move the lede content overviewing the subject's career to the "Early life" section which is illogical at best. I reverted stating rv, please stop edit warring over this. Per wp:lede and WP:Notability we should spell out why this person is notable; no one is stopping you from adding notable criticism if it is sourced well 19 March User is asked directly on their talpage why removing sourced content. They again delete from lede stating - "does not belong in the lead unless balanced". Reverted with explanation - wp:NPOV does not state we have to tack on negative content to BLP ledes if there is positive content. 20 March Repeats removal and reintroduced badly sourced negative content; it's reverted (again with explantion) and note concerning the sourcing problems. Again moves the content (overviewing subjects career) to "Early life" section with edit summary "reorganize". This was reverted and they move it again. It's reverted along with clean-up of poor sourcing regarding Frank and the Fanny/Freddie regulating content which seem to be pointing that Frank should be held responsible for the sub-prime mortgage crisis, and by extension, the financial economic slowdowns. 21 March Removes sourced content written by the BLP as not reliable and POV; although one source is the subject's own website and the other http://www.house.gov. Deletes sourced and NPOV content unfavorable to Republicans citing "reliable sources needed". Inserts "Frank opposed increased oversight and reforms of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while in the minority." and "Frank is an advocate for gay right and legalized marijuana." prominently into lede. Reverted with explanation "the press release here is actually reliable as people are considered experts about themselves". 24 March again deletes positive and sourced content from lede with edit summary "Put in body (as I did in the past) or leave out." Inserts somewhat negative and vague "His role on the Senate banking committee and overseeing the financial sector and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has been scrutinized." It too was reverted. 25 March Removes the same (sourced) content with edit summary - "not discussed in article so doesn't belong in lead. the Fannie Mae subject matter is discussed extensively and should be noted along with gay rights advocacy." This is untrue. Franks civil rights work is discussed in the article and the Fanny/Freddie material doesn't suggest a big Frank controversy or that the current info about him being in charge of the Senate Finance committee needs to be expanded on in this way. Reverted with explanation "a "defender of civil rights issues" of which LGBT issues are a part; Fannie/Freddie bits are a current event that Frank is being blamed for by some" Reverts it again stating "irrelevancy" and advocating for Fanny/Freddie content to be added to lede. Reverted as "notable biographical description". 27 March Nicholas.tan now enters the picture and reverts after siding with ChildofMidnight in the thread on ChildofMidnight's talkpage.[82] Nicholas.tan edit summary is "WIKIPUFF" which per wp:Wikipuff is inaccurate as ... the sourced content is true. I revert with "sourced and speaks to this career politicians notability" explanation. ChildofMidnight reverts falsely claiming "not appropriate for lead. not discussed in article". Nicholas.tan reverts more sourced positive ifo from the lede again citing "puff". They are both reverted with explanation. ChildofMidnight again deletes the same content stating - "against policy. this is promotional POV. totally inappropriate for introduction". (article fully protected) After talkpage consensus, content is restored.[83] ChildofMidnight edit wars against several editors here and here and here where he also reinserts "Frank is an advocate for gay rights and the legalization of medical marijuana". It's reverted with explanation these other issues are not considered mjor issues for lede (beyond what we have). So naturally they revert again, which was reverted. They then added "and conservative critics note that he contributed to the housing crisis by opposing Bush administration proposals to increase oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." to the lede with no sources, and against the talkpage consensus that this was appropriate. It's reverted so they again revert and stopped after it was again removed, likely because of a 3rr warning on their talkpage. They were subsequently warned about personal attacks on three talkpages. They then started a rather pointy "Notable content replaced with cheerleading" talkthread with the intro - Some of Wikipedia's most notorious POV pushers have been removing Frank's most notable work. It has been refactored after several requests. They also brought the excitement to My talkpage accusing me of deleting "notable and well sourced content" and insinuating my homophobia, which is pretty far-fetched even with a quick glance at any of my work here. Based on this I wonder if the article could use a break from this help? They may have issues on other articles but my interaction has been limited, as far as I know, to the Frank one. Would a pageban make sense? -- Banjeboi 01:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Personally, I would endorse a topic ban for ChildofMidnight on any article to do with politics. He created his account on election day in 2008 and then began a systematic campaign to attack anything vaguely liberal, particularly President Obama and anything associated with him or his administration. Frankly, it is astounding that he has managed to avoid bans and blocks all this time. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC) The trouble has at times extended to Israel/Palestine articles as well. I have been reluctant to broach the subject here because this has been going on so persistently for so long, but there is a large swath of incivility, accusations, edit wars, administrative notices, and protected pages. BTW, has anybody notified the editor yet? No doubt they will arrive and promptly accuse me, ScJessey, Benjiboi, and others of bad faith, POV pushing, and all the usual. Those accusations have been a big part of the overall problem. Wikidemon (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Other editors I'm moving this header here because we really do need to separate the original issue from the ensuing mud slinging - Wikidemon (talk) 04:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC) If it is usual for you to be accused of bad faith editing and POV pushing, then perhaps it is you and not the "accusation" that is the problem. Rklawton (talk) 03:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC) That's a pretty shocking comment from an administrator - all the more so because you just said it on this noticeboard. On what basis do you justify this off-the-cuff comment? Have you studied Wikidemon's edit history and found it to be problematic, or are you just making an unwarranted assumption? -- Scjessey (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC) As a clue to the uninitiated, the accounts responsible for the majority of such complaints are now indefinitely blocked and/or banned from Wikipedia, in large part for being sockpuppets of the same editor. No, I am one of the harder working non-administrative article patrollers, as well as a frequent commentator on meta and process issues, not to mention a longstanding, very productive article editor. Wikidemon (talk) 04:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Wikidemon is rehashing an old issue where I responded to a third opinion request and found Wikidemon blocing compromise over a well sourced content addition for months. He refused mediation (the only editor to do so as I recall). He's a very problematic editor whose edit history shows he only works on political articles and only makes political edits. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Utter nonsense. The price of editing here should not be responding to month after month of fabricated nonsense accusations from this editor, so I won't. My editing is simply not the issue here. ChildofMidnight was a terribly disruptive presence at the BLP to which COM is referring, Rashid Khalidi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). COM repeatedly made overt accusations of bad faith there too, and by revert warring BLP-violations into the article again and again while alternately ignoring the talk page discussions or hurling insults in them, helped get that article edit protected three times, the most recent one indefinitely. COM also helped get Barack Obama protected during the most recent flare-up, and has lately been coaching and inciting other disruptive users, edit warring in talk pages, on and on. It's quite extensive. I would not have chosen this occasion to finally deal with the editor but now that the subject has come up, we need to put an end to it sooner or later. Wikidemon (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC) This is a continuation of the personal attacks and harassment against me. I've tried to be as patient as possible and I welcome anyone who wants to weigh in on the actual content that is at the core of this dispute and have suggested an RfC as a way to get more involvement. The content has already been discussed in some detail on the article talk page, and numerous editors have stated the obvious. I know this noticeboard doesn't deal with content disputes, but let's be very clear about the content in dispute and the nature of my "tendentious" editing. I've tried to add: A statement that Barney Frank is an advocate for gay rights to the last paragraph of the introduction. This is, of course, very well sourced and covered substantially in the article. It's unclear what the objection to this NPOV statement is, and I find it disturbing and possibly homophobic. A statement that Frank is an advocate for medical marijuana. Also discussed at length in the article with ample sourcing. Something about his role as the leading Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee (in the minority and now in the majority) and his role and positions overseeing the banking sector. (I'm refactoring to add this point. I forgot it initially) They've been adding to the introduction: The opinion of Bill Clinton's speechwriter saying how wonderful Frank is. This obviously doesn't belong on the lead and has been noted repeatedly by various editors in discussion on the talk page. If it is included it should be balanced with other notable opinions of Frank's work. And of course this trivial opinion isn't discussed anywhere else in the article. A New York Times quote taken out of context saying Frank is a bipartisan bridge builder (seriously!) doesn't belong in the introduction and is misleading. I've provided reliable sources that contradict this statement on the talk page. It's not discussed anywhere else in the article. I'm happy to compromise and have made that clear all along. I've tried to use the talk page, but discussion gets hijacked with soapboxing and personal attacks from Wikidemon and Scjessey (who has been warned repeatedly by various editors and administrators). The opinions of good faith editors are disregarded and the pattern of reversions against consensus and guidelines and without explanation continues. I know ANI doesn't deal with content disputes, but that's what this is about. Even the thread title seems inappropriate. Where are the supposed BLP violations? These are some of the same editors who have been attacking anyone who makes suggestions on the Obama article talk page. Their editing is very limited to certain politicized articles. I welcome any and all help and suggestions for how to proceed to achieve an NPOV article that is consistent with guidelines. I am happy to compromise and happy to consider any and all suggestions. I don't hold grudges and if Wikidemon and Scjessey can cease their personal attacks, soap boxing, and other inappropriate actions I will certainly do my best to work with them. I'm not big on ANI reports and diff digging, but their inappropriate actions are there for all to see. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC) If he is, as you say, the most prominent LGBT politician in the world would it not make sense to include his efforts on behalf of gay rights? Is it just CoM on the one side and everyone else on another, or would mediation or an RfC perhaps make headway on this situation? Unless there is a history of formal dispute resolution or user conduct issues with CoM that haven't been outlined, it seems like some intermediary step might be useful. Also, sidenote, the Senate has a banking committee and Frank is in the House on the financial services committee. Pedantic, of course, but I just can't help myself! Avruch T 02:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC) CoM's reasoning above sounds, well, reasonable to me. Rklawton (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC) As usual, CoM has completely misrepresented the details here. The introduction of the article already notes Barney Frank's work with civil rights (which encompass gay rights, of course), and the introduction already notes Frank "has become one of the most prominent openly gay politicians in the United States." CoM inserted an additional line about gay rights in order to act a substitute for the far more expansive line about Frank's civil rights activity. Upon reversion, he promptly accused editors of being homophobic - a disgusting tactic. I said at the time that I didn't think anyone would fall for this ploy, but it appears as if that may not be the case. Please review his activities carefully and do not take any comments he makes at face value. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC) This is not the first article where I've had to re-add gay and gender related content after it was repeatedly removed. I'm not sure what motivates the removal of this content against guidelines. Anotehr editor made a wikialert report on Scjessey's recent over-the-top personal attack against me and he or she has been warned numerous times about their personal attacks and other inappropriate behavior. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC) In addition to Scjessey's edit war warning to ChildofMidnight, I also warned ChildofMidnight about edit warring not knowing he'd already been warned by Scjessey since ChildofMidnight immediately removed the first warning from his talk page. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 02:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Franks career is quite extensive and a well written article may do more than it currently states - in the lede, that is - but no, it is indeed CoM's POV being injected here against concensus. Their edit-warring has been extremely antagonistic and now they claim censorship and persecution which is rubbish. No one counters that well sourced criticism can't be in the lede. It simply needs to be reliably-sourced and demonstratable that it's notable. Injecting vague and disparaging statements badly sourced or tied to opinion peices is against policy. Yet they tried it many times. No one disputes medical marijuana is an issue - among hundreds - that Frank has worked on but it is being used in a disingenuous way that is not supportable that this is a major issue to Frank. In a prior discussion we decided to weight the policy issues of Frank by the volume of content. None of them are featured in the lede. This has been pointed out to CoM many times yet they choose to edit-war again and again. So the two items stated above they wish to add ... are already covered in the lede under the quote regarding Frank being a leader on civil rights. It would be silly for us to spell out a laundry list and no one has done a good overview of his career to see what issues are most important to him. He's been a politician for decades so this is not surprising - it's a lot of work. The two items CoM is again railing against were agreed by concensus to re-add after CoM's ongoing edit-warring. The New York Times is generally considered reliable on these things. I've listed fuller quotes in part to build consensus in the talkthread so others are welcome to look if our collective sourcing of these quotes is indeed accurate to the sources and presented NPOV; despite CoM's claims they aren't. And CoM's compromise tactic's? I think again deletes positive and sourced content from lede with edit summary "Put in body (as I did in the past) or leave out." and the concept that we can't say positive things unless we also say negative ones. I missed the section in BLP where mudslinging a BLP should balance out their accomplishments. -- Banjeboi 02:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC) You know, the content here is not the point nor is the dispute significant content-wise. Who cares whether the Barney Frank article mentions his civil rights position in general or detailed terms in the lead, or whether his anti-regulation record is in the lead or just the body? Reasonable editors can work together on over time on this without revert warring calling each other names. The problem is yet another article fully protected due to edit warring (I'll have to look around to see which), and bald accusations by COM across multiple articles and talk pages that others are problem editors, acting in bad faith, homophobic, trolls, POV warriors, and who knows what else? It's gotten so so bad I don't really bother reading what particular insult COM is making at the moment. Wikidemon (talk) 02:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Process suggestion Can we simply stop answering or responding to COM's mud-slinging at other editors? Every time COM's behavior has been questioned the editor makes up a lot of stuff and accuses everyone in sight of all kinds of nonsense, and it devolves into a horrible mess. I suggest we thread COM's complaints into a special place, and keep the focus on COM. If we need an RfC to do that, fine, but it would be a lot simpler if some admins can simply make the effort to look at COM's behavior over time and decide whether a block, topic ban, or no-nonsense editing oversight would best deal with this. Wikidemon (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC) This is another attempt to hijack the discussion. Wikidemon recently made another report against me (I think it was recently archived) and he was advised that treating editors with respect is important. I would like to return to good faith editing which is what I enjoy rather than these endless dramas. But I do feel it's important that this type of inappropriate behavior stop. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC) I agree with Wikidemon here. Once given a 3rr warning COM switched tactics to, IMHO, talkpage baiting and claiming censorship while accusing teh rest of us as homophobes. -- Banjeboi 02:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC) comment : the content issues are not the point, as a variety of editors were not having a problem discussing and reaching consensus, except when ChildOfMidnight was being unCivil, edit-warring, and not waiting for consensus when multiple editors had already politely informed him of those particular places where they felt his bold work was not representative of a neutral construction. The behavior is the point; as far as the content, we were a diverse group of editors with different political, sexual, and economic POV but we were working along rather well until COM was disruptive, which then opened the door to some poor imitative monkey-see monkey-do attempts by other authors to slip a little bit of non-neutral and non-consensus material into the recipe while it was skewed so severely by ChildOfMidnight's actions. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 02:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC) I think any editor reading the lead's second paragraph will have a hard time siding against CoM. That 2nd paragraph is the worst bit of rubbish I've read in a long time. I doubt even Franks would write that sort of crap about himself. We're not here to write glowing articles about politicians. There is ZERO content about Franks being a bridge builder in the article - and yet there it is in the lead like he's some kind of bi-partisan saint - just as CoM indicated above. Rklawton (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC) (ec - responding to Teledildonix314) Agreed, so let's not worry so much about the content details. The point is simply that COM has systematically, across many politics-related articles, edit warred against consensus to force a highly partisan conservative POV, sometimes alongside other editors but much of the time as an army of one. The status quo consensus he fights is not obviously wrong and any arguments pro or con are simply content questions. By the same token, the objections to COM's edits were principled, and in many cases spurred by good faith concerns about BLP, POV, WEIGHT, RS, COATRACK, etc. Whether those concerns were ultimately correct or not is also besides the point because we are supposed to operate on consensus, not confrontation. Wikidemon (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC) And the line about Franks supporting civil rights is supported by a source which ONLY mentions gay rights. Content is the issue because CoM is correct in his assertions and his approach, and the editors opposing him are being quite unreasonable as evidenced by the content. Rklawton (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC) I can see reasonable arguments to be made on both sides of this specific content issue. If you feel the article needs improvement, why not go there to participate in a consensus discussion? Article talk pages are not the place to accuse other editors of things like homophobia and bad faith, and AN/I is not the place to decide what an article should say. It will help keep both venues on track if you keep that separation in mind. Wikidemon (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC) I second that: please join the article talkpage, your improvements are welcome, we were working by consensus, we will certainly continue to do so. We are here at ANI about the disruptive behavior of COM, not about the content which deserves to be discussed at the article talkpage. And if you look at the talkpages of the people COM edit-warred against, you'll find weeks of unCivil confrontational POV with strangely yo-yo-ing tactics, mostly in a badgering pattern. Think for a second, if you will, at the absurdity that COM repeatedly insisted there must be a homophobic agenda at work when COM didn't get their way; does anybody think the eight or ten editors doing most of the work on that page were "homophobic"? Hello, i'm amazed there wasn't an explosion of Flames much sooner, usually in real life we don't find that many happy gay editors holding back their retorts with such patience and civility for so many weeks. "Homophobic"? I almost fell off my dildonix. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 03:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC) No one is opposed to civil discussion but that has been completely absent from CoM. The methodoly has been edit-warring reverts, and now, accusations galore. And Rklawton, there is content about Frank working with Republicans and building bridges. We don't bludeon anyone with it but neither are we at even a GA article, it's been a slow vandalistic process to improve the article. And that civil rights quote? It's verbatim, - Frank has since proved to be one of the brightest and most energetic defenders of civil rights issues. If the source had stated something else we likely would have worked with it but there it is, civil rights. -- Banjeboi 03:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC) See: Barney Frank#Intro Paragraph for what happens on the article talk page. A small pack of editors who work almost exclusively on partisan content engage in personal attacks and soap boxing, thereby hijacking a reasonable discussion of content. You'll see also that the discussion was archived. Wikidemon likes to archive and/ or remove discussion he doesn't like or disagrees with. I think a topic ban from partisan editing would be a good outcome given his behavior. Even in this discussion we see Wikidemon engaging in refactoring and thread titling to obfuscate and prevent a reasonable discussion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Actually you have that exactly backwards as you were injecting the partisan content, engaging in personal attacks and soap boxing, thereby hijacking an article. And I archived that discussion as you have been injecting your comments in the middle of previous conversations. This is about your behaviour on that article, and when you didn't get your way with consensus against you, your behaviour towards other editors. -- Banjeboi 03:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC) As a favorite target of COM and presumably one of the "small pack of editors" he's decided to antagonize I'm not even going to respond to the heaping on of pointless untruths. This would be at least the 50th time that COM has made up something out of thin air to say I did, and I'm not going to waste my time anymore or let COM change the subject with each one.Wikidemon (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC) How is providing a link to a discussion hijacked by personal attacks and soapboxing an example of a "pointless untruth"? All you have to do is quick the link and you can see who launches the personal attacks and who hijacks the discussion. Same old story. You've shown the same behavior here. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC) No, I was referring to your previous comment which is, like the one immediately above, both pointless and false. It would be very nice if you could confine yourself to the truth and not make stuff up. Not being the subject of this incident, I'm not going to bother defending myself for the 50th odd time against nonsense you care to throw my way.Wikidemon (talk) 05:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC) I have fully protected the page for one week and encourage the involved editors to work it out on the talk page. LadyofShalott Weave 04:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC) That's all very good and everything, but it does nothing about the disgraceful behavior of ChildofMidnight documented above. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Diffs please. Here's one of Scjessey's talk page comments [86]. Speaks for itself. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Thank you for linking to it. It saves me having to repeat it here. I stand by the comment. At least I didn't accuse you of being a homophobic POV warrior. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC) The comment by Scjessey to which ChildofMidnight objects is correct in substance if not tone and placement. ChildofMidnight had launched a campaign of harassment against other editors, and out of nowhere came up with a nonsequitur, ad hominem falsehood about what was supposedly going on in an Arbcom case. He was grandstanding about that, egging on a newbie editor who had made a bad edit, and then lashed out at other editors. All on the Obama talk page, which COM knows to be on probation. That's before COM began to actually edit war on that page, reverting at least three other editors to try to delete a long string of comments from the talk page. Here are the diffs from that revert war, which has already been discussed here at AN/I. [87][88][89][90][91][92][93]. I have no opinion on socking, but the manipulative gaming, fabrications, and toxic attitude are a playbook out of last year's now-blocked sockpuppet accounts. The number of diffs it would take to account for COM's bad behavior would fill an entire Arbcom case. The case, if it is ever presented, would be pretty staggering. I'm hoping we can dispense with this more simply. The editor should have been blocked or banned for any of these incidents - edit warring on the Obama talk page alone could have used administrative intervention. It is very sad, and a complete waste of our time, goodwill, and hard work on the project that we have to deal with this awful vituperative nonsense. I really hope an admin can see fit to deal with this. Dozens, probably hundreds of editor hours now, have now gone down the hole for this one editor's needless trouble. Wikidemon (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC) LadyofShalott, I appreciate the full protect, this is the second time in a month the article has needed this and only because of CoM. The rest of the editors have been able to work fine with each other - even when we disagree - and have kept pace with CoM's reverting and POV action. CoM has proven themselves unwilling or unable, despite their claims, of even working towards collaborative editing. When they didn't get their way it jumped into a new gear of accusing others of the same behaviours they have employed. Wikidemon's take on this seems most accurate and based on my limited but unfortunate interactions with CoM - an experienced editor with 16,000+ edits on 5,000+ pages - they seem to be gaming to play us for fools here. Looking through CoM's previous visits to Admin pages shows a very experienced editor so this is smelling more like a sock than I had first thought. I haven't a clue who but experienced ANI editors might be able to sniff them out. I suggest looking into the Barack Obama-related articles although there may be smarter ways of sussing it out. -- Banjeboi 13:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Proposal to topic ban ChildofMidnight From their very first edit to their many drive-by comments on admin boards this is a very experienced editor. Whatever their intent, I have little doubt they will find other ways to contribute to Wikipedia and hope those contributions will be collegial and collaborative. Despite red herrings and CENSEI's entanglements it seems apparent that ChildofMidnight is more interested in engaging other editors than in improving the Barney Frank article. Every opportunity to explain policies on reliable sourcing, due weight on BLPs and neutral POV on content has been met with silence and quick reverts from this user until a fullpage protect resulted in a consensus also against their edits. They continued to edit-war despite the consensus and page-protect until served with a 3RR warning. At that point they proceeded to personally attack other editors and post a contentious pointy thread to the article talkpage with more personal attacks and red herrings. When confronted on this ANI board we've had a parade of red herrings including the CENSEI drama and an almost mythical misrepresentation of events by ChildofMidnight as the victim of censorship which is in complete opposition to the diffs and edit summaries laid out above. That one editor can disrupt a single article in less than three weeks leads me to believe they have also participated in dramatic activities on other political articles as suggested by other editors here. The case here, however concerns mainly the Barney Frank article. It is absurd to pretend the editors on the Frank article are in any way trying to suppress any information, in fact, great effort has been taken to present all uncomfomfortable content in a RS and NPOV manner. No credible evidence suggests otherwise. I have little doubt that ChildofMidnight has caused problems on other articles but the evidence here doesn't support a community ban, IMHO, as of yet. Socking concerns are also alarming but also need their own evidence. For now I think a topic ban from Barney Frank, and articles/content regarding Frank be enacted. A sourcing ban - if we have such a thing - prohibiting the use of opinion pieces may also make sense. Any thoughts? -- Banjeboi 22:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC) I would endorse a topic ban, but extended to cover articles related to Barack Obama (broadly construed). At the very least, ChildofMidnight should come under close scrutiny in the Obama-related ArbCom case. Running around calling everyone homophobic should've landed him a block. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Personally I'm unfamiliar with their contributions to Barack Obama, do we have a record of their efforts there? -- Banjeboi 09:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC) I don't think that CoM deserves a topic ban. I can understand and sympathize with his outburst if he has had to deal with the same sort of stonewalling and bad faith I've had to deal with. Soxwon (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC) A topic ban may be in order for all politics-related topics. The problem is the editor has somehow managed to avoid being blocked, and hardly even warned by anyone in a capacity to back up those warnings. If not a ban, is any admin willing to step up to the plate to block COM next time they begin lobbing accusations against other editors, or edit warring articles to the point of blocking? And if we're instead going to send the signal that behavior and policy procedures mean nothing what are we responsible editors supposed to do? Edit war and flame in kind? Ignore it and let important articles degrade? Wikidemon (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC) It was ChildofMidnight who took us to task for defending the Obama article against the WorldNewsDaily siege 30 days ago. [94] That did not leave a positive impression of that user's credibility. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC) More importantly, not finding his/her satisfaction at AN/I COM began edit warring the Obama article page eight hours after starting that thread and was the editor most directly responsible for getting it edit protected.[95] I've seen COM's edit wars result in five or six edit protects, and I'm vaguely aware of a number of other instances. All done with impunity. More than impunity, really, a sense of entitlement. Wikidemon (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC) I wasn't that aware of his work in the Obama article, largely b/c we had Freeps and the like. However, in the Barney Frank article, I have met with a lot of assumptions of bad faith and stonewalling in any attempts to change it. I can understand frustration boiling over in that article. As for Obama, I'm wondering if perhaps the editors in question are blowing his roles out of proportion due to the frustration and annoyance caused by the Freep incident? I remember being accused of being a Freep and/or being an extreme POV pusher for suggesting anything contradictory to what Tarc and the like proposed. While I do not blame them (extraordinary circumstances) I do wonder if the harsh editing environment might have led all to edit in ways they are not accustomed to and if this ill will has carried over. Just a thought. Soxwon (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Actually you have been met with the same standard for content regarding BLPs. In response you, despite all the previous dialog on the exact same issue, presented opion editorials to introduce negative content to replace the positive content. Stunning. No one is opposed to improving the article with sourced content and that article is a hit list of against Frank already. The only thing we don't talk about is his speech impediment and being obese, I have little doubt as to those being injected as well. It's already been suggested. This is a BLP and these standards apply to all BLPs. The same standard is applied to all editors as well. -- Banjeboi 01:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC) NO NO NO, from the first I said to remove the cheerleading. Soxwon (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC) And then presented opinion pieces supporting negative content as the way to go. Neither is supported by policy or consensus. This thread, by the way, is regarding conduct, not content. -- Banjeboi 03:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC) No, those were arguments against inclusion and not seriously meant for inclusion, as for the subject with the assumptions of bad faith and other comments I have received in the past 24 hours, I can understand his reaction of an outburst. Soxwon (talk) 03:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC) CoM's tenditiousness, edit-warring and bad-faith accusations against other editors was not an outburst. It has been an ongoing campaign to remove content they think casts the subject of the article positively and replace it with coatrack-ish POV content - marijuana reform, gay rights, controversies, etc. You seem to be doing the same now filling the talkpage with arguments and, IMHO, disingenuous suggestions which parrallel the same problems CoM had. We don't want opinion peices and mud-slinging on BLPs. "Controversies" need to be well-sourced, presented neutrally and with due weight. -- Banjeboi 10:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose Despite my far-left credentials and disdain for CoM's political beliefs, I tentatively agree with him on the Barney Frank article that the quotes in the lead are cheerleading, unnecessary, unduly opinionated, and possibly misleading. I think people can fairly disagree as to whether Frank is really a "bridge" between right and left. I disagree with CoM that the propaganda about Frank's influence Fannie/Freddie needs to be emphasized in the lead. His bad-faith, civility problems, and edit-warring are only marginally greater than the average Wikipedian. There has been a refusal to compromise and present a neutral lead from both sides here. II | (t - c) 18:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Are you saying it is okay for someone to edit war an article to the point of edit protection so long as you agree with their content position? I hear you but disagree on the civility - COM overtly accused a number of editors of bad faith in so many words, and then started accusing them of homophobia. Wikidemon (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Exactly, CoM is an experienced editor with plenty to say on admin boards, they know better than to editor war and disrupt, make bad-faith accusations and misrepresent their actions when called to task. That they completely fail to acknowledge thrie behaviours as disruptive and tenditious and continue to disparage other editors and mythologize their actions also fortells of even more problems to come. -- Banjeboi 01:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC) The lead on Barney Frank may need to re-worked, but CoM's behavior, and advocacy, on both it and about Barack Obama is not good. --David Shankbone Oppose For reassons stated. Soxwon (talk) 03:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose as premature and unfair given that there is no block history or authoritative administrative warning that this behavior could lead to a ban. But can we please do something about this editor? It's gone from merely annoying to intolerable. Disrupting Obama articles on probation, filing false administrative claims, making stuff up to harass people with. How long do we have to suffer this? I'll file an RfC if I have to, but if a topic ban is too drastic for now it would be a lot simpler if someone can just watch over COM and step in next time he/she crosses the line.Wikidemon (talk) 05:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose topic ban WQA or DR are better first stops; this really didn't need to wind up here. Jclemens (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose, take it to DR - while initially strongly supportive to the issues with CoM's obvious POV, the sentiments expressed in this thread by Benjiboi/Wikidemon/Scijessey have become increasingly shrill and demanding and, frankly, indicate quite clearly a much more two-sided POV struggle to me than is being advertised. Two-sided disputes require even-handed intervention, such as you would have found in the dispute resolution process, had you gone there first instead of hopping on AN/I and begging, pleading, and shouting for an admin sympathetic to your POV to simply summarily declare your ideological opponent to be the loser. That's not how we work here. Bullzeye contribs 19:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Do you have basis for making that accusation, or are you assuming that because there is a dispute there must be two sides and both sides must be POV? Opposing disruption does not make one POV, nor does asking the body of administrators for help make one "shrill" I happen to share the concern that a topic ban is premature, and on some of these issues I agree with COM's content position. But we have to do something in the meanwhile short of giving COM a free ticket to continue the trouble. Dispute resolution is for content issues and this is not a content issue. The problem is battlefield behavior, incivility, and edit warring that happens to have a consistent POV. Edit warring articles on probation, and directly and repeatedly accusing editors of bad faith, is not something you can resolve as a content dispute. We're supposed to resolve whether I'm a bad faith editor who is "one of the worst", a liability to the project, and whatever other insults we constantly get? Or that Allstarecho is a homophobe? Administrators have the tools to stop disruption; dispute resolution forums do not. That's the very reason we have article probation in the case of Obama articles, and AN/I in the case of flare-ups that should be addressed sooner than later. I'll add that while COM seems to have a special disdain for me personally, and more recently a few other editors, allowing him/her to make it personal in that way just plays into it. COM has probably insulted, offended, and gotten into edit wars with a dozen editors in the last week.Wikidemon (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Comment I guess I must apologize for not writing up a better report, or something. ChildofMidnight turned the Barney Frank article into a battleground and still claims to have no idea why the edit-warring, personal attacks and using op-ed pieces as sources for negative content in the lede of a BLP is problematic. Sadly I see this revisionist take on events as part of the problem, ergo they have the last, and seemingly reasonable, word. My note here is a bit of an "I told you so" post as having spent an unfortunate amount of time looking through their edits on admin boards and elsewhere I am convinced they are simply playing us for fools with red herrings and other diversionary tactics so no real consensus ensues. Sadly, it would be better if I were wrong on this and they turned around to treating articles and editors, the entire project that is, with respect. Unfortunately my time spent on this report looks to be wasted for now but at least will serve as a more accurate picture of their disruptive editing. Hopefully this will balance out the disingenous bewilderment ChildofMidnight presents as to why they are repeatedly reverted and called to task for problematic content and behaviours. That myself and other editor's motives and actions were questioned, and mischaracterized is unsurprising but that this turns out to simply be the latest round of problems on political events articles foretells this will hardly be the last problem. That they potentially do good work elsewhere seems promising but likely they need to be restricted off areas where they are causing disruption. My, somewhat limited, experience is that this level of disruption combined with such pronounced denial and unaccountability is a recipe for future problems. I don't watch ANI per se so feel free to ping me next time CoM is called to task and I can offer whatever insights might shed light. p.s. Also I have just little more than the sniff test here but isn't a user name of Soxwon (socks won) and their appearance here and a near seemless hand-off at the Barney Frank article all just a bit ... dodgy? -- Banjeboi 13:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC) I agree. [This] (not the location: on SA's user page) seems hard to explain other than with trolling or roleplaying. --Hans Adler I'm sorry if my comments were misconstrued. SA is a friend and I was just joking around with him. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC) (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC) The same can be said of this bizarre contribution [96], quite out of the blue, after the brief unblock of Alastair Haines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He had never before that interacted with this user. He just seems disruptive, with more than a small hint of exhibitionism. As Hans says, he is dissimulating and, so it seems, seeking out danger spots on WP in the public gaze. Mathsci (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC) I have edited with Alastair before. I have also noted his good work in resolving third opinion disputes. I was trying to be collegial in welcoming him back and noting his good works. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Oh, for heaven's sake, ban him! Do we have to go through an RfA? We already had one painful with, this would be even worse. I resent that accusation thank you very much. I'm not aware of where CoM is from, but my name references the Red Sox winning the world series, and I'm from Virginia. I've nothing to hide nor am I anybody's sockpuppet. Soxwon (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Well, based on your assurance you are not a sockpuppet, I apologize and thank you for setting the record. Hopefully your working in concert with them on both the Frank and the Obama articles will evolve into strictly constructive and policy-compliant content and behaviours. -- Banjeboi 22:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC) If no ban, then what? If we're not going fashion an administrative remedy based on this report it would be useful to know what the next step is. Anyone want to propose where to go from here? Wikidemon (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Do nothing? Behavioral RfC? Warn ChildofMidnight? Warn other editors? Editor probation for ChildofMidnight? Other? As it seems admins either don't notice that an actual request to deal with CoM's behavior has been made, or are just ignoring it, I think the next step would be WP:RFC. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 03:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC) If there's issues on anything Obama-related (which seems so) just put it in the arbitration evidence if that hasn't already been done, and that will be dealt with if needed. As for Barney Frank, an RfC may be the best option. Wizardman 22:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC) POV I'm not sure why I keep getting accused of POV editing. If someone wants to explain how it's unreasonable to suggest noting Barney Frank is a prominent advocate for gay rights in his article's introduction, or that he's the leading Democrat on the Financial Services committee, or that Obama is a Democrat (which, if you can believe it, keeps getting removed from the Political positions of Barack Obama article) I'm all ears (and eyes too). And as far as the controversies and criticisms, yes I think that notable ones belong in the encyclopedia with appropriate weight and according to guidelines. Hasn't that been our policy all along? But this stuff isn't even controversial. Does anyone approaching these articles fairly really think that Obama's political party affiliation shouldn't be included in an article about his political positions? I feel like I'm dealing with craziness, and I know if I dare call the actions of Wikidemon et al. for what they are I'm going to get in trouble. But seriously, this is what it's come to??? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC) "If someone wants to explain how it's unreasonable to suggest noting <insert any descriptor that, when shortened and not explained in full, lengthy detail, can be interpreted in many controversial ways, here> in his article's introduction..." I'm not going to explain it to you, because I think you already know the answer. Would it jog your memory if you thought back to this discussion, where you fought to keep similar descriptions (even though you agreed they were accurate) out of the article lead? Wasn't it you that said, Let's include the characterization along with others that are notable in appropriate context and with appropriate explanation. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC) Just an observation. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC) These relate to content disputes. You know why - repeated explanations on talk pages have not stopped your from ignoring consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC) The talk pages show that consensus isn't against these reasonable edits, how could it be? You can't even argue the content issue here because your position is so obviously preposterous. The comments here and on the talk pages clearly show that you and Wikidemon are being unreasonable and behaving inappropriately. By all means lets do RfCs, as I've offered repeatedly, if that's really necessary. But this pattern of obstruction has been the case again and again and includes refactoring, soap boxing and personal attacks. So the real question is how to deal with you and Wikidemon when you refuse to act appropriately? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC) I wouldn't know, personally, because I have not acted inappropriately. I agree with you half the time on the content. But the fact that I agree or not, or that you have a POV, is not the issue here. People can have POVs. It's the resulting article that should not. You could mend a lot fences by cutting out the constant accusations of bad faith, edit warring, and declarations of consensus that don't jibe with other editors. An RfC may be a last resort but it would be a lot of time and drama, and we still need to stop the edit warring and all this other stuff while the RfC is in process... plus an administrator to interpret and enforce the results. But if things can be calm for 30 days why not make that permanant? And if the outcome is simply going to be that an administrator says "no more", why do we need an RfC to establish that? It would be vastly simpler if everyone can simply agree to follow the letter and spirit of our various policies, and in the case of the Obama articles, especially so given article probation and the circumstances that make it necessary. Wikidemon (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC) If you check his edit history, you'll find that Wikidemon has been active in a long string of attempts to ban editors (such as this one). In fact, the cases are remarkably consistent. They involve disputes like (as ChildofMidnight points out here), whether certain facts should be in an article because Wikidemon feels discussing facts conflicts with his idea of what NPOV is. Not only does Wikidemon aggressively push his version of npov (even to the point of removing factual content). He even removes dissenting opinions from view on article talk pages and, as I said, he's got a long history of removing editors (through banning attempts such as this one). Before anyone pursues action regarding this, people really need to examine Wikidemon's edit history pretty closely.-32.166.117.139 (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC) (ec)I must agree with a lot of what User:32.166.117.139 has just asserted, after looking at Wikidemon's history. Wikidemon has attempted to ban editors. (He has not succeeded often enough.) He is remarkably consistent. Wikidemon aggressively pushes for his version of NPOV (which, by the way, is everyone's version, by its very nature). More people should aggressively push for NPOV. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Wikidemon's version of NPOV involves the persistent, deliberate removal of factual content, the removal from view of dissenting opinions regarding the article's content in the talk page, and an ongoing campaign to ban editors whose views are counter to his own. If this is what NPOV means to you, then we have widely divergent ideas regarding NPOV.-166.197.92.181 (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC) The above (the IP editor) is almost certainly a block-evading IP sock that has been trolling Illegal immigration to the United States long term. We might have to start doing checkusers soon. For now please ignore.Wikidemon (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Generally speaking, unless the topic refers to an IP address specifically, I consider all IP edits to be suspect. HalfShadow 03:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Considering that the overwhelming majority of sock puppets are -named- accounts, I feel the same way about named account.-32.166.47.15 (talk) 03:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC) (OD)For both (and any future) IP editors, if you have a problem with an editor, don't waste our time here. Open a thread elsewhere on the page and bring the correct DIFFs to back up your accusations. You're not winning anyone over with drive-by allegations. Dayewalker (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 3 IP editors, two of which have almost identical IPs, suddenly decide to make their first ever Wikipedia posts here? Methinks roolz be brokd! -- Scjessey (talk) 04:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC) RfA? Is this - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ChildofMidnight - serious? Things are taking a curious turn here. Wikidemon (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Oh, this should be fun. Bring it on! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Hey, we all need some Schadenfreude now and again. PhGustaf (talk) 08:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC) This discussion indicates that it is indeed a serious nomination. I'm at a loss to see why he specifically picked this time and nominator, though. Chamal talk 09:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC) As much as I despise the mindless bleating of AGF that goes on around here, we probably should. I think the simplest explanation for the timing is that COM simply doesn't get why people are concerned about his/her editing patterns and is disregarding them--as any of us would do if we were convinced of our rightness. //roux   09:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC) It's all an accident - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 09:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC) I just saw that, and your response. Two things: Please, please back off from COM. It can only end badly. That sort of canvassing, especially the meatpuppet comment, is deeply concerning. //roux   09:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC) I've got already about half a dozen reasons to list in opposing CoM. The list keeps getting longer. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Assuming he will see this new sub-thread, I hope he will go on and accept his "nomination" so it can be transcluded and the voting can begin. Or go on and withdraw the "nomination" before it gets ugly. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 09:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC) He's already been commenting on his page about the "jokers", i.e. those who would vote against this joke of a nomination. My guess is that come morning he'll see which way the wind is blowing, and if he has a lick o' sense, he'll abort the mission. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC) I see a poor dead equine and people hitting it. Hint. //roux   09:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC) You're just being a neigh-sayer. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Bugs, this might me a good time to rein in your wit for a while. As Bali suggests below, it's probably best to let the matter pass pleasantly, like a good bowel movement, whilst even a whit of wit might make it pass like a kidney stone. PhGustaf (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC) The whole RFA thing is just pointy/a joke. If it does go live, i suggest those who would oppose this candidate would simply type "oppose - not good admin material" and move on. If you don't handle it that way, you'll be feeding the three-ring circus this fellow is currently assembling. Like a lot of POV pushers, he enjoyes feeling "marginalized" and a "pariah," convinces him he's fighting the good fight. Why waste any of our time feeding his ego?Bali ultimate (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Hi. Sorry, I wasn't aware of this discussion until just now. I had approached an editor about a possible nom. I was curious what he would say. I know there was a big brouhaha about his consistent opposes at RfAs. As far as the timing, I had not really planned on going ahead immediately, truth be told, and it certainly seemed unlikely that he would say yes. I would like to respond to some of the comments here. This discussion is a classic example of trolling. It has absolutely nothing to do with article content. It's a series of snide comments bantering back and forth and it fosters a hostile atmosphere. I am not upset by any of the comments, and some parts are amusing, but there is no question that it is inappropriate and inconsistent with the purpose of this board. Let's be clear, it has also involved some inappropriate canvassing (I will let PhGustaf explain) and personal attacks that if they were going on in reverse would most certainly result in my being blocked. And before anyone rehashes the jokes I posted on an editor friend's page and misrepresents them as being serious, if you care to look through the history, you'll see that we have had a collegial banter back and forth for a long time. If attempting to make someone laugh is a crime I am certainly guilty. I do think Wikipedia should be fun. I also think the snide comments and attacks carried out by the self-righteous editors above put Wikipedia in a very negative light. The civility policies and guidelines are all about treating other editors with respect. So if it's a friend and you want to make a joke that's fine, but to come here and make jokes about banning people and attempting to bait and provoke editors is inappropriate and shows poor judgement. I'm not perfect, and I'm not a saint, but I edit in good faith and I try to treat my fellow editors with respect even when I disagree with them. Sometimes my sense of humor is misunderstood and conveyed poorly in text, and for that I apologize. But I will not apologize for being willing to sometimes take unpopular stands where clear violations of our policies are hurting the encyclopedia and our community. Wikidemon's divisive and disruptive behavior is totally unacceptable. His willingness to behave like an animal in a pack and to muscle other editors with whom he disagree is shameful. I may in fact be banned some day, but I will never attempt to coordinate attacks and to carry out obstructions in such a disgraceful way. If he chooses to turn a new page and to edit in a way that abides by our guidelines and treats other editors appropriately I will be happy to let bygones be bygones at any time. We all make mistakes and I hope he will stop to correct his. I don't hold grudges and I believe people can change. I don't spend a lot of time here, so I may not have time to respond to any comments that follow this one. I hope everyone has a great weekend. Thank you. That is all. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC) What a noxious personal attack. You have not let bygones be bygones. The personal attacks have gone on, mostly in reverse. You have waged an ill-tempered campaign of harassment against me and a few other editors for months, ever since you joined the project, making up one bogus accusation after another. If your RfA is real it is a problem because the prospect of you having the power to actually block the people you have said you want to block in service of your conservative and sometime fringe agenda is spooky. The thought of you backing up with wheel wars and obstruction on this board the insults you regularly hurl at administrators when they handle disruptive editors you have been championing is also alarming. Sometimes it is hard to tell if you are sincere and simply have terrible judgment, or all this is some kind of a ploy. Whatever it is you need to stop. ANI is the most efficient place to address that but if necessary we can do it in Arbcom or via an RfC. Getting the Obama page edit protected, then edit warring its talk page, then getting Barney Frank edit protected, all the while accusing your fellow editors of homophobia and trolling, is not a good move. You have called me an animal, shameful, disgraceful, a harm to the encyclopedia, worthy of a topic ban. Under those circumstances I cannot reasonably deal with you as an editor, but neither can I allow you to mangle Wikipedia's most important articles and forums. Much of the rest of the community is fed up with you as well. I did not choose for you to have a vendetta against me, and I did not choose the timing of this report. But we are here now, and it is time to do something about it. Wikidemon (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC) As usual, I see you, ChildofMidnight, have resorted to your tried and true method of the "they are picking on me!" defense. You says above, I had approached an editor about a possible nom. I was curious what he would say. I know there was a big brouhaha about his consistent opposes at RfAs. As far as the timing, I had not really planned on going ahead immediately, truth be told, and it certainly seemed unlikely that he would say yes. If it seemed unlikely User:DougsTech would say yes to you asking him to nom you for RfA, why'd you even ask him to do it? I think it's because you're using him as a pawn in another one of your "bait & hook" games on Wikipedia. As I told you at User_talk:ScienceApologist#RfA?, it's hard to walk into doors when you ask others to hold them open for you. But after asking DougsTech to nom you, you then belittle his own RfA battles? Uhg. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 01:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Please don't drag in other editors who have nothing to do with this. If and when I decide to run for RfA you are certainly welcome to weigh in with your opinion. If there is no further request here, these abusive threads should be closed. This is a board to report incidents requiring Admin attention, not a playpen to launch malicious attacks. I'm sorry Wikidemon dragged you into his disruptive activities. Have a good weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC) You are not allowed to come here, post attacking diatribes, and then decide this thread is to be closed. Thanks. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 02:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC) If CoM has the time to reply at length here, then he certainly has time to accept the nomination, and I encourage him to do so rather than continue to try the community's patience. Grsz11 02:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC) He's unlikely to actually accept. He's already framing his exit strategy: [97] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your suggestion Grsz. Are you volunteering to be my scheduler? I wasn't aware that I was under any time constraints. Is that a policy? As to the abusive reports have been responded to repeatedly already with a clear indication that Wikidemon should cease disrupting, I once again suggest these numerous threads be closed. Further attempts at disruption and smearing are highly inappropriate, particularly on noticeboard. Cheerios. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC) It would certainly be awkward to be running for admin at the same time there's a still-open thread advocating a topic ban. That might cast some doubt on your fitness to be an admin. Of course, personally calling for it to be closed doesn't help your credibility either. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC) There's a good chance I would support per User:A_Nobody#Favorite_userpages and as I have found him open-minded in AfDs when he initially argued to delete, but the article was improved, and as such was willing to reconsider. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Canvassing? I have noticed that Scjessey has been posting links to CoM's RfA on talk pages of people who have had disputes with CoM with the subject line of "Joke?" This smacks of canvassing to me. Anyone else see it that way? LadyofShalott Weave 04:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC) I was asking people if it was a joke. I was unaware that the possibility had already been discussed because I didn't know about any of the threads discussing it. I found out when Allstarecho responded to my query. If it looks like I was singling out people who have disputes with CoM, that's because everyone I know on Wikipedia has had a dispute with CoM. Calling that canvassing is a mighty stretch. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC) I've become pretty well convinced that it is a joke. He asked for the nomination, he got it, but now he has to "think about it". Maybe he should just take a poll on his talk page, asking whether he should run or not? That might be a time-saver. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC) As the 3 edits appear to be so close together (14:50, 14:51 and 14:52) but none since 14:52 or after my reply to him (my reply was at 15:48), I think this isn't a case of canvassing. as it appears to me that he didn't know there was already several discussions taking place about the RfA. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 04:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Normally I'd love to call for canvassing on this one. However, given the length of time this RfA has been sitting without going active, and the amount of discussion going on at so many talk pages, it's kind of tough to call out any one editor this time. Probably better to AGF, at least until we see how the actual RfA goes. — Ched :  ?  07:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Having been inspired by the message of Easter, we are now waiting to see which event will occur first: The return of the Messiah, or a decision on this RfA. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Three messages does not canvassing make; even less so when the recipients are arguably the 3 editors on all of Wikipedia most likely to already be fully aprised of CoM's endeavors (see all the ongoing discussions involving them). Calling that canvassing is as silly as suggesting the good Lady is trying to chill any unfavorable examination of the afore mentioned RfA applicant, just because she made a few posts[98][99][100]. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC) <outdent>Clear canvassing. I noticed it also. I agree with Ched that it's probably worth letting it go, but let's make sure that we make clear that this type of conduct is wholly inappropriate and disruptive. I'm fine with warning being served with the understanding that this behaviour should be avoided in the future. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Funny CoM. If that is "clear canvassing", then what is this? Grsz11 18:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Thanks for pointing out ChildofMidnight's own canvassing Grsz11. It's just more proof of the tendentious kind of editor he is.. and yet no admin has bothered to lift a finger in dealing with this whole thread and his blatantly obvious behavior. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 18:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Are you suggesting I am canvassing a user who can't vote in an RfA? That would seem to be a very poor strategy. I think you both know my comment was intended to be humorous (I don't see how anyone reading it in its entirety could conclude otherwise). I hope you're not trying to misrepresent it in order to continue a campaign of smears against me. Sometimes I try to joke and be funny with my fellow editors. My hope is to promote collegiality and comraderie and to make editing here as much fun as possible. Even in the case of a blocked user whose approach to editing I happen to disagree with, I wanted to drop by and say hi. I think it's important to be friendly and I'm proud that after an initial dispute with that editor we've become friends. For the record, I also mentioned my RfA in an apology on an article talk page where I had previously made comments that weren't appropriate. Even as I made my statement I wondered if I would be accused of canvassing (even though bringing an RfA to the attention of editors with whom I've had a disagreement would seem a very ineffective way to win votes). I concluded that I can't stop people from thinking ill of me if they so choose, but that I have to try to do my best in any case. I mentioned my RfA there because I wanted to be transparent and clear about how the matter came to my attention and didn't want anyone to feel that I was being devious. All of a person's actions are open to interpretation, but I don't think it's hard to see good faith in mine, and I would ask that this campaign of smears and half-truths against me be stopped. If I do something inappropriate, I'm sure you will bring it to the community's attention, but trying to suggest malicious intent in a frinedly note to a fellow editor seems awfully bad form. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC) You've gone and made my point for me. Scjessey commented to three individuals who were already well aware of the "RfA" as a joke. At your expense, yes, but a joke nonetheless. Grsz11 20:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC) (ec) Please don't try to muzzle editors from discussing things openly on their talk pages. (after e.c. - particularly for the nominee, trying to have a fair open nomination process while accusing commentators of bad faith, as in "campaign of smears and half-truths", is just wrong) The people who are dealing with this have suffered enough abuse as it is. There is some thought that ChildofMidnight's nomination for adminship is some kind of joke. We are already talking about that here. It is hard to think of taking that discussion to three editors' talk pages as being canvassing (canvassing to do what, exactly?). Two of the three editors were clearly aware of the issue already; the third is on this thread and would no doubt have learned soon if not yet aware. There is no "dispute" in the sense of two sides fighting, or two parties with different content positions. It is a community response to some problematic behavior by ChildofMidnight. For the community to respond the community must discuss. I am concerned with the ongoing attempt to portray as misbehavior the good faith concerns of editors who have interacted with the editor. Wikidemon (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Well, I don't think the issue is only responsible for ChildofMidnight give the ongoing ArbCom that includes you as a party and incivility issues and AfD disruptions, 3RR/edit warring by two of the three. See (Scjessey, and Wikidemon). --Caspian blue 20:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Not sure what you're getting at but my record is clean so please don't re-fling mud that's already been flung. I'm here frequently because I care about the project. Wikidemon (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC) I don't think so especially given the CENSEI fiasco and your controlling attitude on Obama subjects. I'm very bemused at the accusation of "re-fling mud that's already been flung". Who makes the initial issue getting muddy? "Everyone" here care the project as much as you do.--Caspian blue 21:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC) I can't parse what you're saying but you seem to have a beef with my editing. If you have something to add to the Obama article arbitration why not do so there? If you think I've acted improperly in some other regard, feel free to let me know on my talk page when you disagree or go through whatever channels. We're trying to deal with a specific problem here. Accusing the people dealing with the problem of unrelated things sidetracks the discussion and is not the most productive approach. Wikidemon (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC) How about your accusations? I don't like getting dragged into the boring U.S politic dramas occurring almost everyday that include you and S, CoM. I criticized CoM a couple of time, but well I find hard respectable things in your way of editing.--Caspian blue 21:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC) I note your displeasure. Let's stay on topic. Wikidemon (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Might I add the curiosity that is a sudden campaign of apologies "in the context of an RfA nom". CoM's willingness now to seek out editors he has had past interactions with ([101]), is curious. Grsz11 20:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Yes, I was curious about that but WP:AGF is especially important when someone is being contrite. That's behavior we want to encourage, RfA or no RfA. I'm not concerned if COM is making up with 80% of the editors COM has offended, so long as COM does not continue to antagonize the others. Wikidemon (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Because you don't get the intention. I can see that he wants to be a friend to the people to whom he apologized for minor tiffs.--Caspian blue 20:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC) I didnt get an apology :( Grsz11 21:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC) The answer can be any of these assumption 1) he does not want you as his friend or 2) your turn does not come yet 3) he does not have anything to owe an apology to you. 4) you did wrong to him. But I have no doubt that "the two" would not ever get his apology.--Caspian blue 21:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Please stop the attacks. It's obvious you haven't come here to help resolve a situation, only to escalate. Perhaps your time would be better served elsewhere. Grsz11 21:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC) I did not attack you at all, but I wonder why you attack to me as such and do not abide AGF such as "sudden campaign of apologies". Show me your "good faith" jeez--Caspian blue 21:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Semi-protection I've decided to semi-protect this article for 2 weeks. If anyone feels that I'm out of line, please discuss it here and then change it. Bearian (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Um, the article is fully protected and was done so on April 6. It appears all you did was add the PP template to the article. Did you mean to change the protection from full to semi? - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 01:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC) It's still fully protected, as of 30 seconds ago. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Move to close I move that this be closed. Nothing looks like it's going to be resolved, and once again COM appears to have quite neatly sidestepped any sanctions being imposed. Nothing's going to change. Objections? //roux   15:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC) I haven't sidestepped anything. The impartial assessments of the issues and particulars of this series of reports have repeatedly indicated that I haven't acted inappropriately and that on the content dispute itself those accusing me make a weak case. The editors acting improperly are the ones repeatedly casting aspersions and filing repeated reports and adding new ANI threads to try and smear and intimidate me. This indicates a block or at least a stern warning of Wikidemon and maybe one or two other editors would be very appropriate. Editors should be strongly discouraged from abusing processes in this way for the very reason that it can give a misleading impression about who is at fault. I don't think I should be punished for the restraint I've shown in the face of these malicious and misguided attacks that are in violation of our guidelines and procedures and I don't appreciate am concerned that your statement is a misleading and inaccurate assessment of my having "sidestepped" anything. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Blocks and what grounds? This was opened as a legitimate concern. How many petty discussions here or 3rr have you opened? But nevertheless, I echo Roux that this can be closed and nothing has resulted. Grsz11 17:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Support close. This is the first notable encounter I've had with ChildofMidnight but I have little doubt based on their responses, denials and actions that they'll be back. Unfortunately the community either doesn't care or agree that they've had a disruptive presence and toxic effect at the Barney Frank article from which, a month on, we are still digging out. The Frank article will likely be fine but I do feel bad for the next articles that will get this "help". -- Banjeboi 17:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC) This obviously is not over for ChildofMidnight (see the above, lobbying for other editors to be blocked). We have to deal with this sooner or later. If we close it now there will be another notice board report when COM's behavior boils over, and another after that, only emboldened by getting away with it yet again. It would be far easier if an administrator could roll up their sleeves and do something. Failing that, closing this thread means an RfC is increasingly likely. That will be a lot of work in the short term. Wikidemon (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Redacted in favor of comment, below - Wikidemon (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC) The thread should've been wrapped up long ago. Wizardman wisely moves forward as enlisting CoM as an involved party to the ongoing Obama Arbcom case in which Wikidemon participate too. In response, CoM suggested Scjessey to be the party together, so please deal with whatever issue within the ArbCom. Thanks.--Caspian blue 21:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Agreed. The original poster, Benjiboi, agrees to the close if not the outcome. Per this comment by ArbCom member Wizardman[102] the Obama-related issues can be reached in the Arbcom case. The outcome there is uncertain but the ongoing discussion does not seem to be producing any new matters for administrator involvement than have already been proposed. Wikidemon (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Tila Tequila

Resolved

 – While not your typical celebrity death rumor, a hoax all the same. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Before I head out, can other people watch Tila Tequila and keep out the random rumors that she's dead until a reliable source is available? User:Rzrscm seems to think her Twitter account and then celebslap are enough for some pretty vile details. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the addition of a clear BLP violation. No sign of this from any reliable news source.—Kww(talk) 11:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The user that introduced that story has hit the 3-revert limit in an hour. One more and he's done for awhile. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed this thread as it's on this page while I'm interested in another thread. Anyway, I looked at this and note this edit where Rzrscm re-wrote Ricky81682's post on the talk page. That alone, is worth a serious talking to. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC) which I now see Ricky has done. Jack Merridew 11:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Took a screenshot of her Twitter page since its private, she's not dead. Looks like her house got broken into though. link. I think calling someone "Hitler" warrants a block though, considering his behaviour and after a level 4 warning. diff Matty (talk) 11:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, the user's page User:Rzrscm is a refreshingly honest self-assessment. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hoax per This. Bearian (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC) And this. Bearian (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

As disturbing as this all is, I can't help but find it amusing that we're using a blog to refute claims made on Twitter. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Stevvvv4444

After having been warned for a final time about categorising people by ethnicity contrary to WP:OC#CATGRS, User:Stevvvv4444 has continued to do so using the IP address User:94.3.151.121. They have confirmed that these are their edits on their talk page. Can something be done to stop this behaviour from happening again? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've given a final warning. I'll assume good faith that they just forgot to log on. Even so, the behavior is troubling. I'll give a 24 hour block if it happens again.--John (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Franklin Rosemont

Can someone verify if Franklin Rosemont has died? -- A little-used IP address reported death date as today. A quick Google search didn't turn up any articles. I'm not in Chicago, so no access to local news/reports. Richard Myers (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Without sources, I'd think it would be a good candidate for reversion (bio of living people and all). I wouldn't do it as a vandalism revert though, just a run of the mill 'can we get a source for that?'. Syrthiss (talk) 16:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing on CNN, BBC, Reuters, Chicago Sun-Times, AP, Chicago Tribune. Tonywalton ^Talk 16:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing on Google news as of now. Bearian (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably the same intruder that got Tila Tequila. Maybe they were even sleeping together, both of them being exhausted from a tough day signing autographs for people who had never heard of them before. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 April 13

Resolved

 – Reverted vandalism on one of the transcluded pages. Duck blocked. –xeno (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem with viewing this page. Bearian (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. –xeno (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Didn't this like just happen the other day? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Very similar indeed. The breakage the other day looked like this and today's looked like this. Socks, anyone? Tonywalton ^Talk 19:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I forgot to mention above, but I've already blocked. –xeno (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/144 (private filter, AF editors only) should now be set up to log and eventually prevent this sort of vandalism. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I just tried editing the log. It looks like my add to the log and the last ten or so are not "taking."Bali ultimate (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like this edit deleted the terminating tag for the HTML comment above it, thus preventing subsequent afd3s from substing. It's since been fixed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the blocked user has definitely confessed to being a sock puppet of Richard M. Nixon. See [103] ;) MuZemike 00:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Huntdowntheconpiracists blocked

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

I've blocked this account as a sock of User:DawnisuponUS a.k.a. User:Tachyonbursts on the basis of a strong quacking sensation, caused by their aggressive pro-conspiracy-theory rhetoric at Talk:September 11 attacks, accusing other editors of using "tactica" [104] [105], and so on. A checkuser should be able to confirm this identity, as well as potentially flush out any new socks. Posting here for review, trout, etc. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Redandgraychips (talk · contribs) (one contrib) also possibly involved. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
• I%27vecommittedathoughtcrime (talk · contribs) seems obvious to me [106]. I would appreciate another admin making the decision to block though. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked thoughtcrime. I recommend a SPI + CU to identify and block the IP address or range behind this. In the interim, I semiprotected the 9/11 talk page for 48 hrs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

user:Huntdowntheconpiracists is obviously a sockpuppet, but the writing style seems totally different from Dawn. I wasn't originally familiar with user:LoveLight, but having taken a look at their writing style, I see the similarities between that account and user:Quantumentanglement, User:Tachyonbursts, and User:DawnisuponUS. Aside from the use of "Tactica", the writing style of user:Huntdowntheconpiracists seems completely different. Just my 2 cents... // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 00:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Trouble IP

Administrators, would you mind looking into the IP 68.39.64.33 User talk:68.39.64.33. I just reverted some vandalism caused by this user at Rage Against the Machine (album). You will also notice that a number of IPs have been changing the album's release date. This IP also has a history of making unwanted edits. --Sky Attacker (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

We're sorry, Mario, but our Princess is in another castle... HalfShadow 01:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Wknight94 and Beechmont (New Rochelle) area article

User:Wknight94 just deleted a New Rochelle area article, Beechmont (New Rochelle) which was under active discussion at my talk page User talk:Doncram#This New Rochelle business. Wknight94 just recently commented further down in the same discussion. In context, it seems that the deletion is done in anger.

I had put a proposal to merge and redirect the article on Talk:Beechmont (New Rochelle), and have previously merged and redirected many other NR area neighborhood articles. Wknight94 previously asked here for another admin to delete one or more of those under merger proposal, and administrator Tiptoety judged it was not necessary to delete them. The problem, if any, with the article was under control and would get resolved. An AfD, or discussion at the Talk page, would have been more appropriate in my view.

The arguments for or against AfDing New Rochelle area articles are also somewhat under discussion within ongoing Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Orlady‎, where links to 2 previous wp:an discussions and a request for arbitration regarding New Rochelle area articles, one or more persons involved in a sockpuppet case, and enforcement by Orlady and Wknight94 can be found. In the arbitration request (declined), it was offered by one arbcom member that perhaps a change of enforcement type personnel might be appropriate.

Could the Beechmont article and its Talk page be restored with their entire edit histories? It undermines ongoing discussion. Also, could Wknight94 be advised not to delete others in this way? Also, could it be determined whether he has deleted others? doncram (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Notified User:Wknight94 about this discussion. Exxolon (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me, Exxolon... There were at least six socks (some or all of which were checkuser-confirmed) of banned User:Jvolkblum creating and edit warring on this article and fighting for it not to be merged. WP:BAN says I can delete such pages sight unseen. To make things worse, as shown numerous times, Jvolkblum is a serial copyright violator and has been caught plagiarizing and adding misinformation on numerous occasions. See this investigation by User:Choess catching Jvolkblum red handed. BTW, before the latest checkuser-blocked IP's edits, the article was all of 796 bytes long, and User:Doncram was advocating that it be merged into another list article. So he doesn't even want the article to exist! Much ado about nothing. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Doncram -- your forum shopping is becoming unseemly. You should really desist. Wasn't your last intervention here to urge the unbanning of an editor with over 200 CU confirmed socks? At some point community patience with your crusade against editors who disagree with you (you think vandals are to be coddled and supported; others think they are to be blocked and ignored) will wear thin. Free advice.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

See also short followup at my Talk page User talk:Doncram#Beechmont (New Rochelle) deletion. Wknight94 suggests that i would be able to perform the merge, but actually i don't have access to the article, because it was deleted. The discussion should continue here. doncram (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• I reviewed Doncram's contrib history, and note that they are an active participant in many area's - so I thought I would request comment upon my belief that an indefinite block upon the account, until they re-align their enthusiasm for taking up the causes of banned editors without consideration of the consequences, for disruption to the encyclopedia should be executed. I am serious; vandals, pov warriors, and the like are reasonably easy to detect and remove, but an otherwise valuable editor who decides to proxy for those who the community have decided have no place here is quite difficult. I understand that in many cases the argument for the particular edit is reasonable - which is of course exactly how the banned editor seeks to prove their sanction is unjust - but it is still against established policy to allow it. Any sanction upon Doncram will be lifted as soon as they acknowledge that the policies in place regarding edits by banned persons are to be upheld. Comments please. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• (Not an admin myself) I am sad that such an option even has to be considered, and I am not yet convinced that it is necessary. But it seems that Doncram is getting deeper and deeper into a conspiracy theory. There have been several attempts (by Coren, Elkman, Choess and Wknight94 on User talk:Doncram) to talk Doncram out of this, but so far all in vain. They are either ignored, or the people giving the advice are made part of the conspiracy of unjust admins and their supporters. (To be clear: Of course there are some pretty unjust admins with uncritical fans around, but not where Doncram is looking for them.) Perhaps our good faith specialist GTBacchus can help, if he has the time. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Links to the previous discussions:

• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive187#Proposal for unban, apology, amnesty for Jvolkblum and related others, and topic ban for Orlady
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive188#Long-running problem with respect to New Rochelle area articles

Note also Wknight94's warning to Doncram in the second AN thread ("Rehashing the same argument over and over is disruptive. Disruption is grounds for a block. I recommend blocks be handed out if it continues and nothing new is added."), which I am afraid Doncram may not have taken seriously. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support (non-admin) LvU's excellent and well thought out proposal. Doncram would be better off (less mean things said about him) Wikipedia would be better off (less support of a vandal + the excellent contributions Doncram often provides) and business could resume as normal. Only loser is Jvwhateverhisnameis -- who's 200+ Cu confirmed socks guarantee he will never be trusted -- on any edit -- again.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose blocking at this time on grounds of inadequate warning. I would support a formal admonition that continuing to advocate for banned editors will be viewed as disruption justifying an indef block. Looie496 (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose at present. I've been discussing this with doncram on his talk page, and have hopes of moving towards a productive resolution. I think part of the problem is simply that we need more eyeballs here. Right now, the burden of identifying copyvio/dubious information being added to New Rochelle articles seems to be falling mostly on Orlady and Wknight94, and it's a heavy burden. I've spent the past ten minutes or so examining reliable sources, writing a capsule history of Beechmont at List of New Rochelle neighborhoods, and then re-creating Beechmont (New Rochelle) as a redirect to the former. More useful to the encyclopedia than speedy-deleting? Yes. OTOH, given the length of time this disruption has been going on, I think Wknight94 was within his rights to speedy delete as created by a banned user, rather than expend time to check and rewrite it, and then to fight off the inevitable unsourced/unreliable additions, and so on. Under those circumstances, it's more or less inevitable that the few people dealing with it will have very little interest in doing lots of verification, sourcing, and rewriting. I'm going to try to involve myself, and I hope a few others will too—the more people who are willing to do this kind of work, the less brusque enforcement is going to be. Choess (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose at present. I'm not familiar with this general issue, but if Doncram (talk · contribs) is making content edits as a proxy of a banned user, a block is warranted. Of that, I see no evidence here, though; instead, it seems he is simply (and probably misguidedly) advocating on the general behalf of the banned user. I'm not convinced by what I see here that this advocacy rises to the level of blockable disruption, though I am open to be convinced otherwise. As to the original request, it is of course far-fetched and not actionable; contested deletions belong at WP:DRV and this one seems to be clearly proper as it concerns an article made by a banned user.  Sandstein  05:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to withdraw this wp:ani request. I thought it was appropriate to open a wp:ani on the narrow question of whether an administrator, Wknight94, was engaging in some unhelpful activity out of anger or otherwise. I sense from the LessHeard vanU and Bali ultimate's remarks that it is not possible to have that narrow discussion, and I am not ready or wanting to have a larger discussion about what might resolve the New Rochelle area mess more broadly. Indeed i have received feedback at my talk page and want to further follow up with Choess in particular (and others) before I would seek broad community attention for any new proposal. I'll take this chilly reception as some kind of feedback, too.

For the record, on the portion of the New Rochelle area which is about neighborhood articles, I believe my approach has been working. I've pursued a strategy of merger proposals and redirects to one central list article about all the neighborhoods, where discussion about sources etc. could be handled centrally. Some time ago I tagged a bunch of neighborhood articles for merger with discussion to happen at Talk:List of New Rochelle neighborhoods, and gradually with no contention i merged them all. Apparently there were 21, because there are 21 inbound redirects. There seems to be tacit acceptance by Orlady and NR area editors of my management of those articles as I have been doing. I am not aware of any discussion about my proposal to merge this new-to-me Beechmont neighborhood article. Wknight94 refers to discussion of the proposal there being contentious. In this new case I had not yet placed a merger proposal tag for discussion to happen at the central list-article, and it seems i missed any discussion that happened at the Beechmont article. I am at a disadvantage here because i do not have access to the article.

I do not have a big conspiracy theory going. I think person or persons associated within the big mess have behaved badly and have been treated badly; I think enforcers, mainly Orlady, have behaved badly in some ways; I think there needs to be some process followed to wind down this big case which has indeed been disruptive. But i am not wanting to insist on consideration of those broader views of mine here now. If anyone wants to give me other feedback by email or to my Talk page i will listen. I don't think that blocking me would help or should be a part of any solution. doncram (talk) 01:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, blocking you would stop the constant forum-shopping and put your crusade--for which you've received no support--to final rest, so yes, it would be helpful. Not that I'm suggesting or endorsing that particular course of action--yet--but indeed it would be a solution, albeit a drastic one. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC).

It is not an attempt to chill the discussion about Wknight94's actions - they were explained quite promptly by him noting that he was reverting a banned users edits, which is advocated within relevant policy. That part is over. Discuss your preferred edits in the effected areas all you wish, but you will need to find your own sources and develop your own arguments - taking the cue from a banned user is still proxying, which is violation of policy and may lead to sanctions; it is also disruptive, because any consensus and actions arising will have to undone and started again meaning more time being spent addressing the issues. Lastly, the consensus is that certain former editors are banned; you may not have to agree with the consensus but unless it is changed you do have to follow it - the alternative is to block you, or ban you from these areas. Nothing personal, it is simply ensuring policy is properly applied. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as I have not made it clear above, I no longer propose the immediate blocking of doncram - there is no consensus apparent, and other editors have taken the time to engage with doncram in further efforts to dissuade him from his recent position in these matters. I am content that doncram realises that further incidents will result in a block, likely indefinite, and that other parties may (request) blocking should they re-occur. I think I am finished here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Doncram, maybe some of the energy you're expending on behalf of Jvolkblum would be better spent on improving your own articles. One of your articles, Art Troutner Houses Historic District, is an embarrassment to the project: "The houses are, indisputably, houses. At least one looks like an A-frame. At least one has a carport." And even if you don't get blocked, I could stop you dead in your tracks by taking down the NRHP infobox generator. Cease and desist, now. I'm losing patience. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 13:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I won't pretend that I'm fully aware of the circumstances (I casually skim through ANI sometimes), but Elkman, why would you take down a tool that many people use in order to "punish" one person? I've used your NRHP infoxbox generator several times, and appreciate the work you put into making it, but you'd be doing a disservice to many people if you took it down because you're upset with one user. Killiondude (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not punishment, it's preventative, to forestall further creation of crap articles. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, that is still punishing many users for the actions of one user. Killiondude (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see the problem: you're having some difficulty with the meaning of the word 'punish'. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me my problem. It was very thoughtful and insightful. Regardless of the term you'd like to use, a tool that many people use would be taken away because of one person. Killiondude (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You should take your complaint to the user who caused the problem. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Okay, this is just silly. We don't take tools like Twinkle or Huggle down just because people abuse them. Similar case. Don't take away the tool from everyone just because one person has mishandled it. That is illogical. Killiondude (talk) 04:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio/POV pushing at Teesta Setalvad

A new user, and then an IP, are copy-and-pasting this Times of India article[107] at Teesta Setalvad. It's probably a little-watched article, and I won't be around to watch it. Extra eyes, warnings, or a short block may be warranted if it keeps going on. Priyanath ^talk 04:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Jessicka edits

RE: Clint Catalyst, Jessicka, and COI-implicated editors who refuse to abide by WP:RS and WP:BLP I have stated several times that Jessicka is my wife - examples here:[108] here:[109] & here: [110]

Understand, I am not being uncivil. I am not debating whether promotional material should be on anybody's Wikipedia page. Removing links wasn't even User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz edit. See here:[111] I am fine with the edits made by User:Piano non troppo, as it is a page about a person and there's no need to link her bands.

I was alerted to a problem, so I am being bold and taking action.

My suggestions to User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz - I am asking that they try to be a constructive editor rather than a destructive one. I am asking that they try to consider that the appropriate etiquette here would not be to remove the un-cited material, but to A.) find a citation yourself for uncited information, or B.) placing a cite tag on that particular sentence or section. Then perhaps somebody with time may find the sorce.

If you they interested enough in an article to edit it, and have the time to enter the edit page and make the edit, it seems as though you would have the time to Google search . If they are just there to remove material then it is obvious that you have some sort of COI with these articles.

As far as User:Tallulah13's talk page goes please reread what I wrote. [112] and I quote, "If you ever need a third party opinion ( for articles I don't have a COI with) please feel free to hit me up."

I do not know User:Tallulah13. I was being nice. Is being nice to somebody against Wikipedia policy? I have not made edits on either Jessicka or Clint's pages. As far as I know User:Tallulah13 has not made edits on Jessicka's page.

In closing, I'm not spamming. I am not making edits on pages I have a COI with.

I am asking User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz nicely to please follow Wikipedia policy. I am still familiarizing myself with Wikipedia but I can tell when somebody has a clear COI when editing certain articles. I look forward to resolving this matter quickly, Xtian1313 (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I looked at Talk:Jessicka, but I couldn't find the section where you and the other users are discussing your desired edits. Is it archived somewhere I don't see? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Related: #Clint Catalyst, Jessicka, and COI-implicated editors who refuse to abide by WP:RS and WP:BLP x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, Xtian, for the removal of uncited material, we have a very strict policy on biographies of living people which suggest removal immediately not a cite tag. There's a huge history of why that's done. While the material in question here wasn't necessarily negative, I hope you can imagine a situation where something unsourced and somewhat negative was kept there and people were warring to keep it there with fact tags, which is why policy goes somewhat extreme. Removing images that go against our non-free image policy also isn't necessarily out of the ordinary. I think Hullaballoo could do better to explain things that's a concern, but it doesn't seem like anyone is following that. If you want, we can continue this on the article talk page or even at your user page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Taking it to my user page. :) Xtian1313 (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Persistent inappropriate edits to User talk:24.129.79.213

Note: This ANI thread was moved from the archive as the case has not been resolved yet.

There has been a long-term pattern of abuse in relation to the said talk page. Various IP accounts have been adding nonsense to the talk page and deleting legitimate notices.

A list of the IP accounts involved other than 24.129.79.213 itself can be found here [113].

I believe other unlisted sockpuppets have also vandalised Talk:Satan more recently.

Block evasion has also occurred. Alpha77a (talk) 05:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I've seen some dumb things, but persistent repetitive vandalism of an IP talk page must be about the dumbest. Looie496 (talk) 05:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Clint Catalyst, Jessicka, and COI-implicated editors who refuse to abide by WP:RS and WP:BLP

Over the last few days, I've been removing flagrantly inappropriate material from a small, interwoven set of articles about very minor-league "celebrities" involved in the LA club scene, mostly associated with buzznet.com. The response has been reflexive edit-warring to restore the previous text by a user or users with no interest in complying with our BLP or reliable source policies. Much of the material I've attempted to remove (and I'm not the first editor to try) is highly promotional, and either unsourced or sourced directly to the article subjects or their business associates. For example, the citation-required tags I added to unsourced claims of the article subject's supposed educational achievements were reverted away. With the explanation "People can contact the colleges to verify. No way to cite this." [114] An essentially unsourced set of award claims was restored with the edit summary "awards are legit. Reguardless of source. You can verify with the institutions." [115] There are also quite a few "references" where the source doesn't match the cited text, apparently inserted as promotional spam for businesses involved. The editor involved, who uses the name Tallulah13, but also apparently often edits this and related articles as an anonymous IP, has been called out by other editors for ignoring Wikipedia sourcing policies, but has done nothing to change her bahavior. (Given that Tallulah13 claims to have photographed Catalyst and Jessica together in Germany recently [116], although all are based in LA, it seems fair to me to suspect they are associated.) Today, the same sort of reverting began on the Jessicka article, accompanied by the addition of obviously unacceptable fair use images as illustrations and uncivil invective on my talk page from Xtian1313, who claims to be Jessicka's husband. Can we get some intervention here before this nonsense gets completely out of hand? A Wikipedia article is supposed to be encyclopedic, not an ungodly welding together of a Twitter archive, a set of press clubs, and a shrine to a minor-league celebrity built by his or her friends. The two principal articles involved are Clint Catalyst, where at least two-thirds of the "references" are to sources controlled by the subject or promoting businesses owned by his friends, and Jessicka. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I do NOT live in L.A. - so there goes that theory. And while I did not create the Clint Catalyst article from the ground up, I have taken pride in helping to maintain it. I believe that it serves as a valuable source of information. I never make edits for promotional reasons.

Honestly, I do not have time or energy for this edit-war nonsense anymore. Who knew Wikipedia could be full of so much drama. I will continue to make edits as I see fit and you can continue to do whatever it is that you do... Though I am sure there are much more constructive things you could be doing with your time.

Regards - Tallulah13 (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't care if you live in LA, don't live in LA, care about the person, hate the person, whatever, the article in its current state is a mess of non-reliable sources and an unsourced mess. We have a very strict policy about the biographies of living people which requires reliable sources for everything. I will begin the process of cleaning it out and Tallulah if you continue to play ownership on it, you will find yourself blocked. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

That was beyond excessive and totally inappropriate on my part. Tallulah, if you are still reading this, there are general editing standards we follow for things like the nature of sources (WP:RS), and specifically for biographies of living people (WP:BLP). While it seems forceful to push this down on people, those have come about through years of discussion. Others are working on getting those articles more in line with general policy here. People should be more civil and willing to discuss things with you however. NeutralHomer is willing to if you (understandably) aren't interested in some of us. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Separate point: could an OTRS user verify the license for File:Secret-zine.jpg? It is cited pretty bizarrely in the article and even if it's a copyright violation, it really isn't needed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Nicely done....we have pushed another editor out over people who take the rules a little too seriously. How about next time you actually chat with the person, how even adopt them (the user was looking for an adopter) so you might teach them the rules you want them to follow instead of taking them to ANI off the bat. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 14, 2009 @ 00:05

Related: #Jessicka edits x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Good riddance to bad rubbish if they have left. This isn't a playground for those craving unearned attention. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not bad rubbish & I am most certainly not craving unearned attention{?}, for myself or anyone else. I am done with discussing this issue, but I thought your comment to be out of line and just wanted to let you know. To everyone else, thank you.Tallulah13 (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"I've been removing flagrantly inappropriate material from a small, interwoven set of articles about very minor-league "celebrities" involved in the LA club scene, mostly associated with buzznet.com."

My wife isn't an internet celebrity - she's a musician and artist. She has no association with buzznet.com.

"Given that Tallulah13 claims to have photographed Catalyst and Jessica together in Germany recently [110], although all are based in LA, it seems fair to me to suspect they are associated.)"

The episode was filmed in LA not Germany. You know what people say about assuming!

"A Wikipedia article is supposed to be encyclopedic, not an ungodly welding together of a Twitter archive, a set of press clubs, and a shrine to a minor-league celebrity built by his or her friends. The two principal articles involved are Clint Catalyst, where at least two-thirds of the "references" are to sources controlled by the subject or promoting businesses owned by his friends, and Jessicka."

I have no idea what promoting business User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is talking about. The end of their ridiculous rant is utter nonsense. I don't appreciate what this user is alluding to- it's simply not true. I won't burden you with the back and forth here. I'll take this issue to User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's talk page. Xtian1313 (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Kelly Killoren Bensimon

Over the last few days various some IP contributor(s) have been repeatedly removing a fairly well-sourced paragraph about this person's arrest, and sometimes posting a message, purportedly from the article's subject, telling us to stop adding gossip to the article [117]. There's obvious BLP concerns, but there's also the potential of someone trying to excessively whitewash their own article of negative items. Would an admin mind taking a look at this, to see if any action is necessary? ~ mazca ^t|c 15:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed that section as undue weight -- it was the only part of the article that was actually sourced. After the rest of it gets cleaned up, we can look at putting it back in appropriately.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

a paragraph about a misdemeanor of this sort would not be appropriate in the article in any case,. This is exactly the sort of situation WP:BLP is aimed at. DGG (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup SarekOfVulcan, I had to rush off and this looked potentially dubious. Looks much better now - already had a different IP reappear twice to insert negative material again, though. Certainly worth watching. ~ mazca ^t|c 16:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Administrative eyes requested: User:Eye.earth

I'd like to ask an outside admin to review the behavior of Eye.earth (talk · contribs). I see this account as a long-term, low-level case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, though I'm currently losing patience and, perhaps, perspective. Most of his contrib history consists of promoting AIDS denialism, often by inserting its claims into various biographies:

• Paul Gann: cites an AIDS-denialist tract to contradict the New York Times ([118]). Endless edit-warring against several other editors to reinsert it, as well as this charming discussion.
• Greg Louganis: More hijacking a biography to soapbox about AIDS denialism.

Most of his effort seems to be devoted to rewriting our article on zidovudine to reflect an AIDS-denialist perspective (e.g. [119]). Recently this has taken the form of lengthy edit-warring against several editors, keeping below 3RR and trying to force in an edit which everyone else agrees is redundant or misleading ([120]). Straw that broke the camel's back is that I solicited outside feedback - at his request - and it universally agreed that his edit was redundant and/or misleading. Yet he continues to insert it.

He has edited other articles besides HIV/AIDS ones, but apparently has the same behavioral issues (see User Talk:Eye.earth). He was on WP:AN/I recently for the same kind of abusive editing at List of centenarians - see prior AN/I thread. I'm reasonably tired of dealing with him, but it's possible I've lost perspective. I would propose that he's reached the threshold for administrative action for continuous edit-warring against consensus, abuse of Wikipedia to advocate for a fringe agenda at the expense of core policy, and uncollaborative editing. I'd propose a temporary topic ban from HIV/AIDS topics, but it looks like his editing elsewhere is no more policy-compliant. I'd like to get some feedback. MastCell ^Talk 04:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This user was previously(link to diff where Gwen links to thread(which is now archived, and I will not try to find it)) the subject of another ANI thread, with roughly the subject matter: Disruptive editing. Please just block this user and be done with it, they've made it blantantly clear they don't plan to follow our rules here. WP:RBI.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked 24 hours for persistent edit warring against consensus. Their last revert was to reintroduce unsourced material (including a fact tag) against the opinion of every other editor involved in the discussion. They'd been warned before, and this problem doesn't seem to be confined to one page. Hopefully this short block will deter them from continually disrupting articles. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Aaaand... right on schedule, cue the socks. MastCell ^Talk 20:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I've reset the block on User:Eye.earth per WP:EVADE and blocked that IP for 3 hours. The way I see it, they're welcome to discuss the matter on Talk pages, but not to make any further changes to the article text against consensus. I'm minded to apply further sanctions as necessary, towards that goal. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I think they're necessary - he's still using IP's from the Sacramento Public Library to continue his relentless one-person crusade to force the article his way against consensus. MastCell ^Talk 20:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Smiley face murders - Legal threat/outing/COI/switching IP

Not resolved, more is needed unfortunately.

The Smiley face murders article has been plagued lately with an anon account trying to use the page to advance theories of someone called Mike Flaherty, with links to his blog, adding section to promote his theory (which has no mainstream coverage, just his blog), and even removing any mention that the majority view of the FBI/police/profilers is that there were no murders in the first place. This anon was finally blocked, but now a new anon IP account has started up the same thing, and the very first edit contains a legal threat and an attempt to out another user. DreamGuy (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

New problem, an IP is outing another editor on the talk page here that I suspect should be oversighted and the IP dealt with. I'm not sure how this is handled so I brought it here for others more knowledgeable in what the proper procedure is in this kind of matter. I didn't remove the resolved template because not sure if that would be a proper thing to do either. I hope I have this in the correct location, if not please feel free to move or correct. Thank you for your attentions/help, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You would have been correct to remove the "Resolved" banner. There are two people trying desperately to get banned on the Smiley face murders talk page. I've left a warning but I'm a nobody so it might be more appropriate if an admin stepped in. They may very well have violated WP:OUTING already. Both have called the other by very specific names. (Whether they are correct or not I don't know). Padillah (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I tried to find and isolate the Outings but they are litterealy strewn throughout the edit history of the talk page. Padillah (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The anon has now expressed feelings of immunity due to his "endless IPs". Padillah (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all who have responded. I see Padillah has tried to help with this situation and I am in the same boat, unable to stop or remove the outing and poor behavior going on. The IP has already changed IP number so if someone who can would clean out the sock drawer that would be appreciated. Along with the outing, poor behavior we also have legal threats going on. I've never done a checkuser, oversight or any other request about problems I have seen. I always request politely the help of administrator to take the appropriate actions. At this point I believe indefinite blocks are in order for all involved. This can be seen at the talk page and apparently the article history though I think the article has been oversighted and I don't think that the problems have reocurred but I haven't checked again recently. Some of the problems are [121] [122] which is when I saw the problems esculating. Thanks for listening and taking time to tend to this. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I would consider blocking a range of ips and notifying the isp to be justifiable in this case. Do we know they are from the same isp? --neon white talk 14:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The ones I've seen all whois to the same ISP in middle America. Keep in mind, all the dynamic IPs in the world won't get one by semi-protection. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If they are all from the same isp a range block would likely be effective, not sure about reports to the isp as i am unfamiliar with US law and the responsibilities of isps. --neon white talk 16:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

More threats now, just FYI. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

SP'd my talk. Looks like he's persistent though. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"DreamGuy just added the libal again to the Smiley Face discussion page, Wiki needs to remove this, before legal action is taken. DreamGuy should also be banned. You have 30 minutes to remove this and ban DreamGuy or I will out you as well and spread your personal data all over the Internet." is pretty outrageous. Nothing I said could even remotely be described as libel, and demanding that I be banned or else he'll go around outing people shows all new levels of disregard for our rules. DreamGuy (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I highly recommend filing an abuse report on this one. It should be a priority to rid the project of this egregious person. --neon white talk 21:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

PoliticianTexas sock

Resolved

 – Blocked Keegan^talk 20:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

AMenendez (talk · contribs) is another sock of community-banned serial-sockpuppeteer PoliticianTexas (talk · contribs). Positive evidence includes:

• Strong interest and opinions about the placement of demographic data at New Mexico. [123][124][125]
• Odd capitalizations appearing in infrequent edit summaries (Please see contribs of recent socks AndrewGirron (talk · contribs) orJWillems (talk · contribs) for more examples)
• Interest in the politics of Northern New Mexico, often manifested by the addition of local politician's parties, despite the non-partisan nature of many of New Mexico's municipal governments.[126][127]^{<-- This diff shows an IP edit that is the same range as many of PoliticanTexas' IPs, for more information please see User talk:DoriSmith/PoliticianTexas}
• Recent socks have also shown interest in New Mexico State University (see DianaRuiz (talk · contribs),[128]), particularly its athletics, which is in line with typical behavior of editing articles about New Mexican high schools and sports, especially pages involving the New Mexico Activities Association[129]

For more information refer to User talk:DoriSmith/PoliticianTexas. –Synchronism (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I've had a history with this sockmaster, it seems to be the same sock of PT. Dayewalker (talk) 03:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Not to be trite, suspected sock puppets is that away. Proper place for investigation. Keegan^talk 07:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You're not being trite. Because he is a community-banned serial puppeteer, it is routine and in accordance with guidelines to bring it here first, I've been told[130]. —Synchronism (talk) 07:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• IMO, bringing stuff like poltix socks here is fine. All that requires is a blocking admin with some familiarity w/ this serial sockpuppet to step in. There isn't actually so much doubt that we have to start a SPI. Protonk (talk) 08:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Drogheda Grammar School

Long-term vandalism by User:Annoyingbeast. Too difficult for me to correct it all. Suggest perma-ban. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for vandalism only account. Icestorm815 • Talk 18:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)