Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive673

Kenatipo, WP:OUTING violation

[1], Kenatipo is posting information that he claims refers to me that I have not publicly released on this site. This is an attempted outing under the WP:OUTING outing policy, which I note is considered a serious violation of the WP:NPA policy. I ask that this be removed from wikipedia permanently immediately under the WP:Oversight policy as well as proper steps to block this user be taken. _WM^O 06:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I have sent in a request to RFO. I recommend that you steer clear of Kenatipo. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Suppressed now, per policy - Alison ^❤ 07:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that swift action, now can we get an admin to take some further action per policy? _WM^O 07:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Alison, seen this and got your email at the same time. Neat. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I neither know nor care what Salegi's sexual preferences are. I could not possibly have outed him. --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Which is why Oversight deleted the difference, right? That's just blatant lying right there. _WM^O 19:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't "outing" have something to do with a person's sexual orientation? --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

No, but it has something to do with a WP:COMPETENCE block I can see in your very near future. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's more a "being deliberately obtuse" block. --B (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a serious violation of the WP:NPA policy, I don't understand why no administrator is doing anything about it. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 22:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiManOne, I would like to apologize to you for the names I called you. I am sorry I did that. It was not appropriate for me to do that, and I apologize. A lot of useless friction could have been avoided had I googled your old username sooner, instead of last night. Which brings us to my note to Moonriddengirl -- I was only trying to explain to her my behavior in suddenly walking away from further interaction with you. Your age, as indicated on your own outside websites, was the determining factor in my decision. "Outing" you, in any sense of the word, was the last thing on my mind and not my intention at all. I also apologize to you for embarassing you in that regard. Sincerely, --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Still an attempted violation of WP:OUTING, an egregious one I might add. Yes, you are correct that you did call me a bunch of inappropriate names multiple times which was a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. So four policies/guidelines violated. That's all there is to it, administrator, please? _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 06:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

What is it that you want done? Please see the blocking policy - blocks are to prevent disruption, not to punish. What disruption is there to prevent here? The user seems unlikely to out you again. --B (talk) 12:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It would prevent him from constantly removing the {{noindex}} tags from his Sandbox pages, for one thing. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Which is another thing that I have clearly shown him the policy for and he refuses to stop removing them. I quote from the WP:NPA policy:

"Lesser personal attacks often result in a warning, and a request to refactor. If a pattern of lesser personal attacks continues despite the warning, escalating blocks may follow, typically starting with 24 hours."

I would say this is a serious personal attack, not a lesser one but even a lesser attack generally starts blocks starting with 24 hours, which he has already had a 24 hour block for personal attacks, so this should bring an escalating block. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 19:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

My apology to WikiManOne still holds, no matter what happens to me or my userpages here. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

As a point of information, WMO did practically identify himself on wiki. I was able to find an online profile with the real name in seconds, by using information he himself posted at one point or another. If he is concerned about his identity he needs to do a better job keeping it a secret. Can old edits of his be oversighted so we don't have to hear about this again? In the end this appears to me to be more of the same. These editors have been cluttering up ANI for the last week trying to get each other blocked or banned. WP:BATTLEGROUND is apparently meaningless around here. I say block all the instigators on either side of the ideological divide. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear here. When I read this ANI, I was then able to find the afore mentioned personal information in seconds. I have never previously tried to find it. Indeed, until the recent spate ANI postings I'd never heard of any of these editors. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Then that leaves nobody interested in the tainted ideology. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 22:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Unless I made the information publicly available, it is still considered outing, no matter how easy or how hard it is to find such information. I did ask for oversight a while back but it has not happened. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 21:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If you don't want your identity known, you shouldn't say anything here that could help identify you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

And why have you twice changed the timestamp on you last post in an effort to keep this discussion on the board for as long as possible? - Haymaker (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

@Bugs, I'm not sure why it matters how easy it is to find, it is still against the policy to OUT another editor however easy it is to get the information. It is considered an egregious violation of NPA to do so. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 05:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The exception would be if you revealed your identity within wikipedia. If someone is fishing outside wikipedia, that's supposed to be off-limits. I'm just saying you need to be careful, if you want to protect your identity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest just letting this drop? If nobody has blocked Kenatipo for this in the first four days of it, I doubt that's going to change on the 5th day. Lecturing WikiManOne about how to protect his identity kinda reminds me of Captain Hindsight (ie, not very helpful). I don't see anything that's going to come out of this discussion that hasn't already come out of it. --B (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Christopher Monsanto

Currently all the activities of this users seems to be trying to remove information from the Wikipedia, especially about programming languages. He may be right about single points, some pages may really not be notable, but: overall he is certainly inflicting damage to the Wikipedia. The notability-related distinguishing features are often marginal, so this systematic elimination of information, including fast deletion-processes certainly implies the loss of a lot of usefull, and even notable (for statistical reasons) articles. It will decrease the representativeness of the presented programming languages dramatically, and I do not see any benefits in this systematic elimination. In my opinion it is better to keep some non-notable programming languages than to take those risks. Even if a programming language becomes notable in near future it is unlikely that there will be usefull information available at Wikipedia due to this process, authors will be shocked by that elimination. Since he has announced not to reply to criticism, I am writing this comment here. I am really worried about the quality of information related to programming languages in the Wikipedia. Sometimes we should not be to finicky with notability-policies, when the over-all quality of Wikipedia's information about one topic is in danger, this process of deletion should be stopped. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Chricho that the deletion of a few notable, but hard to prove programming languages are a loss for Wikipedia. The deletion of Nemerle and Pure alone mean that Wikipedia is no longer a reliable source for information on Functional Programming Languages. Cleaning out programming languages is a good idea, but a more conservative attitude with popular, emerging languages would be wise. I gather that this is not the proper place for this argument, however, so I will attempt to find an appropriate place. Morgan Sutherland (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

PS: I'm not a fan of one of the removed programming language, it is just about the quality of information presented here. And I do not follow Christopher's advice not to complain here, because it is not a personal issue, but I care about Wikipedia. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

And here I thought the complaints would stop after Nemerle got deleted. I'm very conservative with the languages I nominate for deletion. Read any of my AfDs -- no one, including myself, could find one solid source (i.e., related to the subject, non-neighborhood-of-zero citations, independent, non-blog-post, etc) backing their notability, let alone multiple. In other words, if I nominate something for deletion, it will most likely be a landslide-delete. Seriously, I haven't "lost" a single AfD. Doesn't that say something about the languages I'm nominating for deletion? If you don't think so, please, click the User Contributions link, find my AfDs, and find admissible sources for the languages in question. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I agree with the deletion of articles just saying “this language is usually ignored”. But some of them are really interesting, no orphans and an enrichment for the Wikipedia, e.g. Pure or Nemerle, they are notable because of their characteristics, not because of some Wikipedia-guidelines, I do not get, how it should become easier “to find interesting programming languages” if they get deleted, although there are some scientific papers. I know that you win your AfDs, but there is something more notable about your user contributions list: just destructive changes. It is obvious that there will be collateral damage. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Then take your complaints up with the WP community, I didn't come up with the notability guidelines. However, I happen to think the deletions are for the better. It is impossible to browse PL lists and categories because of the overwhelming number of pet programming languages on WP. If you want to learn about Pure or Nemerle, use Google. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules, we do not have to change all guidelines, if they obviously imply damage in specific cases. Btw: “…because of their characteristics…” and because of agile communities, you should consider that aspect, too. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

“If you want to learn about Pure or Nemerle, use Google.” they aren't pets, they (are|were)n't orphans, they fit nicely into the Wikipedia as additional information. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you think why nobody ever complained about all those stubs, about Nemerle, Pure or the size of the list of programming languages and why there are so many complaints about your work now? I think there is a good reason. Btw all those stubs are the main-reason why I prefer the English Wikipedia to the German one, at the German Wikipedia there are more such people trying to enforce all rules and to delete many articles. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

First thing, regarding Nemerle you are arguing against a AfD decision - you can do that at WP:DRV. Secondly, you appear to be accepting that that and other computer languages may not comply with WP policy but suggesting that this is good. Interesting stance (but perhaps not one to advance at DRV)... The major issues regarding Christopher Monsanto's work is that he is apparently unpopular with various individuals for trying to apply both letter and spirit of policy to an area of WP that appears rather lax in complying with requirements. As one of the correspondents at the Nemerle AfD said, why not make the effort to find the reliable sources required? WP:IAR is only where non compliance is of benefit to the project, and is not an excuse for laziness, ineptitude or simple lack. It is inappropriate to blame the messenger, when it is those complaining who should have found the references for the articles. Since a sizeable percentage, perhaps a majority, of those complaining and opposing AfD's for these computer language articles are those involved in producing, marketing and using these products, surely it would be easier for them to find the relevant reliable third party sources? Or perhaps there are no such references? In which case, start an RfC for the argument that Computer Language articles need not comply with WP requirements. In any event, do stop attempting to stifle Christopher Monsanto from using proper WP processes to improve the project. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not involved in any of those languages. But I think it is not normal to do nothing else than destruction in the Wikipedia, deleting articles having been there for three years, that is not the normal process, normally articles get removed after 2 weeks or something like that. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

(OD) Agree with LHvU above. Edits like this one [2], where you ask CM "What the Hell are you doing?" simply because he puts an article up for deletion, are simply not civil. Blaming the messenger isn't going to help build an article that demonstrates notability. Dayewalker (talk) 05:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have no horse in this race, not having ever read the articles being contested. But I feel like it would be wrong of me not, in the interest of full disclosure, to bring this to the attention of those in this discussion: http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/fkt7t/nemerle_factor_alice_ml_and_other_programming/. Thank you.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It made Hacker News, as well. Suffice to say, a lot of people weren't too happy about it. It's still at the top of proggit and HN, so a lot of traffic will continue to be driven this way. Still, CM has left a message on his talk/user page that should appease anyone with an axe to grind. It's unfortunate that many of those who came from reddit weren't capable of behaving civilly and resorted to personal attacks. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Gonna have to mark some SPA comments, I think.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

@Dayewalker, sorry, I was upset, I could not understand why somebody is trying to damage the Wikipedia in that way. I did not come from reddit, but from Wikipedia. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

People will always be willing to complain about things, but less willing to go do something about it —Blackmane (talk) 12:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

MediaWiki does not only allow constructive, but also destructive behaviour, so not doing something is sometimes a good thing compared to some activities. That is also the reason why IAR can apply to being lazy. Btw, protesting is also an action, not constructive, but it can prevent destruction. The pros and cons at reddit seem to be very appropriate. I think we should stop the deletion of non-stub-articles about programming languages and articles about programming languages with active communities (Alice, Nemerle, Pure, Falcon, …) instantly, deletions against the will of many people before there is any consensus and against the previous consensus (simply keeping it) are a bad thing, although the formal process might have been okay. There are good reasons for the protests and for the duration they have(had) been existed. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 12:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Quote User:Christopher Monsanto: “Dear internet, You guys win. I will stop nominating pages for deletion.”. Should Nemerle and Alice be restored? --Chricho ∀ (talk) 12:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Not on that basis. The DRV discussions are ongoing -- we'll see what happens there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, considering that SarekOfVulcan started this whole mess (Christopher_Monsato just joined in) I can hardly think that he is a neutral party. Yserbius (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Chircho, you really don't get it. Wikipedia is not a majority rule. You don't "win" by drowning out the opposition with numbers. Nor with "It's useful" arguments. WP:IAR is not for keeping articles with no sources. You seem to have a rather poor understanding of Wikipedia's rules.

I know the rules (at least those you mention), I know that AfDs do not get decided by the majority, but I have an opinion what is good for Wikipedia and this particular topic in the Wikipedia, and I have never said that the majority would decide, but I said that this majority against deletion indicates that it is not a clear decision. So stop speculating about my argumentation and start arguing yourself, why those deletions should be good for the Wikipedia. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Reading that thread I'm amused by the fact that everyone has an opinion about the contours of our coverage on pokemon but demands that no one have an opinion about our coverage on functional programming language. I'd just give this a few days for it to fall off the reddit front page when someone makes a bacon hat or something. Protonk (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

What should we do without Pidgey, Pidgeotto, and Pidgeot? :D --Chricho ∀ (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

According to the armchair editors at reddit, we should delete it because it serves as an example of how deletionists ruin wikipedia. Really we should do with that subject what we do with any subject. If there are reliable sources with which we can write a factual, neutral and appropriate article, then we should have an article. If there aren't, we shouldn't have an article. The notability policy isn't perfect (and like any rule, is not perfectly decidable), but it works pretty damn well. As a best case we find ourselves with a decision rule which makes the actual subject type irrelevant. As a worst case we have a distribution of articles which represents the past more than the future (and subjects with published coverage over those which do not). But it serves pretty well. I could just as easily turn this around and complain that reddit should/shouldn't frontpage certain articles or images because I have some prior expectations about what should be on reddit. But you know and I know such complaints are pretty Quixotic. Reddit has a mechanism to moderate content and the front page exists as a result of that mechanism. Protonk (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

And to paraphrase Christopher Monsanto's words over Nemerle, the entire matter would come to a sudden halt with all parties satisfied if someone could simply provide some reliable sources for that programming language. You mean periodicals like Information Week or the Computer Society's Computer never published an article on it? Or is the problem none of its defenders are willing to put Google aside & make a trip to their local library & ask a professional there how to search through the technical literature? -- llywrch (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

persistent Frances Fox Piven blanking and legal threat

(Copy of WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#persistent_Francis_Fox_Piven_blanking_and_legal_threat needing prompt attention)
Please see Frances Fox Piven (history and comments) as well as User talk:Rostz regarding a legal threat from User:Fannielou. Please advise, thanks. Rostz (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I received a similar legal threat from FannieLou, who is past 6RR with blanking the page. She should be blocked immediately.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Fannielou is now blocked by MuZemike, who got there seconds before I did to do the same. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I would have gotten that earlier, but I accidentally blocked Rostz instead. My sincere apologies to Rostz for that. –MuZemike 22:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as the content dispute is concerned, she may have a viable complaint. I have already directed Fannielou to OTRS. She was retracted her legal threat on her talk page, but in the event of her unblock (which I won't oppose) I think it might not hurt to full-protect Frances Fox Piven for a few days to allow discussion on the talk page (or via OTRS if she chooses) to occur. Thoughts? –MuZemike 23:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It is a very crappy situation (person is an innocuous academic from what I can tell, getting death threats due to a harassment campaign, partly about an article she wrote 45 years ago in a drastically different social climate than today). Per "do no harm" please do protect the article or do whatever else it takes to prevent it from worsening her problems. I personally would support an AfD in rather strong terms, but I'm almost certainly in a minority about that. Cloward–Piven strategy appears to be a poorly sourced neologism that should also be deleted. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

One thought that no one seems to have brought up, does Fannielou want her email address included in her posts? It appears several places. JanetteDoe (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's the thing after briefly looking at it (and I agree, this is a very crappy situation). We got this recent incident as documented from The Guardian here, which, in layman terms, Piven is basically in some sort of a shouting war with Glenn Beck (surprise, surprise). We can keep the "criticism" section at proper weight compared to the rest of the article as well as focused and neutral, but even keeping all that in mind, I don't think Wikipedia is obligated to protect Piven (or conversely Beck) for whatever fallout might occur as a result by omitting any mention of her ongoing battle with Beck, not to mention most of the other stuff in the article which can be easily found in other online sources as currently referenced in the article (i.e. the "personal information"). –MuZemike 23:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify with my above comment: once something like this hits The Guardian, The New York Times, or any other widely reputable international source (that's the important part, the WP:RS part), then suppressing said information from Wikipedia is not going to do too much more good. –MuZemike 00:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ick. What an all-round unpleasant situation. I've nominated this article for deletion, not so much because I'm sure it should be deleted or stubbed, but because I feel like consensus is needed, and I'm leaning in the direction of deletion- I'm not sure that Piven meets WP:ACADEMIC, and I'm not sure that she should be considered notable just because Glenn Beck decided to give her notoriety. Maybe you feel differently, and that's okay. I have a lot of mixed feelings. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Criteria 5 ofWP:ACADEMIC: appointment as a "Distinguished Professor". Publisher's blurb[3] states, "Frances Fox Piven is Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Sociology at The Graduate Center, CUNY". Glrx (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

As the AFD is now underway (and discussion regarding deletion should go there instead), what about the unblock request on Fannielou's page, given that it looks like she has retracted the legal threat. My concern is that she will go right back to trying to blank the Piven article, which is why I recommended above that we should possibly full-protect the article in the meantime; at the very least let discussion about the content itself go on Talk:Frances Fox Piven. –MuZemike 00:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and semi-protected the article; the last thing we need right now is someone who doesn't know better adding stuff in there that can cause further damage. –MuZemike 02:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I hope its OK if I weigh in here, as I have edited both Frances Fox Piven and Cloward Piven Strategy and was one of the editors to revert the blanking of the former earlier today. As someone who sympathizes with Frances Fox Piven and has taken a look at the overall situation, I believe the following: 1. She is a notable academic and columnist on her own, not just because of the attack by Glenn Beck. 2. Though my original reaction was that "Cloward Piven Strategy" was a recent conservative neologism, a Google book search discloses a 1975 book in which she and Dr. Cloward used the phrase and other significant use by liberals and others after the original 1966 essay appeared. While I respect the need to respond to a legal threat and our attention to BLP issues regarding Dr. Piven, the right solution is not to delete the two articles, both of which deal with notable matters and belong in this encyclopedia. Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the phrase "Cloward-Piven strategy" in that Google Books link. I do see the link shows that the word "strategy" occurs in a book written by Cloward and Piven, but that is not the same thing. I think to have a standalone article about the phrase, you need some reasonable academic sources focusing on the concept. Otherwise it should get at most a brief mention in some other article. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• I note that currently the material on the controversy is not in the article. I've given my opinion on the talk p. there, that this is the opposite of protection of living subjects--we do not protect here by making it obvious to everyone likely to read the article that we are censoring the content. My opinion of GB is something below what I am capable of expressing in writing, but we best protect his victims by preserving the principles of free expression that he is so outrageously misusing. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I still support deleting the Piven biography (which isn't going to happen), but given that it's staying, the GB conflict should be briefly mentioned in it. Since the conflict mostly derives from Beck's notability rather than Piven's, though, any lengthier discussion of it should go in Beck's biography instead of Piven's (which can cross-reference it). 71.141.88.54 (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Serious COI on Danese Cooper

It's pretty clear that there is a big COI problem here with folks on the board at the Open Source Initiative. They're pretty closely connected and editing each others' articles in tandem. Simon Phipps has self identified himself as Open Source Guy (talk · contribs) and Webmink (talk · contribs), Russ Nelson is self-evident as RussNelson (talk · contribs) and Danese Cooper is also on the board. Now a co-worker of Danese's at the Wikimedia Foundation, Steven Walling (talk · contribs) has stepped in and removed the tags pointing out the WP:COI connections. The bigger problem is that several of these editors have been writing poorly sourced articles about each other relying largely on primary sources. This is probably the worst example of COI editing I've come across and now has WMF intervention. Toddst1 (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps other readers might find it interesting that Toddst1, in his hurry to accuse others of misbehavior, has failed to noticed that neither Danese nor Simon have ever edited the article about me. I've edited the article about Simon exactly once, to announce that he had moved from observer status to being on the board, AND I included a citation in the edit notice, feeling that three words didn't justify an inline citation. He was accurate to say that Simon and I have edited Danese's article.

That said, I believe that WP:COI is highly overweighted. Frankly, if anybody asked me if they should edit wikipedia using their own name, because of the activities like Mrs. Toddst1's, I would say "never ever". If you edit anonymously, you will never be accused of COI. I happen to be an honest person, and have nothing to hide, so I edit using my own name. Perhaps, given her accusations, I should be editing under a pseudonym like Mrs. Toddst1's. She will NEVER be accused of a COI because nobody can know what her interests are. ... I believe that Wikipedia is not helped by the activities of anonymous editors. Why be anonymous unless you have something to hide? And yeah, girlie, I'm lookin' at you.

The problem is made worse for people who are notable. If someone anonymous or not notable wants to get picky with the article about you, and goes on a deleting spree, as have Damiens.rf (repeatedly deleting citations) and Toddst1 (diffs), any reverting of the article about you looks bad. Thus, if there is a conflict on other articles, it can easily spill over into the article about you, and as a notable person editing under your own name, you have no recourse. This is not a good thing and provides a strong incentive to edit anonymously. --RussNelson (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I stepped in because I watch the article, and this kind of drama is driving away editors who are participating in good faith. Are some of the editors people who know Danese in real life? Yes. Do they they think it needs to be whitewashed and have no notices about the fact that there are problems in the article? Clearly not. No one disagrees that the bio is kind of crappy and needs way better sourcing. But freaking out and pointing fingers at people who clearly are here to collaborate in good faith does nothing to improve a poor BLP. To say that me or people who know Danese are strictly forbidden from participating and using talk page templates to initiate some kind of witch hunt is ridiculous when everyone is completely and intentionally transparent. I don't have a lot of time to waste on this today, but this overly aggressive stance and assumptions of bad faith are only working to push away editors who care about improving the article. Steven Walling 19:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of intentions on either side, if there are editors editing an article that they have a close affiliation with and, thus, a COI, it must be pointed out on the talk page with the usual template which I notice has indeed been removed. Silverseren^C 20:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that the template is only for the subject of the article. Is that wrong? It seems like the list would be crazy long (potentially everyone at the Foundation?) otherwise. (Yep, you were right Silver.) Anyway, I don't really much care about whether the template is there or not, so long as we can be a little more cordial about the whole affair. The OSI-connected editors involved clearly aren't here to own the article or push other editors around, and I think we need to assume some good faith here. Steven Walling 20:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the folks at the foundation should live up to the standards set by the community and avoid editing articles about each other. Those rules should apply to foundation employees as well. Toddst1 (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Reactions like this are why we need to tone down the hostility. This isn't a battle front to be defended against all outsiders, it's an open community for a reason, and the OSI folks have the right frame of mind in participating. Steven Walling 21:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Would these folks be considered "notable" if they weren't connected with wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing what the big deal is here, are members of churches banned from editing articles about people in the same denomination? No, even though they theoretically could have a conflict of interest. Rather, it is people with some level of connection with the subject, either negative or positive, that have an interest in improving and expanding articles. Why should that be driven away? _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 21:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

(ecx4) I'm not seeing how the WMF staff and the OSI folks are failing to follow community standards. The vast majority of our articles are written by, and maintained by, people who have an interest in the subject. Provided they are following the five pillars, there is no conflict of interest. There is also the fact that, when it comes to personal beliefs, we come down hard when the beliefs of a subject cannot be directly attributed to a statement by the subject; the subject's statement outweighs whatever others say. So I am at a loss as to why Cooper's own statement about her beliefs is considered unreliable, when that is what we would hope to see from other subjects. (And yes, Baseball Bugs, the CTO of one of the top-5 internet sites would be notable enough for a biography; Cooper had one years before she joined the WMF.) Risker (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That's just it, they weren't following the 5 pillars, putting in unsourced information, and when sources were used, most were primary. Look at the mess at Russ Nelson. Toddst1 (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you may be confused about "primary sources" and when they are appropriate. The official website of an organization is a reliable source for the membership of its board of directors, even if it is a primary source. A person's blog, where they state their philosophical beliefs, is a reliable source for the person's beliefs, even if it is a primary source. Primary sources must be used with care, but are specifically not excluded from use of sourcing. Perhaps the "mess" over a Russ Nelson wouldn't be such a mess if people understood this. As it exists right now, it is not a proper article and it serves only to disparage the subject; it is a G10 at the moment, and I'll go speedy it if there's not some resolution. Risker (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I will put on my website that I graduated Magna Cum Laude from Santa's Reindeer Academy. Then I will write an article about myself which cites that primary source. I am, afterall, a reindeer and I have a primary source to prove it! Toddst1 (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I've consulted the Santa's Reindeer Academy's website, and not only do they not list you as a Magna Cum Laude graduate, not only do they not list you as a graduate in any year, they only list you as a freshman in the class of 2001, but suspiciously you disappear after that. I can only conclude that you are IN FACT not a graduate at all, but instead you flunked out. And if we can't believe the SRA as a primary source, we certainly shouldn't believe anything published about the SRA. And frankly, I'm underwhelmed by your contributions to Wikipedia. You delete a lot, but what have you created? I don't believe that deletionists can count their activities as improving Wikipedia. --RussNelson (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, Toddst1, I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to prove here, although I suspect your essay probably explains a lot of the frustrating editing situations you've encountered. However, I think you're being a bit unreasonable to suggest that someone's own words are an unreliable source for their philosophical beliefs (after all, even if they occur in another source, the words will still have come from the subject); or that an organization is an unreliable source for the names of those sitting on its Board. Where do you think the secondary sources get this information? Risker (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That's one of the most insightful and on-target essays I've seen in quite a while. Thanks for the pointer. @Toddst1, give it up, you can't fight city hall. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone else amused that Toddst1 wrote an essay that says "If you think an admin is on to you, quickly accuse him/her of being involved and/or having a bias and report them immediately ANI. You should probably throw in a few uncivil comments to give the air of authenticity to your actions", and then is here doing exactly that? :) AlexandraJackson (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not bad for your 11th edit (only 9 were not having to do with Danese). Toddst1 (talk) 01:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:AGF You're continuing to do the things you decry. Please stop. --RussNelson (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Be careful, don't rile A-Jacks. She's stronger than dirt.[4] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the article, I have to agree with Baseball Bugs, is she even notable to start with? _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 21:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Wow Todd, way to go with the hostility on that talk page. Why not calm down a little and stop being so unpleasant? Why can't we verify someone's religious affiliation with their own blog? "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities". See WP:SELFPUB. And WP:COI doesn't prohibit people with a declared COI from editing articles. You should read up on policy, particularly WP:BITE. Fences&Windows 21:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russ Nelson. The subject had removed content and prodded it, but this appeared to be more frustration than an actual desire for the bio to be deleted. Fences&Windows 22:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    • As a completely uninvolved party, I have made an edit to the article to diminish the negative emphasis, and I would regard anyone restoring it as being in direct violation of the obvious principles of BLP. DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
      • This is a good example of why we need an edict prohibiting BLPs on marginally notable people. (Yes, I've said this before, and I'll keep on saying it.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Question

Dear admins/non-admins,

I have a question and want to ask it here: As far as I am aware, iPod Nano is a copyrighted trademark, right? So if a user name has such username, doesn't it violate the Wikipedia:Username policy, even if they don't promote anything? An answer would be great. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 21:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You'd be hard-pushed to argue that it's strictly speaking illegal (incidentally, it's not copyrighted, just trademarked, but it hardly matters). Whether it violates policy, of course, is another question. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 21:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

There are actually several users whose ID's start with "Ipodnano". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that the usual answer to this is, "it doesn't matter". We can have user names like "Firefox lover" or "ToyotaCorollaDriver" or "Rock band player". I think this is because the user is not actually infringing on the trademark because they are not offering the same product. I think that if a user named "iPod Nano" offered himself as a portable music player, then that would be infringing on Apple's rights. I found this on a Harvard cyberlaw site: "The standard is "likelihood of confusion." To be more specific, the use of a trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes infringement if it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of those goods or as to the sponsorship or approval of such goods. In deciding whether consumers are likely to be confused, the courts will typically look to a number of factors, including: (1) the strength of the mark; (2) the proximity of the goods; (3) the similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) the similarity of marketing channels used; (6) the degree of caution exercised by the typical purchaser; (7) the defendant's intent."^[5] /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The more likely potential problem is POV-pushing. I don't see how the name, by itself, would be much of an issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Per this, it doesn't appear to be a problem. If you feel it is, consider asking for input over at WP:RFCN Throwaway85 (talk) 03:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible threat

Resolved

 – Police and WMF notified Kudos to User:NeutralHomer

I noticed in this diff of Oxford Valley Mall, 24.127.142.216 (talk · contribs) made a possible threat to bomb the vacant Boscov's store at the mall. I just felt I needed to report this because I am not sure whether this is an actual threat or not and am also unsure if any precautions need to be taken. Dough4872 00:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure whether not not this is serious, but it is concerning as a possible threat of violence. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

WhoIs traces this back to Monroe Township, NJ. Their Police Department's number is 732-521-0222. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you think the mall needs to be notified of the incident? Dough4872 00:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I would, definitely and I would also notify the PA State Police, Troop M, which serves Bucks County at 610-861-2026. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It might help to call the Middletown Township Police Department at 215-949-1000, which is the local police for where the mall is located. In addition, the main phone number for the mall is 215-752-0845. Which number would probably be best to call? In addition, it may help for someone with more experience on reporting Wikipedia incidents to police to call. Dough4872 00:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

When is the IP going to be blocked, before or after he gets arrested? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Good question. For safety's sake, it may help to block now. Dough4872 01:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I would just go with the PA State Police and let them handle it the way down. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone here up to calling the state police. Personally, I feel a little uncomfortable calling the cops as I have never dealt with such a situation. Dough4872 01:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

In addition, should the bad edit be deleted? Dough4872 01:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Has anyone called any police departments in association with this? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Not from what I know of, I would prefer if an administrator with experience do the task. Dough4872 01:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Called the Langhorne, PA police department. They didn't seem real concerned. They seemed more concerned on who I was. But hopefully they get someone out to give the place a good once-over. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Cool, thanks for calling the police. Hopefully everything goes fine. Dough4872 01:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Monitoring. I am also emailing Legal for their assistance. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Anyone know how to get ahold of the new general counsel, Geoffrey Brigham? Mike Godwin is out (as of October 2010), so I have no one to contact at WMF. Left a message at WMF's legal department, so I will let them handle it in the morning. In the meantime, we've done all we can folks, the rest is up to people above our paygrade. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
            • You did email- "emergency@wikimedia.org" didnt you? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
              • I was not aware of that email address....emailing now. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• AFAIK Geoff doesn't have an email yet; he's not an official employee till March, I think. The emergency address is best for death threats, bomb threats, suicide threats, etc. and it's monitored by other people as well (I think including Philippe, Swatjester, other WMF staff). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • For reference, the legal address I last knew of was legalwikimedia.org, and I think convention is that such edits shouldn't be RevDel'd because it would prevent law enforcement from looking at them. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Two or three times I have used it for similar situations some one has gotten back to me within 5 minutes. The shifts people must arrange.... The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone, we've got the email and information, we're on it. emergency@ is the best address to send this stuff to, it pings a number of us all at once. Christine, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy delete user JS

Resolved

Could an admin please delete User:Tom Morris/userinfo.js? I've placed a db-userreq CSD template on there, but because it's JavaScript, it doesn't actually work. Thanks. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. I'm told that putting the tag on the associated talk page still categorizes the javascript page properly, for future reference. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Will try and remember that! —Tom Morris (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_41#Deletion_of_css_and_js_user_pages, the category should have been added. Did you wait for category lag to clear? Flatscan (talk) 05:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone said a bad word

Can anyone have a look at the contributions by 98.85.17.156 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? It's pretty bad. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The worst of it is that the guy's IP-hopping. Unless a broad range-block could be applied, ignoring it might be the best option. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked one... Looks like MaterialScientist is watching them pretty closely.  7  02:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Coming after an admin is not exactly an intelligent move, given that the admin can pick them off like ducks (pardon the ironic metaphor) in a shooting gallery. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

And who teaches these kids such foul language? Is it Glee? Tsk tsk. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe they watch too much C-SPAN (ten years ago, that would have been an over-the-top joke...). --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 03:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I watched the video of Dee Snider in front of Congress on C-SPAN's website, and they (online) didn't censor out the name of Twisted Sister's fan club- the Sick Motherfucking Friends of Twisted Sister- when Dee said it. I'm only 20- I wish I'd been around for the 1980's. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Dee Snider? I was thinking of Dee Barnes. –MuZemike 04:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Massive trivial insertions, failure to communicate, within 1 day of expiration of 6 month block

Resolved

 – IP re-blocked for 1 year, edits reverted. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This IP 99.26.208.157 (talk · contribs) is within 1 day of coming off a 6 month block for the same behavior. It has begun again. Apparently the user continuously adds the fact that Alvin and the Chipmunks covered a song to a song or album's article. None of these are referenced, and even if they are true, it remains questionable whether they're relevant. What's distressing though is that they've added over 100 of these over the last 5 hours.

More notable, this has happened within 1 day of the block expiring. It almost makes me wonder if this is some kind of automated script.

Of course they have made no response to any attempt to communicate, which was true in the past as well.

I did begin to roll back these edits, but reversed myself, deciding to bring it here first. Shadowjams (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I've also turned this in to WP:AIV, to see who gets to it first. I recommend holding off on the rollbacks until the IP is put on ice again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What seems puzzling to me is that after looking through some of the edits by the ip, they seem to be adding true information and not vandalism. I don't know if I personally would have added these without a reliable source, but given the fact that none of the other information in the section appears to be sourced either, it seems that Shadowjams could have made better use of his/her time. I don't know what triggered this response by Shadowjams, but these edits are clearly not vandalism and seem to be good faith edits attached to a content dispute with shadowjams.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and this IP has accumulated over 7 months worth of blocks because of a single so-called "content dispute with Shadowjams". I find that hard to believe. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the blocks were for adding this same information which if I interpret them correctly were not vandalism then and are still not vandalism. It troubles me to see that this ip account was blocked for what seems to me to be adding correct information in the past. The ip was warned for adding information to a section of an article that has other uncited information in it. Very Very puzzling.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I had no previous interaction with this user (that I know of). There's no content dispute that I'm aware of. Shadowjams (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The monitors of AIV wouldn't block the IP. The question at this point is, what are the rules, if any, about distributing a particular group's every song among the various song pages? What is notable about the Chipmunks vs. possibly many other "real" artists who may have covered a given song? Or does it matter? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Again I stress that this is most likely a content dispute and less likely that any admin will take action against an ip adding good faith edits, even across multiple pages.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What are the rules, if any, regarding spamming of one particular group's performances across every song article they can find? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I would hardly consider adding cover vesrions to songs to a section full of numerous uncited cover versions, spamming.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

So, in your personal opinion as an editor, are the edits OK as they are? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I would not have added them as they are, but I also would not have removed some of them and then start a thread at ANI, nor would I have reported the editor for vandalism, all of which has happened in the past hour. So much for the Assume Good Faith crowd.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

So someone should start a discussion on each of the many dozens of pages spammed by that user? A user who won't communicate with anyone? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Now we get to the heart of the argument, what to do. Well if I was Shadowjams and I wasn't happy with some particular edits made by an ip or any other user,I would first revert, Do Not Rollback, any edits with the comment that a reliable source was required. I would then begin a discussion at the ip's talk page. If the ip doesn't respond, but doesn't readd the information then the issue is settled, but if the ip readds the info, Do not get into an edit war with an ip, simply add a "Fact" tag to the information and see what may come of it. You may be surprised, you may actually get one. But we'll never know if we Do Not Assume Good Faith. If after a suitable amount of time has passed, then if no source is presented then I would have just removed it, but this information is hardly that dubious, easily confirmable, and does not appear to hurt the project one bit. Not enough to go through all of this trouble at ANI.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Fact tags are unnecessary. The information is easily verified. That's not the issue. The issue is the appropriateness of the added items. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If you and Shadowjams feel thatthe edits are innapropriate, then by all means go ahead and do whatever you seem fit, but its a content dispute and hardly a case for ANI,, nor a reason to ask for a 6 month block.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

A user refusing to talk IS a case for ANI, as it's about disruptive behavior. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well if not partaking in a discussion is disruptive then I guess we must all get 6 month blocks.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No, you and I normally respond when questioned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well you asked what I would do and I told you. What you do is of course up to you, as I have no stake in whether or not those refernces are in the articles or not and they're hardly worth edit warring over, or losing any sleep about, since as you said, the information is "easily verified".--Jojhutton (talk) 02:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

From what I can tell from the available history, it is the addition of information of dubious value across dozens of pages that initiated concerns, and it's the failure to respond, while continuing to do so that led to the blocks. It looks like that's happened 3 times now. What I don't think Jojhutton is appreciating is how there is no communication going on here, only more insertions of the same material. That is disruptive. Shadowjams (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Since the admins won't block the guy, the admin-related question at this point is, should we start doing mass-rollbacks? Or is someone going to yelp about that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to wait on that question until we get more editors' input. In some cases this stuff could be relevant, in other articles it seems entirely trivial.

It's the continual additions that need to stop until at least some discussion with the user begins. A discussion on the content boards about this will have no effect if the user won't even communicate at this stage.

I certainly wouldn't have started this thread if it was a first time occurrence, but it's the ongoing nature of this that troubles me. Shadowjams (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm waiting for joj to explain how we're supposed to start a hundred talk page discussions, with a user who won't talk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: edits have restarted after a brief lull. Maybe some new voices on this topic could be helpful. Shadowjams (talk) 02:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The blocking admin (now retired) clearly stated "The block is for six months. If you return after that time and continue on your spree, the block will be for a minimum of one year."[6] Six months to the day, there's another "spree". It's apparently a problem, and point #4 of the WP:DE guideline demonstrates how refusal to communicate is in fact ignoring consensus building. Doc talk 02:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

So you want to block an ip for adding information that any one of us would have been given Good Faith to add.If I or any other logged in user with a clean record made these edits, it would never have come down to a block. Seems more likely that we should review the previous blocks and see if there aws any real justification for them at all. Other than the failure to communicate, I see no real threat to wikipedia at all. Not enough to block for.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

So you want us to start over a hundred talk page discussions, with a user who won't talk? What could that possibly accomplish? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not really what I was trying to imply, but I agree discussion is preferable, but unless there is clear vandalism or an edit war going on, I don't see any esaon to block. I could be wrong, but I haven't seen anything that would make me change my mind. If you don't like the edits, simply revert them.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You're advocating edit-warring as a solution??? Have you looked at that IP user's talk page, and observed the frequent and futile attempts to communicate? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe that I expressly said In Bold, Do Not Edit War. Was that not read correctly? Are you not assuming Good Faith toward me and accusing me of advocating a breach in policy. Please read WP:BRD. I understand that the ip will not communicate, but as the edits appear to not be vandalism and has not, as far as I know, reverted the previous reversions, I would assume that there is no blockable offense that I can find.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

So, should we revert all of them? Or just a few, as a test? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, you do what ever your concious demands, I have no stake in the information at all. I just hated to see Good Faith edits treated as vandalism and even reported at AIV as being so.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The guy was repeatedly warned, suspended for 6 months, and continues unabated and refuses to respond. How does that qualify as "good faith" editing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Continues doing what exactly? What is it about the added information that you felt constituted vandalism?--Jojhutton (talk) 03:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the comments by various other users on the IP's talk page? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't concern me as much as what makes these edits vandalism to you?--Jojhutton (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

← Errr, it just started again... with no discussion... -- Luk ^talk 14:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

comment - just block him again asap - repeat of previous behavior and failure to move to discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I liked "vomment" better. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

ah, you spotted it, never a truer word said in jest..or something along those lines \-)Off2riorob (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

He should be blocked for another 6 and his changes should be reverted as trivia/listcruft/spamming/whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Coming to the issue via AIV, I blocked the IP for a whole year as an escalation. If anyone thinks this is too drastic, I won't object to a reduction. More controversially (in view of this discussion which I didn't see until it was a bit late) I have bulk-reverted their latest wave of edits. I cannot tell which are legit, but when they so stubbornly refuse to explain or discuss, I see no other option. Favonian (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree, a single purpose of spamming a cartoon band to the lede of all sorts of articles that starts up again like some kind of bot after a six month restriction and refuses to discuss needs a mentor or something if they want an unblock. Off2riorob (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The chipmunk has now been confined to his tree for the next year. In the interim, someone(s) will need to look at each of the hundred-plus articles and figure out whether each specific entry has any merit or whether it should be zapped. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Favonian - bulk reverted them, which sounds like a handy addition to a monobook. Off2riorob (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Just the last round - there are still lots of them. I'm going to remove the one for my beloved Doors as "non-notable", and if there are objections they can be discussed on the talk page. What a novel idea! Doc talk 16:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. Reverting a bunch of acorns in "one swell foop", as it were. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well Good job troops. Pat yourselves on the back. You just blocked an editor for adding true and verifiable information to articles. I thought that we were trying to encourage people to contribute to wikipedia, not block them for it.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not everything true and verifiable is of encyclopedic relevance. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

We've blocked a disruptive possibly non-human spammer for six months. I see no problem with that. Rklawton (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well at least I know that I'll sleep with a clear conscious tonight, because I advocated for what I felt was right.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

While we did not agree on approach, no one questions your good faith in the matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Pro-Life move debate: "reporting myself"

I just notified the original closer and admin who reclosed this debate of this discussion.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

A non-admin user with a Christian icon closed the move debate for Pro-Life. An admin reverted because, clearly, a non-admin, should not hae cosed such a controversial subject. I posted this, this, and this on the Talk page, for which User:Roscelese gave me this warning and final warning. I believe it is entirely legitimate to question the non-adim's motivation in this because (a) in the context of this particular debate the christianity icon is highly emotive (b) it's about who closes the debate, not just the motivations of any edit and (c) it's important to get it right in terms of the admin who actually closes the debate for the reputation of Wikipedia. To me, this issue is a matter of principle and I've therefore "reported" myself 9rather than post yet again) and am happy to go along with whatever decision is made as I think that in this context my comments were legitimate nd am extremely unhappy with what I believe to be User:Roscelese's rather unthinking and heavy-handed reaction. DeCausa (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, DeCausa. As I already told this user, WP:NPA is painstakingly clear about "using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views," so the attack on Alpha Quadrant would have been inappropriate even if we had known that zie opposed abortion, rather than being "Christian," which could mean Episcopalian, pro-choice Catholic, or any number of other things. I hope, DeCausa, that "reporting" yourself here is indicative of a desire to improve your behavior rather than to see it justified, because what you said is so way out of line. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I believe it is absilutely justified and I am happy to be blocked for this, if that is the decision. It's a basic principle of Natural justice that the decision maker is not seen to be one-sided. I repeat, this is not about the religion of the user, it's about the overt display of icons directly relevant to the issue in debate. The comment about "using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views," is absolutely fine and I support in the context of general editing. In making a decision such as this, it is not fine. And one other aspect, there's possibly a difference between displaying these sort of icons in a US context and in an international context. In the UK (where I'm from) it is a an agressive stance. DeCausa (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

And, as I say, I'm happy to be blocked if that is the decision. On the other hand, I ask for a decision on whether Roscelese's 'final warning' was unjustified (so I can say in the deletion edit summary that that was the determination, if indeed that is the case.) DeCausa (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What is this thread (or the one below) going to accomplish other than to continue to raise the temperature? If you want to remove the comment from your talk page, remove it. Roscelese is not an admin and has no ability to block you, nor is any admin going to consider the warning (or a lack thereof) in deciding whether to block you. Warning templates (other than pro forma templates like deletion notifications) are primarily geared towards new users and templating regular users is considered rude. --B (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

DeCausa was not "using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" at all, but simply to question the wisdom of their non-admin closure - I see no criticism of anybody's *views* in any of those messages. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

He's trying to discredit the closure not based on the rationale or the reading of the consensus, but on the fact that the one doing it has a particular box on their user page. That's an inappropriate ad hominem if I've ever heard one. At any rate the whole thing should be resolved now that an admin has closed the discussion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a person closing a discussion who has an "icon" on their page proclaiming themselves to be X, so long as they do so based upon the merits of the discussion and have not been involved in the discussion themselves (or other related discussions.) Using one's self-identification is not grounds for dismissing their views, which is what you are doing here, in that I have to agree with Roscoe. A person coming in quoting the Bible and has through his/her words/deeds shown an inability to remain objective is a different story, but somebody who has a user box/icon/etc---no. (going based solely on what I see in this discussion and attached links) IMO, it does not paint you in the best of light---makes you look paranoid about other peoples ability to maintain objectivity. I've closed discussions and been invited to mediate discussion related to politics despite having a user box declaring my personal political stance. That being said, unless there is more than what has been posted here, I do not see your actions rising to a blockable offense nor do I necessarily see them as a personal attack. But that is based upon what you yourself have provided (I don't know if there is a pattern of your discrediting the views of others based upon self-identification or not). On controversial subjects, non-admins should definitely refrain from closing the discussion---so I support the admin reversal of the closure.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that sounds like a pretty fair and balanced view of things to me. I see no bad faith on either side here - neither in Alpha Quadrant's non-admin close nor in DeCausa's objection to it. With a contentious issue like this, I just think that closing should not have been attempted by any non-admin or by any editor (admin or not) who might look to be in any way involved or biased (even if no bias is actually employed in the decision). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That was EXACTLY my point - probably put more succinctly than I did. (Cuchullain: Of course I wasn't trying to discredit the closure - I had no need to as it had already been reversed.) DeCausa (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

DeCausa, you can make legitimate concern about a user being a non-admin closing such a controversial subject. If applicable, you could even make a legitimate concern about a user who has shown a history of being unable to separate their personal views and objectivity. When you come in and declare that somebody, simply for having an "Icon" on their page is unfit to make a close, that is a different story. You made a broad statement stereotype. I have a Republican "Icon" on my user page, but that didn't stop people on the "Tea Party Movement" from asking me to mediate a discussion about the Tea Party shortly before the elections. They asked me because both sides of the issue believed that I could remain objective on the subject. Declaring oneself to be of a particular political party/religion/sexual orientation/etc does not, by default, make one incapable of remaining objective. Also, being a Christian <> Pro-Life. There are Christians out there who are pro-choice (my Cousin was one of his states' Planned Parenthood Board of Directors for 8 years and is a minister.) Was AQ's original close within the parameters of the discussion? Yes. Was it well rationed/reasoned? Yes. Did it accurately represent the views presented? Yes. Had the original closer been involved in the discussion? No. Had the original closer ever contributed to the article? Looking at the last 4 years on the talk page and 2 years on the actual article, the answer is no. Based on the discussion, could it have been closed any other way? No, there clearly was not consensus to close as a move. My guess is that prior to this close you had never heard of AlphaQuadrant. You're only grounds for objecting are "an Icon" and the fact that he isn't an admin. The later might be a legit concern on highly controversial subject, but the former (lacking any other evidence) is not.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I made my points on this in the Pro-life Talk Page. The reason I came here was in relation to Roscelese's reaction, specifically the templating for saying what I said. I have not made a complaint about AlphaQuadrant to this noticeboard. Earlier you said "I do not see your actions rising to a blockable offense nor do I necessarily see them as a personal attack". I took that to mean Roscelese's templating was incorrect (although you said that assumes I've disclosed all the relevant posts - which actually I have). Given all of that, I'm not sure where you are going with this and what more there is to add. Is this just a debate on my original point of view? If so, I'm not sure this is now the right forum? Or have you changed your mind that I haven't committed a blockabled offence? Could you clarify please. Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

While I certainly agree that one's personal opinions on things should not be generalized from one's expressed religious and/or political affiliations, I still think it is unwise to take closure/admin actions on topics in which people of one's expressed allegiance are often seen to have a strong point of view, and I do think it is valid to be concerned when someone does that. For example, if I had a userbox proclaiming myself as a Floobian, I would specifically recuse myself from closure decisions on any topic in which Floobians in general appeared to have an interest. I think it comes with the territory really - by all means publicly identify yourself with a group/cause/belief/etc (and I respect people who are open about such things), but if you do then I think you should avoid making "management" decisions in areas in which people who share that identity are strongly active. And finally, yes, I agree that the warnings given to DeCausa were wrong - there were no personal attacks and no bad faith by anyone here (including Roscelese, who I think was also acting in good faith). Would it perhaps be a good idea for everyone to accept that everyone else was acting in good faith and move on now? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I do think Roscoe's warning was out of place, I think some people throw NPA too casually. So in that light, no I would not support a block or action on your statements. (I completely agree with Boing, I think everybody here is activing in good faith.)

But making a generalized statement about a single user box, without ANY proof that said user box affects his/her edits, is not justified and IMO reflects poorly on you. The same issue comes up occassionally at RfA, but usually with people who identify themselves as Athiest! In both cases, having a user box that identifies a belief, does not by default, disqualify one from measuring consensus among the community. Especially, when said user box is so generic and vague that it coulf fit a quarter of the worlds population. The concern comes in when a user starts editing in a manner in which their personal beliefs override their ability to be objective. Which was not shown. Not only was it not shown, but no evidence exists to support that notion, except for their "icon." In fact, looking at the editors contributions belies your concerns. The editor has no history on the Pro-Life page. The close, while non-admin, was not against consensus. The editor in question has a history of working on closes and based upon his talk page seems to have the respect of those he works with. I doubt he even gave the fact that he has an "icon" on his page a second thought related to this discussion.

I'd rather have a person who shows sound judgment being open with where they stand, than to have somebody with no user boxes showing unsound judgment. Boing! you make an argument about Floobian, but that is a little off the mark. I'd rather point to something more generic, where DeCausa lives---the UK. Now, it is entirely possible that a discussion might arise between two groups of people who live in the UK about an issue related to the UK. As a dumb American, I might not have the knowledge to properly parse the discussion and understand what is relevant. In order to close the discussion, you just might need to get somebody who is from the UK to understand the nuiances of the discussion. Hell, if the issue involves one of the soccer teams then it might be beneficial to have somebody from the soccer project get involved. ;-) Having a user box, whether Athiest/Christian/Republican/Torry/American/Brit/Manchester United/etc does not disqualify one from using their knowledge/expertise to properly understand a discussion. One's edit history, not user boxes, should be the basis for criticism/concerns. AQs close, was perfectly legit, although he probably should have let an Admin do so because of the subject involved.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. Thanks for your responses and time. DeCausa (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Yep, you (Balloonman) make a lot of fair points, and I'm largely in agreement with you. I just find myself erring on the side of caution from both directions. So I'd be happy myself with decisions made by people who show good judgment (as AQ indeed did), regardless of their userboxes, but at the same time I would not effect judgments myself if there was any possibility of conflict with a userbox I used, if for no other reason than that it might raise suspicions in others. So I think it is wise to avoid doing closure stuff in such situations, and also wise to take great care when thinking of disputing such actions.

PS: I just looked up "Floobian" - I thought I'd made up the word and had no idea it really existed.

PPS: I'm from the UK - and you should never trust anyone who displays a "Manchester United" userbox ;-)

Cheers -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I had to look it up too... and when I did, I thought you were making a little commentary on the subject or Pro-Life. A lot of pro-lifers are anti-Floobians ;-)

I just think before we start impugning the motives of others, we should do more than a cursory check of the user page. When I came to this thread, I expected to find a case wherein a user had ventured outside of the lines to close a discussion in a manner that was a clear example of bias. Or a user who had an extensive history on the page and then claimed neutrality. Instead, I found a rationale close that accurately reflected consensus.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, yes, it's quite amusing that not only does "Floobian" really exist, but it actually has some relevance to the pro-life debate. I'll be more careful in future when I try to make up words, and I'll go for something that can't possibly be real - "Raelian" sounds good . But seriously, yes, I think we're pretty closely aligned in our thoughts here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• - Clearly the move debate was a very complicated discussion and needed an experienced closure, which has now happened, and as the thread below - WP:RESPECT this is a very emotive topic. Take it easy with the warnings and the reverting and look for the middle ground. As per Zebedee and more heat than light, I also think closing this down and shaking hands and starting afresh is the way to go. Off2riorob (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Mad Doggin 7 continuing disruptive behavior despite multiple warnings/reports on multiple issues

Resolved

 – ...maybe. Account indeffed, IP blocked for a month. Report any ducks. N419BH 20:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The user, Mad Doggin 7 (and likely also editing under the IP 65.254.165.214) has been the subject of no less than 2 ANI reports within the past week for serious and multiple violations of Wikipedia policy. These reports were archived without any administrator intervention or even comment. Several warnings were posted over relevant pages, including his talk page(s) and the article's talk page (which he frequents). Please see the following archived reports:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive672#Disruptive_Behavior_by_User:_Mad_Doggin_7_.2F_65.254.165.214

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive672#User_Impersonation_-_Mad_Doggin_7_Making_False_Claims_Using_my_Signatures.2FClaiming_to_be_Moderator

Since then, within the last few hours, he has continued to persist in making these disruptive edits, once again ignoring all evidence against his claims and failing/refusing to provide any sources (as he has done on at least 16 separate occasions over the past several months), and defying community concensus and multiple warnings. He is likely emboldened by the lack of administrator action despite overwhelming evidence and explicit reports of his multiple and serious infractions.

I strongly urge immediate administrator action this time to prevent further disruption to this article and and to other Wikipedia users. He has shown consistently over his history that he has no intention of ever heeding any evidence or warnings, and will continue to post his gross misinformation while refusing to provide sources or evidence, and is willing to go to extreme ends to persist, including threatening other users, lying about administrator privileges, and explicit impersonation. CannikinX (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well - having been repeatedly asked for sources, claimed an apparently non-existent source, impersonated another editor to falsly back it up and threatened everybody if they continued to argue - he is now merely re-adding his unsourced additions. Why does Wikipedia need an editor like this? I would propose an indef. block - unless there are serious signs of understanding the nature of what he has done. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the timely response Fainites. I agree that an indefinite block is in order as (if 65.254.165.214 is indeed the same person as seems likely) he has shown in the past that despite multiple (4) temporary blocks, he has no intention of stopping his disruptive behavior, but rather continues upon expiry of the blocks. CannikinX (talk) 10:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

We'll see what he has to say. Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I've provided a warning regarding unsourced content, but we're now getting into severe WP:IDHT. Block is in order to prevent disruption. I don't think the user has been blocked before (nothing in the public log). It also looks like every single file they have uploaded has been deleted. An appropriate restriction from uploading images is also in order once the block expires. N419BH 13:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes to the IDHT. I know he was only warned for falsifying sources and "support" for those sources but it does seem at the moment that basic integrity and a basic willingness to edit in accordance with the principles is missing. This is beyond the usual over-enthusiasitc POV pusher. I proposed an indef. until such time as he can demonstrate an understanding of basic principles. It would help if he would come and discuss this here though.Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Just now, a little over an hour ago, he has once again reverted the page, using his alternate IP 65.254.165.214. See the following diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Black_Rock_Shooter_characters&diff=414076540&oldid=413962874. There is no doubt that this is the same person, as this address has exactly the same behavior and pushes exactly the same edits (it is also the address which I mentioned had been blocked 4 times previously for similar behavior; see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3A65.254.165.214). CannikinX (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Indef blocked account for disruption. Blocked IP for a month. Hopefully he'll just go away. Rklawton (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for settling this, Rklawton, hopefully for good. I seriously cannot fathom what is going on inside his head. He just kept digging his hole deeper and deeper with every act. I will keep a close eye on his IP activity once the 1 month block period expires. Given his past history, repeat offenses are a distinct possibility. CannikinX (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Help move war

Resolved

 – Admin renamed and re-protected article, as per consensus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2010-2011_Pro-democracy_protests#I_asked_for_immediate_911_on_protection Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what you want? If its a revert issue report at the WP:3RRNB - Off2riorob (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

We're ping-ponging between different names to describe the global/middle east/greater middle east/arab world protests. Discussing it on talk. Move Protection may be helpful, but it's not desperately needed. Ocaasi (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No a move protect should be put in place this is out of hand and a clear consensus should form before a page is moved that at least 3 editors disagree on in only minnutes of it being moved. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The page that for the past few weeks has been called 2010–2011 Arab world protests was moved yesterday without consensus and reverted after rapid talk-page opposition to the move:

• [7] (original move without any obvious consensus)
• [8] (revert to Arab world protests)
• [9] (revert to en dash in 2010–2011)

During the last (half hour or so?) it has been moved several times:

• [10]
• [11]
• [12]
• [13]
• [14]

IMHO this needs a revert to the previous stable name prior to the move [15] by User:FromEast at 17:39 13 February 2011 (UTC), i.e. the name in [16] (17:39, 13 February 2011 Ser Amantio di Nicolao) and a block against further moves pending a standard move proposal. There are enough users involved in working on the page so that there is a good chance that a consensus decision following a standard page move proposal would be a good and stable decision.

Boud (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What, if anything, do the sources call this series of protests? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I was the originator of the article. So far all I have seen is "Arab world protests". There are protests in Iran right now (which is not Arab world), but that stems from earlier protests there and on the whole unrelated to the protest movements inspired by Tunisia. Jmj713 (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Do the sources connect the dots to cover other continents' protests, or is that "global" conclusion a bit of "original synthesis"? One could lump the "tea party" stuff into it, to really stretch it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes they do. There are numerous citations for that in the lead, plus several external links to that section at the bottom of the article. They specifically state "Arab world" (or variation thereof). Thus far I haven't seen a single source that lumps every ongoing protest into these, like those in Europe, etc. Jmj713 (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems like Stubing is trying to get "his version" protected before someone moves it to something else. There's no apparent consensus yet, and it's strictly a content issue at this point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Baseball Bugs' view on this. Per Boud, the page should be moved to the status quo ante, i.e. to 2010–2011 Arab world protests. I've left a warning at the editor's talk page.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It certainly is his attempt and thus hard to AGF. He has claimed consensus, but here Talk:2010-2011_Pro-democracy_protests#Renaming_of_article_proposal and Talk:2010-2011_Pro-democracy_protests#Page_move (unaninmous vs. him) the consensus is opposite

let me just say the view im keeping as status qup consensus is NOT my view. i voted against that move.

this is the most flagrant case of WP:BOOMERANG ive seen--Lihaas (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I've seen more flagrant cases, but this one may be in the running. Looking at the user's history, I'm not so sure it's bad faith, but maybe just that the user is a bit exciteable. That doesn't make his actions valid, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the original title is Iran, which is where the protest started last year and are returning right now. If we have an Arab-only name, then we can't put the template for the protests at the Iran article, and it just gets too restrictive. We're looking for a broader name, but not too broad. Ocaasi (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Like I stated above, the protests in Iran right now are a continuation of earlier protests, and there is an article for that. For the article in question, it began in Tunisia, and subsequently people in other Arab states were inspired, as in Egypt, etc. Jmj713 (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Why do so many here use the word "concur" instead of the rather more straightforward and easier to type "agree"? Is it in a mis-guided attempt to appear educated? Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Duh, yup, dat's right. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know that there is such a difference in style between "agree" and "concur". What I wanted to say is that, in my view, Baseball Bugs got it right.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Even us blind squirrels find an acorn sometimes. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I acquiesce. GiantSnowman 21:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey dudes, I simply am requesting that the MOST accurate title be used. I do not feel this is unreasonable. If someone can explain how protests on four continents are "Middle East" I will agree. Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What sources connect all of these protests together as a single movement? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

And also your view alone doesnt constitute the "MOST ACCURATE" thats what consensus is for

please also note his THREE reverts ont he move without ANY consenss is the strongest indicate for a block [17] and the last 3 section of his talk page+ [18] + [19] User_talk:Merrill_Stubing--Lihaas (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"Wrong" version has now been protected

The title "2010-2011 Pro-democracy protests" has now been protected for 7 days. This is rewarding a move that was made against consensus, by an editor who apparently does not care about consensus. This page protection measure needs to be reviewed.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It didn't help that another editor got into a move edit war, despite being advised not to do so due to the lack of consensus. There should be NO MORE MOVES until consensus can be reached. There is no rush on this matter. Finalize consensus, and then ask an admin to do the move, and maybe continue to keep it move-protected after that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

please see the page. EVERY single editor has disagreed with the moe of the 1 unilateral mover.

Also please note the latest incarnation of consensus (which irnoically is moving back to waht i supported) Talk:2010–2011_Pro-democracy_protests#Reasons_for.2Fagainst_each_title and Talk:2010–2011_Pro-democracy_protests#Article_name--Lihaas (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I would agree if the page would be move protected for 1 or 2 days. But, in my view, we cannot have a POV-based title that is not based on reliable sources on a high-visibility page for a week.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Surely consensus can be reached before then. It looked like there was good progress being made, but one editor just couldn't stand the fact the article had the "wrong" title, and edit-warred over it. That has to stop. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, the page is linked to from the Main page. It's a shame to have what was a great article and a highly visible one, devolve into what it has. Take a look at the state it was in just yesterday, before someone decided everything in the world has to be interconnected. Jmj713 (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Should the page as well as the title be reverted to some point yesterday? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like someone just has. Jmj713 (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep. And I think "formal" consensus on the title is also at hand. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The admin has now renamed the article to 2010–2011 Arab world protests, and re-protected it also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Waterfall117

Resolved

 – zot. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Waterfall117 (talk · contribs) came to my attention do to a set of edits to Shattered Angels.[20] Looking at the editor history since 2007. Every edit has been either disruptive and in most cases, outright vandalism. This editor has not show any signs of constructively contributed since making this edit[[21]] 3 1/2 years ago. —Farix (t | c) 00:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The best policy is to just revert-warn-report after the final warning.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That's the thing. This editor has a pattern of vandalizing until they get that last warning, laying low for a few months, then picking back up. They are effectively playing a game with the system so as to avoid a block. —Farix (t | c) 00:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, he certainly managed to last a long time. Blocked indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Rms125a@hotmail.com

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

Resolved

 – No chance in hell account is going to be blocked. –MuZemike 04:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · rfcu · ssp · SPI · cuwiki)

IZAK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)

The above user is in flagrant violation of Wikipedia:Username policy#Internet addresses. It's been noted and he has been warned about it many times, see:

1. User talk:Rms125a@hotmail.com/Archive 2#Inappropriate username (what are the "magical powers" here that "User:Durova has corrected my incorrect assumption re your username, as you said s/he would. My apologies for hassling you. Happy wikying. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 19:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)" -- can other editors also apply for exemptions from WP policies?);
2. User talk:Rms125a@hotmail.com/Archive 7#Your username; how does "getting grandfathered in" work on WP, there should at least be an essay about this: "This has been addressed about a million times already. Rms is grandfathered in. -Rrius (talk) 09:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)" -- can other users get "grandfathered in" if they are still using hundreds of older rules to edit by?
3. User talk:Rms125a@hotmail.com#REGARDING MY USERNAME (what kind of "excuse" is "Robert is one of the few editors who is not obliged to change his username, as his account was created many years before the rules were changed - Alison ❤ 02:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)" -- could such "excuses" be made when old-time users try to rely on older more lax rules of WP editing for example?)

This would nominally be a case for Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention but the situation has deteriorated as there are more serious ramifications because the above user, while feeling self-satisfied that he may carry on in violation of current WP policies, sees fit to "impose" WP policies as he is now doing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaim Rabinowitz, see in particular "Off-topic attack on the nominator's choice of username elided" and my attempt to point out this contradictory situation that has been reverted multiple times. An involved admin User David Eppstein (talk · contribs) has tried to intervene on the above user's behalf, however, it is utterly absurd, inconsistent and ridiculous that one lone user should have the right do as he pleases in violation of WP policies, while he feels free to enforce WP editorial policies in regard to articles. This situation cannot be allowed to continue. It's one thing if the above user keeps to himself and edits quietly, but it is quite another matter if he abrogates for himself the right to start AfDs and "impose" policies when he does not live by them himself. Any serious Wikipedian would have changed his user name by name and avoided any appearance of conflict, but this user. Outside admin intervention is requested. IZAK (talk) 04:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Will inform involved parties. IZAK (talk) 04:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Both the above user and the involved admin have been informed. IZAK (talk) 04:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• You know, personally, I'd look at that and go "Well, this has been talked out before, and it's obvious that it's not changing, so why bring it up again?"--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this a real problem or a vendetta about you AFD discussion? If it's the first talk to him first. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 04:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? What "vendetta" I have never come across this user before as far as I know so I have nothing against him. But when any user nominates an article that interests me for deletion then I try to see where that user is coming from, I take a look at his user page and talk page and I get a sense of him, his general reasoning, and his motives. In this case, what quickly became very clear was that here's a guy who thinks there is one set of rules for him and another set of rules for all other Wikipedians. By what "right" does he come along and nominate articles for deletion which are at root ONLY POLICY discussions and decisions that APPLY TO EVERYONE yet for himself declares with HIS USER NAME YET, that HE IS NOT SUBJECT TO WP POLICIES? That is what got me so curious and concerned and that is why I ask for more serious intervention. It's one thing if he merrily edits along in places and does not cause mischief, BUT it is quite another matter if he puts on the mantel of a "WP policy wonk" and "WP policeman" to delete articles that are pretty serious in many editors eyes. So it's not about "vendettas" but it IS about consistency of all the WP policies without any exceptions. Otherwise please let me know where the "exceptions" section to rules and policies FOR EVERYONE is to be found on WP? Thanks for asking, IZAK (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) This sounds more like you're annoyed over his AfD of Chaim Rabinowitz than his username. We've had a long-established 'grandfather' rule regarding account names that were created before the rules changed back in - when? - September 2006? And the only reason they were changed back then was because Mediawiki didn't handle escaped characters in usernames correctly and blocks, prots, etc were going wrong. That bug has also been addressed years back. And any time someone wants to take a pop at Robert, they always seem to go for his username. This has been the way these (email addresses as usernames) cases have been handled for years now on WP:UAA and indeed at one point, I was by far the most active admin at UAA, so I know the score - Alison ^❤ 04:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Alison, why do you call him "Robert" where does it say that is his name if he does not use it. Why can't he use "Robert__" as his user name? You are advocating for him. IZAK (talk) 05:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Let's end this one now please. I'm amazed this would still be brought up after so many years. Who cares? Wknight94 ^talk 04:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • No. This user is in the process of implementing WP policy when he is in violation of WP policy. Don't be so superficial please, it's a serious matter. Can you tell us which policies we can ignore please now that one guy is allowed to ignore a WP policy so out in the open? Thanks, IZAK (talk)
    • He is not in violation of the username policy. See this version, for example; "E-mail addresses or web page addresses are generally considered likely to be promotional. Note that for a long time, email addresses were not prohibited. Usernames created before January 1, 2007 that are email addresses are grandfathered under this policy and are not prohibited." ... and so on. Soon as the policy is changed so that editors with capital "K"s in their name are outlawed, you'll be the first on the chopping block ;) (Trivialising? It is trivial!) - Alison ^❤ 05:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Alison: It is incredible the lengths you are going to defend this violation based on OLD versions of things. Who cares what it said then? I can tell you that when I started on WP about 8 years ago it said lots of things that today would be laughable. Anhow, FYI, here is TODAY's WP policy in case you have not read it yet: "Wikipedia:Username policy#Internet addresses: E-mail addresses and URLs are not valid usernames" that is pretty simple and clear, here is a repeat: "E-mail addresses and URLs are not valid usernames" --- THUS "not valid" means that admins have the responsibility to enforce that policy or themselves be in violation of allowing it when the WP rules say others. Stop your WP:LAWYERing that is causing you to shoot yourself in the foot. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Point of note, and an aside, admins are not 'obliged' to 'enforce' anything on WP, as we're all volunteers just like any other editor. As for his name, he's used his RL name on here for many years now, given he's been here since around 2004 - same as we have. I'm seven years on here under this account (tomorrow, actually!) and I've seen policies change too. However, what I'm seeing right now seems to be driven by spite, quite frankly, as he's been editing for years under that name and given it's no longer an issue for Mediawiki, why should it be an issue for you? And why, for that matter, have you forumshopped this over to WP:COIN? - Alison ^❤ 06:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Alison I was not going to respond because an admin has closed this discussion, but you still inserted your last comment all the same, and are creating a false impression. The only reason I continued this discussion at COI is precisely because discussion was cut of here and for the wrong reason. At no time was I looking for a "block" for the user in question. My request was that he not get involved in "implementing" policy decisions as in AfDs when something as basic as his own user name is in violation of Wikipedia:Username policy#Internet addresses: "E-mail addresses and URLs are not valid usernames" (no mention of it not applying to some, or being rejected by Mediawiki or some such excuse by you) for which he has an exemption that no-one but he and you seem to know about that is bound to create questions and you see that they happen even though you dismiss them so lightly. I am trying to move on from this, so please stop making fun of the issue in defense of this problematic user. Thanks a lot. IZAK (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
            • • His username is irrelevant. The end. 115.64.182.73 (talk) 10:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • That's a good question. Why do you care IZAK? NW (Talk) 04:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I am trying to figure out when confronted with the implications of policies in AfDs why a user can be exempted from policies being applying to him when such efforts would be laughed out of court if they were tried by anyone else except this user. Can you let me that first? Thanks, IZAK (talk) 04:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
      • • According to the admin comments here, he's exempted because the policy says he is. As far as the "Robert" part, he made that fact known in one of his early edits. I don't think that using one's e-mail address as one's ID is a very smart thing to do, but "it's his funeral", as the saying goes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
          • What does "because the policy says he is" mean? You are confusing what admins say with what policy is. Admins say many things, they are obliged to follow policy like all users. Policy is arrived at by its own means and once it's accepted it applies to all users. I am trying to move on from this discussion now. IZAK (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
      • This isn't a courtroom. If his username doesn't cause any problems, then we have no problems with it. Prodego ^talk 05:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
        • This is not the only editor with "grandfather rights". Therefore, I've made an addition to WP:U. The few users who have exemptions by consensus of the community have probably been discussed before, and thus there should be a record somewhere that consensus exists for their username to be allowed. It may be that there are still a few editors whose cases have not been discussed. Such cases can be discussed if and when they are raised. Mjroots (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
          • What, are we being sensible now? How is something like an accurate description of current practice supposed to help people yell past each other for hours on end? — Gavia immer (talk) 09:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
            • I'm sure there's pleny of other stuff to yell past each other over. Mjroots (talk) 09:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Despite the user's incredibly over-the-top overreaction to another user's ID, technically he has a point. I have asked Alison this question, and I'll ask it here also: Why was the "grandfather" clause referenced earlier in this section removed from the writeup over 3 years ago?[22] It makes it seem that the current policy has no exceptions at all. Shouldn't that "grandfather clause" be re-added to the policy? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Bugs is right here. If RMS's username is indeed grandfathered, then the policy should explicitly state a clause about grandfathered usernames. However, this seems like shopping for sanctions to eliminate an opponent in an AfD about a Talmudic scholar of questionable notability. 75.150.53.81 (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

One of our more frequently repeated (and occasionally heeded) mantra is that our policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. We could describe the policy better to avoid misunderstandings. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

POST SCRIPT - I understand that the issue is closed but I was offwiki until a little while ago, and was debating whether or not as the subject of this matter I should respond. Therefore I am leaving this brief message just to underscore a few points. I have been on Wikipedia since 2005 -- not 2004, as Alison noted but I understand why, it feels like forever sometimes -- and when I created this username, I probably was not fully aware of the all the ramifications of using your email address as your username, but I don't think I have had any problems because of it. This is the username I was directed to maintain per ArbCom (my unbanning agreement) so I have. I do not understand why it should be of concern to anyone, but in light of the behavior exhibited towards me by IZAK I am sure it will be understood that I therefore, consequently, could not consider any change of username, although obviously I would have to abide by any justified directive (i.e. requirement) to do so by an unbiased, disinterested third party. I would like to thank everyone for judging this case on the merits, not on my past as has been done in the past, by those seeking a weapon to discredit me. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Mjroots and some other editors have contributed to a new section in the user name guide called "Exceptions",[23] which is intended to cover cases like yours. Hopefully, that will settle this matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we just block IZAK and be done with this? He is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and is waa-waa'ing over his precious article being send for deletion. 140.247.141.136 (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

How about we block you instead for being a sock? GiantSnowman 23:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

An IP comes back to life after being dormant for 5 years and 4 months? Might that be a record? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Stupid question

Why has IZAK not been blocked for Personal attacks and disruptive editing? I am Looking some of the stuff at AFD and he seems to have clearly violating WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVILITY crossed here, here [24] not to mention forum shopping here. Why are we tolerating this outlandish behavior? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 6:10 pm, Today (UTC−5)

That's a good question. I would chalk it up to a large level of tolerance on the part of the admin that he was yelling at. As I said, he did have a point, technically; and that point has been resolved. But it all seems to have been a smokescreen for disagreement on the deletion of an article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Stupid question is not stupid. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Either one of these acts of outrageous behavior would seem more than enough deserving of a block IMHO The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi there ResidentAnthropologist: You are not being helpful because the thread was marked by an admin as "Resolved" meaning it's over. There was an AfD, it's still on the go and you are free to participate in it instead. In the AfD I raised a matter of procedure, simply put, if an editor/nominator is in violation of a basic WP policy relating to his user ID how could he then have any credibility/right in imposing/implementing WP policy in an AfD? The admins have chosen to reject this question. That is their choice. I have moved on, but you seem to have trouble letting go. You are now moving into violating WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, while I am trying to pursue the road of peace. Peace is always better than war. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I think you behavior is incredibly ridiculous for out of proportion to the content dispute. How is questioning your actions WP:BATTLEGROUND? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You know ResidentAnthropologist you should see what is really happening and quit trying to make me into your scapegoat. I need to be thanked (not "spanked") for raising this issue -- (there is no "painless surgery" sometimes) for pointing out a huge misconception in WP policy procedures. Within 24 hours of this thread being "Resolved" and while you look for reasons to undermine my good work, on the other hand it has already: (a) started a healthy debate about the problems with having any exceptions to WP policies, and (b) admins have obviously seen the merits and logic of what I have to say by making some very serious changes to the WP user name policy change, see [25]; [26]; [27]; [28] -- and no doubt there will still be more until this matter is resolved. I may be overly passionate the way I express myself, but the logic and sense of my arguments are solid, so much so that the admins now feel obliged to "fill the gaps" I pointed out -- had I not raised the issue it would not have happened. For the record, I still maintain that it is wrong and counter-productive to have "exceptions" to WP policies especially when attempting in AfDs that are all based on WP policy presentations by the nominator and voting users. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The validity of a user's name has nothing to do with that user's opinion on an RFD. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi there Baseball Bugs: I am merely pointing out, and you have agreed with my point above, that my argument was valid, and that there should have been a specific mention of "exceptions", and now the admins have made those changes. Regardless of how we got here, but there was a problem and I picked up on it. Not everyone sees things the same way. The user in question was not merely giving an "opinion" he was seeking to implement WP policy by nominating an article for deletion based on WP policies while he had himself a user name that was against known WP policy, but now, funny, how within 24 hours, you saw the merit of my points, and also within 24 hours, four admins scrambled to insert a new "Exceptions" clause that had it been there in the first place (and it may yet be disputed and have to go) this entire conundrum would not have arisen. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Even if his user ID was "HitlersLovechild", he would still have the right to participate in deletion discussions. The one has nothing to do with the other. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

So we're now getting down to Reductio ad Hitlerum are we? I will not respond to that. Adios. IZAK (talk) 03:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it has nothing to do with that, either. Different example: If his user ID was "I Will Kill Anyone Who Disagrees With Me", he would still have the right to participate in deletion discussions. The one rule has nothing to do with the other. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. IZAK (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

OK IZAK, I am going to stop you right there. You will not be thanked for bringing up this issue and throwing personal attacks and everything around at everyone who disagreed with you, them being admins. You raised an issue that has been discussed before, was found to be a "grandfathered" name, consensus was found for that and everyone moved on. You are one man shouting at the crowd that is walking away. You don't have consensus, you don't have the policy on your side, and you don't have any admins saying you are correct (or any editors for that matter). It's over, WP:STICK is in effect. Move on. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh and do stop forum shopping, will ya? That's in violation of WP:ADMINSHOP. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• • Hi Neutral: I am not looking for any thanks. I am not forum shopping. And I stopped the discussion, but someone raised some points against me, so I responded. That's all. As far as I am concerned, it's over. Admins need to thrash out how to phrase, change, and create exceptions to policy. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
    • The issue is not whether the name was within policy or whether that was legitimate concern the method you went about doing it is completely absurd. Your behvior in the XFD was absurd combined with COIN thread to discredit the nomination is absurd. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
      • As Alison mentioned on Rms125's talk page, you brought this up at WP:COI/N, WP:UAA, WP:BN, WP:WQA, and now here. That is forum shopping. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
        • WP:UAA, WP:BN, WP:WQA? I missed those... I did even know there was a crat board! This is what needs addressing The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Hey there Neutral and Resident: Neither of you read her right, she was being rhetorical and cracking a joke, I raises the matter only at the AFD in question, then here at ANI and only then at COI after the matter was suddenly closed here for the wrong reasons, I was not seeking a block but a remedy. Please apologize for alleging that I went to "WP:UAA, WP:BN, WP:WQA etc" when I did nothing of the kind. Now you are violating WP:AGF against me by mis-reading and grasping at any straws in your vendetta against me, please stop it, it does not become you. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
            • Accusing those who question your actions of having a "vendetta" amounts to a personal attack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
              • Hmm, and if they accuse me of doing things I never did, that is far worse, it's just a plain lie, and they should apologize, or they just can't read English, which is their problem not mine. Stop it will you, what is the point, how far do you want this to go? IZAK (talk) 03:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
                • How far do you want it to go? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
                  • See: Wikipedia:WikiLove. IZAK (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Alison didn't say that, and IZAK didn't do that. Alison asked a hypothetical/exasperated "what's next" question. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• I'll bite. this complaint is bullshit. if IZAK keeps it up I'll block him. Is that clear enough? Protonk (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Just so we're crystal clear on this point: Let's suppose a user has an ID that could be considered a violation of the rules. Is there any rule that prohibits that editor from editing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• I know 2 or 3 editors here (on both sides of this issue) in passing, and they happen to be on opposite sides here. That said, this certainly smells to me -- as I expect it will to some of the other more seasoned editors -- like a dispute that has its roots elsewhere, and where some comments might differ if different editors were the subject of the complaint and its reaction. That said, I agree with BB's comment up top that "he did have a point, technically". From what I've seen, this is an odd result. The "technical point" he had is that his reading of the rule was accurate. That seems to have put out some on the other side of the issue. Who have I understand changed the rule, turning it on its head. To be a society of rules we need rules that are clear, open, and followed. Something is amiss here, from what I've seen -- though admittedly, the conversation of the issue appears to have taken place in different corners of wp (or perhaps off wp), so I can't even see where the basis is for the sense of the community having been taken, and found to support such a dramatic change. If someone can point me to it, I would be much obliged. We should not have rules changed 180 by one or a select few editors -- such changes, especially when there are differing views, are appropriate to make only after there is an opportunity for the community to consider the change. With that as background, I find the "let's bring to task the editor who pointed out that the king has no clothes" approach to be ... perhaps ... somewhat misplaced. As a final note, I do agree that if a user name is not permitted, but the user is still allowed to edit, that has no bearing on his right to comment at AfDs, as BB has also pointed out.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • No, they are free to edit until such time as blocked because of either the username issue or any issues directly related to their editing. IZAK's raising of the username issue was valid, even if the reasons behind raising the issue were not. As this editor is restricted to using this user name under a restriction, I would say that if he wanted to change username (which he apparently doesn't), then any change of username would seem to need to go via WP:ARBCOM. As such, this thread is now closed. No further purpose can be served by keeping it open. Mjroots (talk) 06:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block review Mcgawkelly

Resolved

 – user re-blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I am posting this here for visibility. Based on actions in the RocknRolla and Michael Clayton (film) articles, I have temporarily blocked user Mcgawkelly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I invite any comments on my action, and authorize any other administrator to release the block as they see fit or upon a reasonable unblock request. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 05:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I posted the following as a reply to the user on my talk page (as well as posting similar to talk:RocknRolla), but am reposting here as the discussion is likely to be centralized here:

The user's behavior is as a single purpose account, whose only edits have been to promote the same person across multiple pages:

• RocknRolla
• Michael Clayton (film)
• now deleted, but viewable by admins:
  • User:Mcgawkelly
  • User:Mcgawkelly/new article name here
  • User talk:Mcgawkelly/new article name here
• Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 5
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Walterschied
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 February 13

Add into this that the material is not appropriate on Wikipedia in the first place due to WP:BIO, WP:PROMOTION, WP:RS, and possibly WP:COI - it all combines to make clear that the material does not belong in Wikipedia, and that the user's behavior is inappropriate and represents disruptive editing. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) It's handier if you don't provide links to addresses on the secure Wikipedia, Barek. Those cause inconvenience to those who are using the standard Wikipedia. I've taken the liberty of changing your diffs to use the {{diff2}} template (or {{diff}} is another alternative). - David Biddulph (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting ... if a user posts a non-secure-Wikipedia diff, the mediawiki software intercepts the link and automatically presents the secure version for me. Aparently the same process doesn't work in reverse for those not using the secure server. Good to know - sorry about the inconvenience. --- Barek (talk) - 19:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Good block. -Atmoz (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe the most relevant diff may be this one in which the blocked editor states that Guy Ritchie's publicist has solicited him to add Scott Walterscheid's name to articles. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I almost forgot, exemplary block. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I not only dropped an edit warring warning on their talk page, I added a personal message specifically addressing what was wrong with this content,[29] and I began a discussion on the article's talk page[30]. He was already in violation of WP:3RR by then, and was reverted a further two times by two previously uninvolved users. He(?) had every chance in the world to discuss and, actually we did discuss at some length on my talk page, but he continued to edit war at the same time despite repeatedly being told very plainly that edit warring will get you blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

And now they say they are doing an interview this afternoon with someone from the front office, and are contradicting themselves about which news organization they are a reporter for. I sense the fine art of WP:BALLS at work here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a good block. The claims made by the editor(meeting Wiki-VP, knowing Jimbo, etc.) doesn't mean anything, in regards to the edit warring behavior and repeated attempts to add trivial, unsourced text into articles. Let the block run out, and if the editor returns to the same behavior, give a longer block. Dave Dial (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Harrassment claims

The user is now also claiming [31] that Beeblebrox (talk · contribs) has been harassing them (they state harrassment "of", but they appear to be claiming "from"). I'm not seeing it, but posting here so that others are aware and can review themselves. --- Barek (talk) - 21:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Apparently trying like five times to explain about edit warring and reliable sources in an attempt to keep them from getting blocked over it is harassment. After the block, which I had nothing to do with, it became increasingly clear they are lying about some things as well. The harassment charge is nonsense, but for the record i have already told them I don't intend to interact with them anymore as it is obviously a hopeless waste of time. They don't even seem to read others' comments before firing off angry responses, and they don't seem to get that we can all see everything they have done, including the increasingly obvious COI coupled with at least one big fat lie, and probably three or four more. Threatening to have their editor convince Jimbo to personally block me was good for a laugh though. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I note that the editor's very first edit was to an archive record.[32] Rather unusual for a "newbie", I would think. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Possibly worth a look - some other editors futilely touting this Scott Walterscheid guy:

Pprice1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Industry11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
GoGreen09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Variety99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Mcgawkelly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea if it's related; but other usernames that have been involved in related promotional activity can be found at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Pprice1. --- Barek (talk) - 22:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw. That's where I got some of these. I expect there are more. Between that and the threats, the user should be indef'd and talk page access should be removed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That's funny. I independently came to the same conclusion - this guy a sock of Pprice1. Just look at the very first edits Mcgawkelly made. Legitimate users rarely make their first two edits to archived pages - and certainly not "reporters". The subject interest is the same - and so are the unsupported claims at being someone important - Mcgawkelly claims to be a reporter, and one of Pprice1's socks claimed to be a lawyer. Neither claims have been supported. I suggest we indef block Mcgawkelly as yet another Pprice1 sock. Rklawton (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Given this,[33] which one of the listed users had copied into one of his edits, it's a good bet that all of these guys are either Walterscheid himself or one of his associates, attempting to achieve artificial notability via wikipedia. Par for the course, self-promotion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Can someone start a new pprice1 SPI, and how about we indef ban pprice rather than worrying about consensus on the indef block of this sock? tedder (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The Pprice1 item was a couple of years ago, so I doubt an SPI on it would yield definitive results. It would be interesting to find out how many more socks the guy has, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, Pprice1 has long been indef blocked. He's persistent, so it's just a matter of playing wack-a-jerk. Rklawton (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, one of those guys who edit-war for years over one specific thing. Roger. And that supposedly highly-educated character has now managed to get himself much higher on the radar. Smart move, eh? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I see there's a category, "Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pprice1". I might take the liberty of adding a couple more names to it. Unless you think that would be feeding the troll too much? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Nah, feeding the troll was the griefing at the user talk page. I'm not able to spend time on it, but I think it would be nice to get CHU/SPI done to find other socks. I'll create the request in several hours if it hasn't been done. tedder (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I support adding to the sock list - it'll just help future cases move faster. Rklawton (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Done, although most of them are 2 years old. Some more recent ones would be useful for the SPI, and the SPI should also do a "sweep" for possible "sleepers". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• For posterity's sake, posting to a resolved thread, I filed a SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pprice1. tedder (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I see that they found no "sleepers", and as I suspected, the others are too old. Anyway, the guy has put himself on the radar, so if he shows up again he'll be dealt with promptly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

User:GutiLucian02

GutiLucian02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been doing little more than playing with his User page since registering, and looks like he's just doing random things. That itself is pretty harmless (although he's been doing stuff there that's needed reverting), though he's also been making some bad changes to articles, which also get reverted. But now, he's just done this to my user page, after I asked him not to change the dates of tags on articles. I'm not sure I could go as far as to suggest it's a vandalism-only account, but does anyone think anything needs to be done? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't noticed he's already been indef blocked. Sorry to waste your time. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

...And now they've requested an unblock. I've asked them to explain where they screwed up, but have not declined outright - yet. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

As you can see from both their current talk page and its history, I tried multiple times to engage this user in dialogue about their editing pattern and what the purpose of Wikipedia is. I was roundly ignored, as were several other users who tried to talk to them. If they can explain specifically what they would do if unblocked I guess a second chance may be in order, but I think we have a serious WP:COMPETENCE issue here. Maybe decline with {{2ndchance}}? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. I'll keep an eye on his/her response. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like the best approach, thanks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Gaming the system and canvassing

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

---

Resolved

 – BlennGeck blocked as a sock of an indef-blocked user. The Cavalry (Message me) 11:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Deliciousgrapefruit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
BlennGeck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
LynnCityofsin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
24.61.171.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:BlennGeck is an SPA who edits the Glenn Beck article, he was formerly another SPA named User talk:LynnCityofsin who soley edited the same article and had several warnings there for edit warring, he has edited as User talk:24.61.171.248 who has warnings for edit warring, and has now been loosely canvassing other users to post on his side at the Glenn Beck article.

• Him accidentally posting and removing his post there as an IP, and then reinserting it logged in as Blenn Geck.
• Changing his signature from said IP to LynnCity's sig here
• Him using the exact same IP to edit LynnCityofsin's post over a year ago.
• He seems to be creating an account to edit Glenn Beck, and then shedding that account's history of edit warring by taking on a new account and re-editing Glenn Beck in exactly the same way. WP:CLEANSTART clearly differentiates between making a new account, and acting differently, and making new account right before you are blocked, and then using this new account in a similar manner.

He has also clearly danced the on the line of canvassing in our discussion about whether to add some criticism of the subject from Kristol:

• by going to the talkpage of Redthoreau(a user who had disagreed with me in another section on the same page) and asking what can be done about me here
• and going to the talkpage of Kristol.

Per recommendation here are diffs to incivility:

• IP on Glenn Beck talking to editor Lyn fought with:

Keep telling yourself that. But one only has to look at your edit history to know your a partisan.24.61.171.248 (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Blenn's response to my very first post:

WP:NOTNEWS This seems like one of a great many spats that Glenn Beck gets in to. For comparison I do not see the Anthony Weiner dispute anywhere in this article; is there some reason you believe this is more notable than that one? In that dispute Beck made an entire website to attack Weiner, and there was far more coverage.AerobicFox (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious? I give up. This is most certainly a notable controversy. Enjoy your echo chamber. BlennGeck (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This seems like an attempt to game the system by avoiding any potential bans by just shedding a user when he has a significant amount of warnings, and then just creating a new user with a clean slate and editing the same article in the same way. This is disruptive and not what WP:CLEANSTART is intended for.AerobicFox (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a retaliatory posting on Aerobics part in my opinion. He has been accusing me of being a sock puppet and of canvassing. He has posted unwanted accusations on my user page, and tried to out me as a previous user on the Glenn Beck talk page. I said I was seeking arbitration for harrasment, and immediately this came up.

I have been posting suggestions on the Glenn Beck page in good faith. Aerobic and I have not seen eye to eye on the material. But now he appears to be searching for clues to my identity, looking for other or previous accounts I may have, making personal attacks and accusation on the article talk pages, and following me into other talk pages.

This all should be noted in your evaluation of Aerboic's claim. It is not unimportant.

Also in my defense. I posted on the Kristol Page, because that is a related aritcle and I thought that the information should be included there as well. I never asked anyone to view or add to the Beck page. Nor was I canvassing in the other case. I was simply looking for advice from a likeminded user, on how to deal with an editor I believed wasn't editing in good faith, but removing content he simply didn't like. Never did I ask, or expect him to join in on the discussion page about egypt. BlennGeck (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

"Aerobic and I have not seen eye to eye on the material."

"It really seems like true believers have the discussion page stacked. I have to believe that is some kind of violation of wiki guidelines. I find myself going gray because as soon as I satisfy an editor's criticism or concern he/she mystifies me with a complete misreading of the source material or semantic attempts to invert the source material's meaning. "

Clearly...AerobicFox (talk) 02:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I wrote this before I noticed your threats for ANI, this is in no way reactive. You have made numerous personal attacks telling me to "Enjoy your echo chamber." after my very first post. You have accused editors of being partisan as an anonymous IP, and your previous account has been warned for personal attacks.AerobicFox (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The correct forum is WP:SPI. Recommend closing this discussion thread. TFD (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to bring this up...AerobicFox (talk) 02:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

None of my statements were intended as personal attacks. BlennGeck (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Why WP:SPI? Am I being accused of sockpuppetry now? BlennGeck (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• While it might look like sockpuppetry, the original user LynnCity was never blocked, so things might be a little murky. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm just hoping for some type of advice or guidance here.AerobicFox (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

There is little doubt that all 3 user ID's are operated by the same guy. However, none of them has ever been blocked, and LynnCity last edited 10 months ago. Like you, I'm wondering what the right course is here. SPI is not needed and in fact would likely be rejected due to it being obvious. So the focus needs to be on behavior in general, and maybe the admins can help with that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't know (haven't looked) about sock puppetry, but there's no way in heck BlennGeck is an appropriate user name. --B (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what would be wrong with it? Its not as if he were purporting to be Beck. Heiro 02:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll not claim to be uninvolved (I've contributed to the Glenn Beck talk page too - and made a few edits to the article -though I think they were mostly reverting clear vandalism), but I can't see any evidence for sockpuppetry - the IP sems to have made one unreverted edit to the talk page (i.e. BlennGeck probably just forgot to log in, and reverted to use his/her user name to edit), and BlennGeck doesn't seem to have edited the article at all. There is no overlap between LynnCity's contribuitions to talk and BlennGeck's, as has already been noted. As for personal attacks, the talk page is perhaps not surprisingly a little edgy, but I'd suggest that AerobicFox needs to give us some diffs to indicate exactly where the problem is. I can't really see evidence for canvassing either - there were no !votes etc being discussed, and a comment on a single user's talk page during an ongoing debate hardly seems to be what is normally covered by WP:CANVASS. I think that maybe BlennGeck could have chosen a better user name, but that is about all I can see to complain about, really. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and provided two diffs, I can provide more. I have tried to be respectful, and I sincerely apologize for any condescension. If Blenn would do so similarly I do not think we would have a further problem.AerobicFox (talk) 02:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that BlennGeck has edited any articles, just Talk pages. Corvus cornix_talk 02:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

He hasn't; that is correct.AerobicFox (talk) 02:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I take it then that you will withdraw the allegation of 'edit-warring' you made on the Glenn Beck talk page? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I didnt see anything but some pointy comments in your diffs. And relatively mild at that. Heiro 03:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't accuse him of edit warring with his account now, he accused me of accusing him of that. Mild, yes.AerobicFox (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Heiro, to answer your question, I would consider a name obviously intended to be a reference to a very controversial figure to be covered by "offensive usernames" and/or "disruptive usernames". Older versions of the policy used to elaborate that "offensive usernames" included "Usernames that promote a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view", which clearly Glenn Back is. --B (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't find it offensive. And as you said , older versions. Heiro 02:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The name itself is not inherently offensive, but the user is a Glenn Beck "skeptic", let's say. There's hardly any question that all 3 accounts are this one guy. The issue is whether he's doing anything disruptive. That's what the focus should be on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

So, we have a Glenn Beck supporter bringing a GB skeptic here on what it seems so far are at best frivolous charges? If you look at the Beck article talk page, these 2 have been going round and round for a few days now. Coming here isn't the way to win a discussion on a talkpage. Heiro 03:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Blenn actually claims he is the Glenn Beck supporter, as has Lyn. I'm leaving the Beck article now, and I apologize for wasting the time of people here and there. Let's just move on.AerobicFox (talk) 03:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Do we really need an admin to sort this one out? I suggest we give AerobicFox a few gentle slaps around the face with a virtual slightly-decayed kipper for making trivial complaints, give BlennGeck the same for being less-than-polite (but not much more) to AerobicFox, and for choosing a rather pointy username, and then get back to arguing about exactly how mad we can describe Beck as... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I second all of the above suggestions. Heiro 03:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to lie, I've thought before about the username being a problem. As someone whose POV at times has opposed that of Beck, the username could be seen as a mild form of mockery. Well, boo-hoo, get over it, right? Except our policy disallows that. Also, if it doesn't come off as mockery, then it may imply a relation to the real life man. BlennGeck - would you please consider changing usernames? You can go to WP:CHU. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I could see it being hard to WP:AGF and assume he's trying for WP:NPOV when having a discussion with him on his choice of subjects to edit so far. Heiro 03:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

My name was never intended to be offensive. I enjoy watching Glenn Beck, but at the same time find I can be critical of him and can keep an open mind about how he is viewed by the larger public. On a website where people post their political views on their userpage, I don't see how having a user name that sounds like a political pundit's would impact other peoples' ability to trust my neutrality. I think if anything, the fact that I like Glenn Beck, but believe the article needs more critical material, demonstrates that I am an objective thinker and editor. \

Also, I want to point out, I believe this whole reporting me business had more to do with controlling the content of the GlennBeck talk page than any real concern about my identity, or previous history (again, something people are speculating about without having all the facts). For those who want to know, no I am not the user in question. Like I told Aerobic, there is a very good reason for me having the IP address I have and posting on the Glenn Beck talk page, but I don't feel I should have to get into my personal life in order to deflect such accusations. BlennGeck (talk) 03:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This is all moot. I've left the Glenn Beck page, and am not pursuing this. An admin should feel free to close.AerobicFox (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay. SO then you are formally withdrawing your accusation here? BlennGeck (talk) 04:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

He is! (I can say that because I viewed his comment above this one as well). But I would like to kindly ask you to choose another username. Do it for me, for harmony on the site. Or you can do it for yourself, because every time a regular sees you henceforth with that username, it will elicit a groan of "uh-oh, another SPA with an agenda to push" (I know I haven't been around that long, but I'm sure that others pick up on the same patterns I do, which include a borderline username being associated with someone isn't a harmonious editor). Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Or he could go back to his original username, LynnCityofsin, as it's in good standing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet

I have run a checkuser on BlennGeck and their underlying IP address as a result of this discussion, and from the results I have blocked BlennGeck (talk · contribs) as a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet of banned user Deliciousgrapefruit (talk · contribs). No other accounts were involved that I can see, but LynnCityofsin (talk · contribs) is stale, so I can't run checks against it. I think this closes the matter, but I want to take this opportunity to warn editors against engaging in a witch-hunt for more socks. We'll keep an eye out for problems, you guys concentrate on editing! The Cavalry (Message me) 11:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Editor with odd approach to images

Resolved

 – User has fixed or orphaned all but one image, which is a dead link. Nothing further to do here. N419BH 06:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Johnandmitchy (talk · contribs) is an editor who has worked on some film articles and has been especially prolific in uploading images for them. I first encountered the editor when he was trying to add this image to Out of Sight with the claim that the image was taken by an extra at the time and that it was in the public domain. (Image is since deleted; admins can review its history.) The same problem happened again at Shelley Long, when John claimed a CC license for this image (link to since-deleted image) and dated it as 1998. Another editor found that link, and the image is from a 2000 film festival and belongs to someone else. I kept track of the editor's contributions, and the editor does not use edit summaries very often at all. I confronted him about my problem with his use of images here, but he did not respond to me. Recently, I reviewed his newer contributions, and he uploaded the following poster images: 1, 2, 3, 4. The first, second, and fourth had false sourcing with fake IMP Awards URLs or Allmovie URLs with no images, where the third one links to Allmovie with a similar-but-not-quite image. I reviewed some of his older file contributions, and he appears to use the code from File:The Lincoln Lawyer Poster.jpg in his uploaded poster images' file descriptions, for example here and here. I could understand if an image upload was a rush job that had some sloppiness, but there was even a non-poster image that used the Lincoln Lawyer poster template here. It strikes me that the user does not particularly care about proper licensing or sourcing. What would be the best course of action here? Erik (talk | contribs) 02:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Persistent copyright violators usually go "bye-bye". Unless they cease and desist the persistent copyright violations. Doc talk 02:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You could open a case at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Its a bit early for CCI. There aren't that many images anyway. There is no problem with using a canned FUR as long as the images are correctly attributed - which hasn't been the case here. I have tagged all the film posters for not having the correct sourcing so hopefully johnandmitchy will fix them soon and we can remove those tags. One tagged for having two sources - neither of which check out. One more tagged as I suspect the attributable - its clearly a picture of a TV programme so whoever took it doesn't own the rights and another put down as a poster when its a screen cap... The problem is that the user needs to respond to our requests and talk page comments rather then just ignoring them. Its OK to make mistakes when you upload images - they are clearly trying to get it right but they do need to respond and learn from their errors. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Being accountable for your edits is what it's all about. If they talk, and understand why they can't violate copyright and demonstrate they won't do it again, that's the best solution. Doc talk 04:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm wary that it's just a problem of a canned FUR. The fact that their recent uploads use fake impawards.com links is suspect to me. I checked the domain for any possible images in case the URL was off for whatever reason, but John actually edited the URL to have the title and the year despite the URL going nowhere. I'll keep tracking the contributions. Erik (talk | contribs) 04:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Its clearly an issue with incorrect sourcing and that cannot continue but its right to give them a chance to fix things before reaching for the block stick. Said block stick will have to be applied if there is no improvement or evidence of trying to fix their problems. Just saying its a step below immediate blocking. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Some folks make honest mistakes. Lots of folks take time to learn how we do things here. Repeatedly uploading images and lying about the source doesn't qualify as an "honest mistake" or "learning" - it's fraud, and the user should be immediately and indefinitely blocked from editing. Rklawton (talk) 05:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• According to their message on my talk page they have fixed the sources and orphaned something they now see the error of. Please explain what a block at this stage would prevent. Grateful if someone can check the new sources pan out as I need to leave for work in a second or two. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I've had a root-around through the user's contributions. All of the images Spartaz tagged earlier have been either fixed, deleted, or orphaned, with the exception of File:HomeMoviesDePalma.jpg, which appears to have a dead link for the source. I believe the user is acting in good faith, and has done his/her best to fix the issue brought up here. I've brought the dead link to the user's attention on his/her talk page. I believe we have nothing further to do here. N419BH 06:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, all. I will keep monitoring regardless. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

User:David Tombe is being abused by me

I'd like to report myself for losing my ability to not respond nastily to David Tombe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Can't we arrange for another year of two of physics topic ban for this guy? Dicklyon (talk) 05:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Um -- this is a backhanded way of making a complaint, indeed. If you lose your own temper, have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 08:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's magnificent actually. At one stroke Dicklyon admits his shortcomings and accepts any consequences for them, while at the same time focussing our attention upon the real villian, Mr. Tombe, who from a brief glance does look rather a nuisance. In fact it's so good I'm going to see what barnstar I can award the former. Egg Centric (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding my mixed feelings, and for your cool barnstar. I have numerous times advised others to simply ignore David's nonsense, yet I seem to be unable to take my own advice. Dicklyon (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you gave that advice on the cf page and I ignored it. I was wrong but I have now heeded it, you should too. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

David is still under general probation, as listed at WP:Arbitration/Active sanctions. I've not been following the discussion at Talk:Centrifugal force but it looks like he exceeded the terms of that sanction a long time ago.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If you would like admin action, e.g. a ban from Talk:Centrifugal force, then please present evidence that User:David Tombe has "repeatedly or seriously fail[ed] to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum". Fences&Windows 20:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

He two weeks ago posted some clearly incorrect physics (it's at the top of the talk page), was told by three different editors he was wrong, reminded of previous warnings on pushing his fringe ideas, and stopped. Only since then he's joined and started further discussions pushing the same incorrect physics, [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39],..., undeterred by further editors pointing out his errors. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The simplest approach might be for any editor who thinks David Tombe is not adhering to proper standards to open a complaint at WP:Arbitration enforcement and ask for an appropriate sanction under his general probation, which was made indefinite by Arbcom. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Remedies, item 6.2. EdJohnston (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

For those not familiar with the case that involved David Tombe (the Speed of light case, though centrifugal force was mentioned in the scope statement), the final decision is here. My reading (as a former arbitrator) of the general probation (which I voted for at the time as an arbitrator active on that case) is that this was intended to cover the uncivil behaviour mentioned in the other finding related to him. The fringe advocacy finding was dealt with by the physics topic ban remedy (which expired in October 2010). Reimposing the topic ban is something that might be simpler and quicker to take this straight to an amendment request (it depends on whether those active at arbitration enforcement think it is within their remit to renew an expired topic ban under the provisions of the still-existing general probation). My view is that it looks like David Tombe has returned to his previous ways, and that a topic ban should be reimposed, but that it should be ArbCom that is asked to rule on this, at an amendment request. David Tombe would have to demonstrate whether his behaviour has changed or not. Carcharoth (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This can go straight under the general probation, which does not seem to be limited to civility problems. Arbcom knows full well how to write a civility restriction, and the general probation here isn't one. It's more like a discretionary sanctions regime, and AE has routinely reimposed under those regimes arbcom-imposed topic bans that have since expired in cases of renewed misconduct, as far as I know.

Turning to the merits, it seems obvious to me that David Tombe is engaging in exactly the same type of behavior that got him sanctioned in the first place, in the same set of pages, no less. Therefore, in accordance with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#David Tombe restricted, David Tombe (talk · contribs) is hereby banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to physics, broadly construed across all namespaces. T. Canens (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Fences&Windows 03:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It also seems to directly contradict Carcharoth's words: My view is that it looks like David Tombe has returned to his previous ways, and that a topic ban should be reimposed, but that it should be ArbCom that is asked to rule on this, at an amendment request. David Tombe would have to demonstrate whether his behaviour has changed or not. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I take note of Carcharoth's comment, but the language of the Speed of light case explicitly allows admins to impose additional sanctions on David Tombe. (The remedies regarding Tombe were more strict than those applied to Brews ohare, since Brews' probation was for just one year, while Tombe's probation was made indefinite). Their decision states:

David Tombe (talk · contribs) is placed under a general probation indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions if, despite being warned, David Tombe repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum.

Arbcom used the phrase 'discretionary sanctions' a number of times in their decision. In fact, the log shows that Tznkai took an enforcement action in November, 2009 which imposed a further restriction on David Tombe. If David objects to this new topic ban from physics articles, the usual appeal process is open to him. He can take the matter to WP:AE, and if not satisfied with the response there, he can go to Arbcom. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Ed for clarifying. I would have preferred if Carcharoth was allowed to proceed on the plan to involve the Arbcom further before any action was taken. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I did look at Carcharoth's comment. That's why I specifically discussed the probation's difference from civility restrictions - arbcom has a fixed formula for those as well: "X is subject to an editing restriction for Y. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be briefly blocked...". This is not one of them. T. Canens (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

In Talk:Centrifugal force, David is defending an alternative idea that there really is an actual force of separation between adjacent members of a centrifugally rotating material system and that the system can then be made to transfer angular momentum and associated kinetic energy away from the system due to the existence and occurrence of this Centrifugal force property. The other editors in this matter seem to want to be "left alone" from discussions concerning this aspect of the subject matter. Since the utility of the use of the subject matter is better understand the correct functioning of same, it seems reasonable that such a discussion should be a reasonable topic of discussion in a talk section.WFPM (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I think 2+ years without a source that supports his POV was more than enough discussion, to justify some of us wanting to be "left alone" as you put it; and he never advanced the position that you just described; that must be your own POV. Actually, I don't think I've ever heard of a "centrifugally rotating material system", so don't know what you're referring to even. Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between debating alternative physics and theories (that is better done on various forums that are available around the internet, rather than on Wikipedia) and using talk pages to improve the associated article. From what I can see, there is far too much discussion of the physics rather than discussing the writing and improvement of the article. This is what was a problem before, hence the action taken here. Carcharoth (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Noting here that this is also being discussed at User talk:Timotheus Canens and User talk:David Tombe. It may be worth keeping an eye on those pages in case things get out of hand. I will be leaving a comment at the former page advising on what should be done here, but as an arbitration enforcement action has been taken, there is no need (yet) to discuss the matter here, so this thread can probably be closed. Carcharoth (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Charcharoth, With all due respect, I think we need to distinguish between the concept of 'alternative physics' on the one hand, and the fact that two alternative concepts of centrifugal force were being discussed on the talk page at centrifugal force. Alternative physics was not being discussed. David Tombe (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Charcharoth, Thanks for opening the debate surrounding the evidence which was presented. You have claimed that I was using the talk page to discuss physics, rather than for the purpose of discussing how to improve the article. And you hold up the diffs provided by John Blackburne as being evidence that I was promoting fringe ideas. Let's look at the very first diff provided by John Blackburne. It is this [40]. I was responding to an anonymous who had asked a question. I don't see where I have promoted any fringe ideas. I began by referring the anonymous to an excellent source which actually clarified some of the confusion surrounding the issue. Here is the source, [41]. It explains how Leibniz had deduced that centrifugal force is an outward inverse cube law force. But as is well known, there was an intense rivalry between Newton and Leibniz and when Newton saw Leibniz's equation, he criticized it and claimed that centrifugal force is the equal and opposite reaction to the centripetal force. The sources which the anonymous was producing were sources which related to the Newtonian viewpoint. But the Newtonian viewpoint is no longer the foremost viewpoint being taught nowadays at university. I don't see any misconduct on my part. It was a talk page discussion aimed at trying to improve the article, and that involved trying to establish some kind of understanding of the subject matter. In my opinion, dicklyon was being obstructive and on his own admission, he was being uncivil. The truth is that T. Canens engaged in a knee jerk reaction, and as we all know very well, those kind of knee jerk reactions, which are all too common, are never reversed. David Tombe (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not really familiar with WP procedures but I was contributing to talk:centrifugal force and the subject "abuse of David Tombe" cropped up. It seems that another editor reported himself for an abuse and it ends with this David Tombe permanently banned from physics articles. Can this be right? I have now checked back and this is about contributions to a talk page. Do you approve of free speech in a talk page? This was all about merging articles on centrifugal force into one, and got mixed up with interpretations. David Tombe's contributions were all "polite" were they not? The only heated comments came from Dicklyon and they were really minor but he admitted he had lost his temper. What is going on? I also checked back about the earlier fracas and it seems to me the ban was then to close down discussion rather than because of a single immoderate or insulting remark. OK there is disagreement here echoing Newton and Leibniz, actually very interesting stuff and as I said in the talk page, we do not understand the cause of inertia so we must be humble rather than fixed in our views of what is a real force. Is gravity a real force? We don't understand that either . I for one feel that we are seeing an injustice here where one editor (dicklyon) gets annoyed and has another banned - indefinitely.Profstandwellback (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The fundamental misunderstanding here is the idea that Wikipedia talk pages are somehow a place to debate what centrifugal force is, or is not (or whatever the topic of the page is). There is often a need for limited discussion of that nature, but it is important to bear in mind the need to keep such discussions limited and to focus discussions onto what edits need to be made to the page and what sources are appropriate. This doesn't mean discussing in depth the science behind what the sources say, but rather the talk page should be for discussing whether and how to present what the sources say. That might seem like the same thing, but there is a subtle and fundamental difference. In other words, Wikipedia article talk pages are not areas of free speech where opinions about the topic should be debated (though that does happen sometimes). This misunderstanding is clearly seen in the comment made by David Tombe here: "the topic is a centuries old controversy which was argued about by great masters such as Newton and Leibniz, and it would be a mistake to think that John Blackburne has the last word as regards what is correct and what is not correct in relation to centrifugal force". The aim of collaborating on a Wikipedia page on centrifugal force is not to come up with the last word on what is correct and what is not correct. The aim is to document what reliable sources say, and to cover some of the history, and put the rest of the history on the page about the history (see History of centrifugal and centripetal forces), and even there, the aim would be to summarise what historians of science have concluded, not to draw our own conclusions. It is very, very easy to cross the line and end up discussing the content (as you would in a forum), rather than discussing the article and what it should look like. There is even {{Not a forum}} that is put on talk pages explicitly to remind readers to avoid this conduct. For more on the community attitude to Wikipedia being treated as a forum, see the recent Village pump thread here. See also here and here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Carcharoth, You should have read the discussion before making a recommendation for a topic ban. Then you would have seen that it was indeed about how to reduce the content of five articles into one article. And if you think that the problem was that I was expressing my opinions on the topic, then so was everybody else in the discussion. As for John Blackburne, he wasn't even involved in the discussion. What is important here is that this thread has illustrated everything that is bad about wikipedia. Tim Song has acted arbitrarily on the back of rumour, without any investigation whatsoever, and he has summarily convicted without even giving the defendant a chance to defend himself. And it's not the fact that he has acted beyond his remit which is the problem here. It's the fact that the system has defended his actions and tried to argue that his actions were correct, even though everybody knows that his actions were badly wrong. Since when has it been acceptable to claim that a warning for one kind of behaviour is relevant to a warning for another kind of 'alleged' misbehaviour 15 months later? And there has been no evidence of misbehaviour presented. John Blackburne's opinions do not count as evidence. Ideally Tim Song should be de-sysoped for his actions. But experience shows that no such good fortune ever happens, and as such I have absolutely no intention whatsoever of appealing against this monumental farce. It is like England's goal against Germany at the world cup last summer. The whole world saw that it was a goal but the referee disallowed it. The decision was not overturned and England went into the second half demoralized. And so it is here. The priority is making sure that Tim Song doesn't lose face. And so be it. Let's end the pretence that there was even the remotest grain of legitimacy in his actions. David Tombe (talk) 12:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, it is polite to use people's current usernames. Secondly, since you have stated you have no intention of appealing, I suggest this thread is closed. I've explained why I think WP:NOT#FORUM applies here (the template is on that article talk page), and it applies to you more than others due to the previous arbitration case. I won't say more on that here, as that will just means things are going round in circles. Carcharoth (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Going around in circles is what Tombe does best. How many hours of pointless, endless discussion with and about him are going to go by before we finally decide enough is enough? I came to that decision about two years ago myself, over pretty much these same issues. ArbCom tried one of their "middle road" solutions and, surprise surprise, it failed. David, don't feel any need to reply to this as I will not be reading it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is great at being sanctimonious to the point that it believes that proper process is not required. You would think a permanent ban would be an instance where you would want to get it right. Even if the believe is that wikipedia is right to act, you might just go that extra mile to be certain.--scuro (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, which is why I said David Tombe should appeal to ArbCom, rather than go round in circles here (and elsewhere). That would be the proper process here. To respond to Beeblebrox, have a look at the voting in the proposed decision on the case. It is one of the few times I voted to support a year-long site ban and was in the minority (the topic ban was passed instead). In general, I wish administrators would enforce "not a forum" more than they do. Discussion on talk pages should be focused on improving the article, and other stuff should go to user talk pages or to off-wiki venues. Unfortunately, some editors dress up their discussion and opinion on a topic under the guise of claiming to be improving the article, claiming that in order to show why the article should be written such-and-such-a-way, they need to give a mini-lecture on the topic first. And the mini-lecture then devolves into an acrimonious debate and lots of hand-waving. But this should be discussed elsewhere. I think we really are done here now. Carcharoth (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, we can only be certain of his guilt by imposing a permanent ban so that it can sorted out in an appeal to arbcom?!?????!! Are not appeals of arbcom an opaque process not viewable to all?! I do not understand at all why this shortcut to proper justice is being imposed.--scuro (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You may want to make yourself familiar with this situation, then. Tombe was originally topic-banned from this subject ~2 years ago, and the entire physics category is under general sanctions per ArbCom. Tombe's ban dropped, and he went right back into arguing his alternative hypothesis, exactly the same thing that got him banned before. Per ArbCom's general sanctions, admins may impose a topic ban on those who are violating the sanction rules. And Tombe is clearly doing that. Process has been followed. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between what wikipedia can do and what wikipedia should do. An appeal to close the thread right now does nothing to bolster the impression that this has NOT been done too quickly. Another contributor has mentioned his breadth of knowledge that DT has on this topic and that his viewpoint is not fringe viewpoint. Has this situtation been misrepresented in anyway? As a bare minimum you would to know that wikipedia got it right before you impose a permanant ban.--scuro (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• When the case was being heard, I'd proposed a full site ban because I expected the issues to continue like a never ending story. The proposal moved forward to the PD but the majority wanted to give other sanctions a chance to work (which was fine at the time). However, this is no longer a first-timer; we're seeing repeats of the same problems by the same user which the case already dealt with. There isn't any reason for the Community to overturn what has been noted here so if an appeal is wanted, it'll need to go to AC...which brings me to my point...why is this still open? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Because of the possibility of injustice.--scuro (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes we reviewed that. No ban is permanent, and frankly, this restriction isn't even a site ban (perhaps unfortunately)...so if the AC remedy needs to be overturned, take it to AC so they can decide if the way in which their restriction was enforced was 'unjust'. It may not have been perfect, but if they subsequently find that this remedy was too generous, then they can fix that as well. As far as I can see, there isn't any private evidence in this case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes Ncmvocalist, but I objected to that course of action. There are two characterizations of DT by different contributors and they do not at all mesh. It disturbs me that we are so quick to bury this thread and "live" with the permanent ban. Where is the fire? Why factor in the possibility of "fixing" something later? Especially since, as far as I understand this, the appeal process is not a transparent process?!?? Any possible injustice should see the light of day now.

Do you not trust that DT is speaking truthfully or that he is not acting in good faith on this thread? I for one would like to hear him explain things more and I would like to hear more from the character witness.--scuro (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't see your point here, nor why you're objecting, save for some sort of "white knight" impulse. Toombe has a history of this behavior, and returned to it after a topic ban had dropped. Reinstating the topic ban isn't a stretch, nor necessarily permanent. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The 'fire' is here: WP:ARBSL. No-one I think is being quick to bury this, but are respecting the wisdom of the arbitrators who put in place the sanctions, after a long and drawn out process that took all circumstances into account, which now see this ban imposed. The recent behaviour is a return to exactly the same behaviour on the same topic that resulted in a year long physics ban. It's difficult to see where else it could go after that but an indefinite topic ban, indefinite rather than permanent as all such bans can be appealed.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

We have had two calls to bury this and it would have been done without objections. So again I ask, where is the fire? Had every contributor to this thread all stated the same point, then yes, I would have also agreed to bury the thread.

User WFPM saw nothing wrong with DT posts and he spoke to this in an intelligent and straightforward manner. Explain to me how this is so? Did WFPM misrepresent the situation?

While all bans can be appealed what is wrong in taking some more time here to be certain that this facts have not been misconstrued. We can actually be saving wikipedia time by doing it right the first time.

Allow DT or WFPM to speak to the issues without pressure...give them perhaps a day or two more. ANI is a very stressful place. Give him time to collect himself and respond in a reasonable manner. If he chooses not to respond shortly I am all for closing the thread.--scuro (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Two points: 1) David certainly has had time, because he contacted me via the email feature to claim I was "misled" by others (despite forming my opinion on my own), and then claiming he wasn't doing anything wrong... he was just arguing with other editors on the talk page about the definition of centrifugal force. Which is what got him banned in the first place, and banned this time. 2) Further debate here is moot, because lifting the ban would have to be done by ArbCom, not us. Doesn't matter how long we go around in circles here, it won't accomplish anything further. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I've simply made a request and the request is to do this with dignity. Personally I believe that this is not a lot to ask. If we as an entity give little creedence to the bureaucracy of justice then at least we should be empathetic in our certainty. Is another day too much to bear?--scuro (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

User Lawstubes is refusing to back down at Talk:Sun

• Lawstubes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Talk:Sun (edit | history)

Lawstubes is disruptive editor with a history of pure pseudoscientific POV-pushing, and who has been blocked for that in the past. Right now, he's back after an absence of several months, doing exactly what he was doing before he got blocked.

In case you aren't sure that he's pushing pure garbage, he's claiming the sun does not emit light (amongst a long list of equally insane claims). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a content issue. We have no concern for content. He would have to say a naughty word or otherwise breach a behavioral guideline in order for action to be warranted. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

He was previously blocked in September 2010 for edit warring. He has also been warned under his IP User:173.218.85.222 (which I understand he acknowledges is him). This particular issue involves huge interference with the talkpage which can be seen in the talkpage history. He removed his own and other editors posts, shifted things around, left responses hanging in the air and then briefly edit warred to keep it that way. He stopped when this ANI was filed. I have warned him on his talkpage that this is disruptive and referred him to the relevent guideline.Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If his edits are inappropriate, provide examples in the form of diffs. Otherwise, he's simply arguing for his (incorrect) views. if he abides by our rules, he's fine. If not, we need diffs. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree diffs should have been provided. A quick look at the talkpage history showed the situation though. After I warned him another admin blocked him for 31 hours. I have put a block notice on his page if he wants to appeal. Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, the history of the Talk page shows clear comment-refactoring and edit-warring - individual diffs surely aren't needed when it's so blatant. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

An observation about some of the comments regarding "ANI is not for content disputes" that have been made above. While this is certainly true, it is also a fundamental requirement that all content in WP be supported by reliable sources. Constant arguing for the inclusion/validity of content for which there are no reliable sources is NOT a content dispute, it is a behavioural issue, as it is disruptive. (Those "genuine" content disputes that are outside the remit of admins are the ones where there is a dispute concerning the relative weight of contradictory but otherwise reliable sources, or where there is a legitimate controversy at play in the subject itself). There does not seem to be any evidence of reliable sources for the viewpoint being repeatedly expressed by Lawstube, which does render this matter as a conduct issue. Manning (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, that is whu Grundle2600 (talk · contribs) was eventually kicked to the curb; at some point when a content dispute devolves into blatant "I didn't hear that" territory, it becomes behavioral. I have also taken the liberty of altering the topic title, as I think we can file complaints without resorting to the k-word. Tarc (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd assumed Boris was being sarcastic or making a point. Actually though he hasn't been blocked for disruption around content but if he does start pushing unsourced content into the articles against consensus as opposed to merely expressing a view on the talkpage (in a non-disruptive way) then bring it back here. If there is an issue about the quality of rival sources then try WP:RSN or WP:RFC. Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the editor's argument is based on some excruciatingly tedious technical point about physics. I can't say if he's right or not. But it's along the same lines as claiming that you never really "touch" anything, but rather that certain things happen at the molecular level that give the illusion of touch. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if his argument is "right" or not. What matters is whether or not there are reliable sources to justify the argument, either as an "accepted position" or even as a "controversial position". AFAICT there are none. Manning (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

User:GutiLucian02

GutiLucian02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been doing little more than playing with his User page since registering, and looks like he's just doing random things. That itself is pretty harmless (although he's been doing stuff there that's needed reverting), though he's also been making some bad changes to articles, which also get reverted. But now, he's just done this to my user page, after I asked him not to change the dates of tags on articles. I'm not sure I could go as far as to suggest it's a vandalism-only account, but does anyone think anything needs to be done? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't noticed he's already been indef blocked. Sorry to waste your time. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

...And now they've requested an unblock. I've asked them to explain where they screwed up, but have not declined outright - yet. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

As you can see from both their current talk page and its history, I tried multiple times to engage this user in dialogue about their editing pattern and what the purpose of Wikipedia is. I was roundly ignored, as were several other users who tried to talk to them. If they can explain specifically what they would do if unblocked I guess a second chance may be in order, but I think we have a serious WP:COMPETENCE issue here. Maybe decline with {{2ndchance}}? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. I'll keep an eye on his/her response. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like the best approach, thanks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Gaming the system and canvassing

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

---

Resolved

 – BlennGeck blocked as a sock of an indef-blocked user. The Cavalry (Message me) 11:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Deliciousgrapefruit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
BlennGeck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
LynnCityofsin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
24.61.171.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:BlennGeck is an SPA who edits the Glenn Beck article, he was formerly another SPA named User talk:LynnCityofsin who soley edited the same article and had several warnings there for edit warring, he has edited as User talk:24.61.171.248 who has warnings for edit warring, and has now been loosely canvassing other users to post on his side at the Glenn Beck article.

• Him accidentally posting and removing his post there as an IP, and then reinserting it logged in as Blenn Geck.
• Changing his signature from said IP to LynnCity's sig here
• Him using the exact same IP to edit LynnCityofsin's post over a year ago.
• He seems to be creating an account to edit Glenn Beck, and then shedding that account's history of edit warring by taking on a new account and re-editing Glenn Beck in exactly the same way. WP:CLEANSTART clearly differentiates between making a new account, and acting differently, and making new account right before you are blocked, and then using this new account in a similar manner.

He has also clearly danced the on the line of canvassing in our discussion about whether to add some criticism of the subject from Kristol:

• by going to the talkpage of Redthoreau(a user who had disagreed with me in another section on the same page) and asking what can be done about me here
• and going to the talkpage of Kristol.

Per recommendation here are diffs to incivility:

• IP on Glenn Beck talking to editor Lyn fought with:

Keep telling yourself that. But one only has to look at your edit history to know your a partisan.24.61.171.248 (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Blenn's response to my very first post:

WP:NOTNEWS This seems like one of a great many spats that Glenn Beck gets in to. For comparison I do not see the Anthony Weiner dispute anywhere in this article; is there some reason you believe this is more notable than that one? In that dispute Beck made an entire website to attack Weiner, and there was far more coverage.AerobicFox (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious? I give up. This is most certainly a notable controversy. Enjoy your echo chamber. BlennGeck (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This seems like an attempt to game the system by avoiding any potential bans by just shedding a user when he has a significant amount of warnings, and then just creating a new user with a clean slate and editing the same article in the same way. This is disruptive and not what WP:CLEANSTART is intended for.AerobicFox (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a retaliatory posting on Aerobics part in my opinion. He has been accusing me of being a sock puppet and of canvassing. He has posted unwanted accusations on my user page, and tried to out me as a previous user on the Glenn Beck talk page. I said I was seeking arbitration for harrasment, and immediately this came up.

I have been posting suggestions on the Glenn Beck page in good faith. Aerobic and I have not seen eye to eye on the material. But now he appears to be searching for clues to my identity, looking for other or previous accounts I may have, making personal attacks and accusation on the article talk pages, and following me into other talk pages.

This all should be noted in your evaluation of Aerboic's claim. It is not unimportant.

Also in my defense. I posted on the Kristol Page, because that is a related aritcle and I thought that the information should be included there as well. I never asked anyone to view or add to the Beck page. Nor was I canvassing in the other case. I was simply looking for advice from a likeminded user, on how to deal with an editor I believed wasn't editing in good faith, but removing content he simply didn't like. Never did I ask, or expect him to join in on the discussion page about egypt. BlennGeck (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

"Aerobic and I have not seen eye to eye on the material."

"It really seems like true believers have the discussion page stacked. I have to believe that is some kind of violation of wiki guidelines. I find myself going gray because as soon as I satisfy an editor's criticism or concern he/she mystifies me with a complete misreading of the source material or semantic attempts to invert the source material's meaning. "

Clearly...AerobicFox (talk) 02:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I wrote this before I noticed your threats for ANI, this is in no way reactive. You have made numerous personal attacks telling me to "Enjoy your echo chamber." after my very first post. You have accused editors of being partisan as an anonymous IP, and your previous account has been warned for personal attacks.AerobicFox (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The correct forum is WP:SPI. Recommend closing this discussion thread. TFD (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to bring this up...AerobicFox (talk) 02:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

None of my statements were intended as personal attacks. BlennGeck (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Why WP:SPI? Am I being accused of sockpuppetry now? BlennGeck (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• While it might look like sockpuppetry, the original user LynnCity was never blocked, so things might be a little murky. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm just hoping for some type of advice or guidance here.AerobicFox (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

There is little doubt that all 3 user ID's are operated by the same guy. However, none of them has ever been blocked, and LynnCity last edited 10 months ago. Like you, I'm wondering what the right course is here. SPI is not needed and in fact would likely be rejected due to it being obvious. So the focus needs to be on behavior in general, and maybe the admins can help with that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't know (haven't looked) about sock puppetry, but there's no way in heck BlennGeck is an appropriate user name. --B (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what would be wrong with it? Its not as if he were purporting to be Beck. Heiro 02:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll not claim to be uninvolved (I've contributed to the Glenn Beck talk page too - and made a few edits to the article -though I think they were mostly reverting clear vandalism), but I can't see any evidence for sockpuppetry - the IP sems to have made one unreverted edit to the talk page (i.e. BlennGeck probably just forgot to log in, and reverted to use his/her user name to edit), and BlennGeck doesn't seem to have edited the article at all. There is no overlap between LynnCity's contribuitions to talk and BlennGeck's, as has already been noted. As for personal attacks, the talk page is perhaps not surprisingly a little edgy, but I'd suggest that AerobicFox needs to give us some diffs to indicate exactly where the problem is. I can't really see evidence for canvassing either - there were no !votes etc being discussed, and a comment on a single user's talk page during an ongoing debate hardly seems to be what is normally covered by WP:CANVASS. I think that maybe BlennGeck could have chosen a better user name, but that is about all I can see to complain about, really. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and provided two diffs, I can provide more. I have tried to be respectful, and I sincerely apologize for any condescension. If Blenn would do so similarly I do not think we would have a further problem.AerobicFox (talk) 02:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that BlennGeck has edited any articles, just Talk pages. Corvus cornix_talk 02:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

He hasn't; that is correct.AerobicFox (talk) 02:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I take it then that you will withdraw the allegation of 'edit-warring' you made on the Glenn Beck talk page? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I didnt see anything but some pointy comments in your diffs. And relatively mild at that. Heiro 03:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't accuse him of edit warring with his account now, he accused me of accusing him of that. Mild, yes.AerobicFox (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Heiro, to answer your question, I would consider a name obviously intended to be a reference to a very controversial figure to be covered by "offensive usernames" and/or "disruptive usernames". Older versions of the policy used to elaborate that "offensive usernames" included "Usernames that promote a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view", which clearly Glenn Back is. --B (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't find it offensive. And as you said , older versions. Heiro 02:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The name itself is not inherently offensive, but the user is a Glenn Beck "skeptic", let's say. There's hardly any question that all 3 accounts are this one guy. The issue is whether he's doing anything disruptive. That's what the focus should be on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

So, we have a Glenn Beck supporter bringing a GB skeptic here on what it seems so far are at best frivolous charges? If you look at the Beck article talk page, these 2 have been going round and round for a few days now. Coming here isn't the way to win a discussion on a talkpage. Heiro 03:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Blenn actually claims he is the Glenn Beck supporter, as has Lyn. I'm leaving the Beck article now, and I apologize for wasting the time of people here and there. Let's just move on.AerobicFox (talk) 03:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Do we really need an admin to sort this one out? I suggest we give AerobicFox a few gentle slaps around the face with a virtual slightly-decayed kipper for making trivial complaints, give BlennGeck the same for being less-than-polite (but not much more) to AerobicFox, and for choosing a rather pointy username, and then get back to arguing about exactly how mad we can describe Beck as... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I second all of the above suggestions. Heiro 03:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to lie, I've thought before about the username being a problem. As someone whose POV at times has opposed that of Beck, the username could be seen as a mild form of mockery. Well, boo-hoo, get over it, right? Except our policy disallows that. Also, if it doesn't come off as mockery, then it may imply a relation to the real life man. BlennGeck - would you please consider changing usernames? You can go to WP:CHU. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I could see it being hard to WP:AGF and assume he's trying for WP:NPOV when having a discussion with him on his choice of subjects to edit so far. Heiro 03:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

My name was never intended to be offensive. I enjoy watching Glenn Beck, but at the same time find I can be critical of him and can keep an open mind about how he is viewed by the larger public. On a website where people post their political views on their userpage, I don't see how having a user name that sounds like a political pundit's would impact other peoples' ability to trust my neutrality. I think if anything, the fact that I like Glenn Beck, but believe the article needs more critical material, demonstrates that I am an objective thinker and editor. \

Also, I want to point out, I believe this whole reporting me business had more to do with controlling the content of the GlennBeck talk page than any real concern about my identity, or previous history (again, something people are speculating about without having all the facts). For those who want to know, no I am not the user in question. Like I told Aerobic, there is a very good reason for me having the IP address I have and posting on the Glenn Beck talk page, but I don't feel I should have to get into my personal life in order to deflect such accusations. BlennGeck (talk) 03:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This is all moot. I've left the Glenn Beck page, and am not pursuing this. An admin should feel free to close.AerobicFox (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay. SO then you are formally withdrawing your accusation here? BlennGeck (talk) 04:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

He is! (I can say that because I viewed his comment above this one as well). But I would like to kindly ask you to choose another username. Do it for me, for harmony on the site. Or you can do it for yourself, because every time a regular sees you henceforth with that username, it will elicit a groan of "uh-oh, another SPA with an agenda to push" (I know I haven't been around that long, but I'm sure that others pick up on the same patterns I do, which include a borderline username being associated with someone isn't a harmonious editor). Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Or he could go back to his original username, LynnCityofsin, as it's in good standing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet

I have run a checkuser on BlennGeck and their underlying IP address as a result of this discussion, and from the results I have blocked BlennGeck (talk · contribs) as a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet of banned user Deliciousgrapefruit (talk · contribs). No other accounts were involved that I can see, but LynnCityofsin (talk · contribs) is stale, so I can't run checks against it. I think this closes the matter, but I want to take this opportunity to warn editors against engaging in a witch-hunt for more socks. We'll keep an eye out for problems, you guys concentrate on editing! The Cavalry (Message me) 11:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Editor with odd approach to images

Resolved

 – User has fixed or orphaned all but one image, which is a dead link. Nothing further to do here. N419BH 06:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Johnandmitchy (talk · contribs) is an editor who has worked on some film articles and has been especially prolific in uploading images for them. I first encountered the editor when he was trying to add this image to Out of Sight with the claim that the image was taken by an extra at the time and that it was in the public domain. (Image is since deleted; admins can review its history.) The same problem happened again at Shelley Long, when John claimed a CC license for this image (link to since-deleted image) and dated it as 1998. Another editor found that link, and the image is from a 2000 film festival and belongs to someone else. I kept track of the editor's contributions, and the editor does not use edit summaries very often at all. I confronted him about my problem with his use of images here, but he did not respond to me. Recently, I reviewed his newer contributions, and he uploaded the following poster images: 1, 2, 3, 4. The first, second, and fourth had false sourcing with fake IMP Awards URLs or Allmovie URLs with no images, where the third one links to Allmovie with a similar-but-not-quite image. I reviewed some of his older file contributions, and he appears to use the code from File:The Lincoln Lawyer Poster.jpg in his uploaded poster images' file descriptions, for example here and here. I could understand if an image upload was a rush job that had some sloppiness, but there was even a non-poster image that used the Lincoln Lawyer poster template here. It strikes me that the user does not particularly care about proper licensing or sourcing. What would be the best course of action here? Erik (talk | contribs) 02:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Persistent copyright violators usually go "bye-bye". Unless they cease and desist the persistent copyright violations. Doc talk 02:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You could open a case at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Its a bit early for CCI. There aren't that many images anyway. There is no problem with using a canned FUR as long as the images are correctly attributed - which hasn't been the case here. I have tagged all the film posters for not having the correct sourcing so hopefully johnandmitchy will fix them soon and we can remove those tags. One tagged for having two sources - neither of which check out. One more tagged as I suspect the attributable - its clearly a picture of a TV programme so whoever took it doesn't own the rights and another put down as a poster when its a screen cap... The problem is that the user needs to respond to our requests and talk page comments rather then just ignoring them. Its OK to make mistakes when you upload images - they are clearly trying to get it right but they do need to respond and learn from their errors. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Being accountable for your edits is what it's all about. If they talk, and understand why they can't violate copyright and demonstrate they won't do it again, that's the best solution. Doc talk 04:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm wary that it's just a problem of a canned FUR. The fact that their recent uploads use fake impawards.com links is suspect to me. I checked the domain for any possible images in case the URL was off for whatever reason, but John actually edited the URL to have the title and the year despite the URL going nowhere. I'll keep tracking the contributions. Erik (talk | contribs) 04:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Its clearly an issue with incorrect sourcing and that cannot continue but its right to give them a chance to fix things before reaching for the block stick. Said block stick will have to be applied if there is no improvement or evidence of trying to fix their problems. Just saying its a step below immediate blocking. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Some folks make honest mistakes. Lots of folks take time to learn how we do things here. Repeatedly uploading images and lying about the source doesn't qualify as an "honest mistake" or "learning" - it's fraud, and the user should be immediately and indefinitely blocked from editing. Rklawton (talk) 05:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• According to their message on my talk page they have fixed the sources and orphaned something they now see the error of. Please explain what a block at this stage would prevent. Grateful if someone can check the new sources pan out as I need to leave for work in a second or two. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I've had a root-around through the user's contributions. All of the images Spartaz tagged earlier have been either fixed, deleted, or orphaned, with the exception of File:HomeMoviesDePalma.jpg, which appears to have a dead link for the source. I believe the user is acting in good faith, and has done his/her best to fix the issue brought up here. I've brought the dead link to the user's attention on his/her talk page. I believe we have nothing further to do here. N419BH 06:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, all. I will keep monitoring regardless. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Kueller1

The user Kueller1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made a lot of personal attacks as well as revealed private information about many well-established users. Although he has been blocked, much of his damage is still present. I have emailed User:Oversight to deal with it, so this is just sort of a notice. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Working on it. It's User:JarlaxleArtemis, who should really know better than to threaten a US federal prosecutor with assassination, especially given that he's one of the most doxed Wikipedians on the planet. That sort of talk has led people to get locked up - for reals - Alison ^❤ 09:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I am still waiting as to when we're going to turn off the "mark all edits as minor default"... –MuZemike 14:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

What if Grawp actually is a minor? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

All the more reason to have him locked up. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If he's a minor, then mommy and daddy will have to pay a gigantic fine. When I was in middle school, someone sent a threatening e-mail to Bill Clinton, and his parents got fined 250,000 dollars. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Spammer alert

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Joseph_Martin_Kronheim_-_The_Sunday_at_Home_1880_-_Revelation_22-17.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=414267762

I've reverted all the spam from them I saw, but I have to ask: Is there ever a good reason to allow linking to ebay? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I have notified 95.210.108.91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) about this thread (per the very clear instructions above), and I have also sent them a note re:use of such links, as per WP:ADVERT. Regards, GiantSnowman 17:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

User:V7-sport

V7-sport (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

V7-sport is WP:WIKIHOUNDING and attacking me on this page here and multiple other pages. With the justification i would be a supporter of jihad: ""This is made more disturbing by you exclusively intervening on behalf of anyone who has murdered the kuffar in the name of jihad." he said. What alone is already a reason to block him apart from shouting, disruptive editing, out of context quoting, ad hominem arguments and personal attacks. This is extremely disruptive and leaves no time to keep up with the real issues. Please help. IQinn (talk) 06:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Iqinn is currently engaged in an edit war over July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike. Since 13 February he has been engaged in tendentious editing, repeating the same thing ad nauseam on The articles talk page, the original research noticeboard and the reliable sources noticeboard. I have only interacted with this user 5 days so the charge that I am Wikihounding him is ludicrous. However I have noticed that he has engaged in the same pattern of disruptive editing with other users, indeed the section directly below on the Original research notice board was devoted to asking him to stop disruptive cite-tagging on another thread. That went to mediation. Looking at the articles talk pages, and here show someone who repeatedly engages in WP:IDHT in what can only be an effort to drive away contributors who wish to insert information into Wikipedia that he disagrees with.

Again, IQinn and I haven't been interacting long enough for me to be "Wikihounding him". I freely acknowledge that I looked at several of his previous edits and was brought into the conversation on the topic below us on the original research noticeboard. When I noticed he was deleting sourced material on another article without any explanation pointed out that this was a pattern I had observed. in answer to the charge of Wikihounding I responded with: "To be clear and honest with you; I am not wikihounding. I think your edits are borderline vandalism. That's not an ad hominem, it is regrettably what I have observed over the past few days". I stand by that statement.

I believe that IQinn is making as much of a stink as humanly possible just to make it as unpleasant as he can for any other editor who wishes to to make an alteration that he disagrees with, and this frivolous ANI is just a part of that strategy.V7-sport (talk) 07:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

"I stand by that statement". You are calling me a someone who supports Jihad again. I can not believe what i am hearing here. Get this guy out of here. He has broken every rule and all values we stand for here at Wikipedia. That is to much. Get this guy blocked now. This is unbelievable. IQinn (talk) 07:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope there are still more rules to break for him now he his also trying to get some involved Meatpuppets in. Get this guy out of here. IQinn (talk) 08:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice try, what I wrote was ""To be clear and honest with you; I am not wikihounding. I think your edits are borderline vandalism. That's not an ad hominem, it is regrettably what I have observed over the past few days". I stand by that statement." Again, mischaracterizing what I wrote to make as much of a stink as possible. And is there anything more ironic then you complaining that I am wikihounding you as you hang on my every post complain about "meat puppets"? This isn't a matter of consensus, bringing others in who you have pulled the same "stuff" on recently is not meat puppetry. V7-sport (talk) 08:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting that you tried to get in "meat puppets".

Mischaracterizing and putting things and quotes out of context has been a frequent tactic by you and this is what happened here again. That's what you said: ""This is made more disturbing by you exclusively intervening on behalf of anyone who has murdered the kuffar in the name of jihad.". And the summary of your post above is hat you stand by that. Are you? IQinn (talk) 08:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

V7-sport, tone down the rhetoric a little. There's little point discussing anything but the content itself on talk pages. Even if you have suspicions, don't voice opinions about the motives of editors. Things get less heated that way.

IQinn, calm down, assume good faith, and stop misrepreseting what V7 is saying. Now. Or you'll be blocked.

Cheers to the both of you. lifebaka++ 08:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

He called me someone "exclusively intervening on behalf of anyone who has murdered the kuffar in the name of jihad.". There is nothing out of context. 08:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That's incredible. I did not admit that "I tried to get in meat puppets". That's a complete mischaracterization of what I wrote. And yes, I find it disturbing that your disruptive edits seem exclusively devoted to cleansing the encyclopedia of what has been done by usually violent jihadists. Sorry, getting "disturbed" isn't something you can "boot me out" for. V7-sport (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Lifebaka. You are right of course. I regret my patience is finite. V7-sport (talk) 08:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This here is incredible. You described me as someone "exclusively intervening on behalf of anyone who has murdered the kuffar in the name of jihad." what is an personal attack. and the more you used that as an justification to follow me around. That is WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Two questions. 1) Do you still believe that i am "exclusively intervening on behalf of anyone who has murdered the kuffar in the name of jihad." and secondly 2) Are you going to continue to follow me around because you believe that i am someone "exclusively intervening on behalf of anyone who has murdered the kuffar in the name of jihad."? Thank you IQinn (talk) 08:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

IQinn, drop it. Go do something else for the rest of the day. Cool off. Come back tomorrow. This is your last warning. lifebaka++ 08:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Lifebaka i am cool and i find it a just a bit disturbing that you threating me with a block because i am asking 2 questions in a friendly way. Two questions that clearly address the the issue and need to be answered, they are clearly meant to solve the conflict and to avoid similar incidents in the future. 09:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

IQinn - I've read through the discussions. What you have is a simple content dispute, you believe the names of the people should not be recorded in association with the safe house, and V7-sport believes it is relevant. This can/should be resolved via the BLP dispute procedure (which has already been initiated).

V7-sport - you've let your emotions get the better of you and you've mildly crossed the civility line on a couple of occasions during these exchanges. (You clearly already know this based on your above comments). Hence consider your wrist to have been lightly smacked as a consequence.

IQinn - I find your conduct to be largely unacceptable. I have read the exchanges and seen you repeatedly accuse V7-sport of Wikihounding, personal attacks, ad hominem attacks, and informing V7-sport he will be "banned forever". This kind of drama-queen behaviour is tedious and fools no-one, particularly admins. Every admin is highly knowledgable about what is and isn't acceptable conduct. V7-sport is guilty of nothing more than some mild incivility (as noted above), and to be fair there has been a healthy degree of provocation.

Lifebaka's threat of a block is fully reasonable, given your conduct thus far. So to avoid that unpleasantness, I recommend you take some time off and calm down, and come back when you feel capable of focussing solely on the content dispute and not the personal dispute. Also ask yourself how you feel about the possibility that the community consensus regarding this content might not agree with you. If that is unacceptable to you, then I recommend you leave off editing this article indefinitely. Manning (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't entirely know what to say here, but I've got to say something. Iquinn's WIKIHOUNDING charge is absurd. This entire exercise is absurd.

Iquinn has a history as a disruptive, one-sided editor. I say this not because we disagree politically or ideologically, which we do. He's extremely difficult to work with. The AGF rule becomes near impossible when he shows up. The audacity of Iquinn making a charge here is simply stunning.

Iquinn, you need to take a break for some introspection.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I have also experienced IQinn's disruptive editing: Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Mohamedou_Ould_Slahi Other examples upon request. His (could be a her, I guess) MO seems to be to slap tags on articles when he objects to something, which usually involves claiming WP violations to advance his POV, not any specific issues with content or sources. In fact, he usually cannot even articulate what his specific objection is, much less justify it. By orders of magnitude, his words on Discussion pages exceeds his contributions to articles. I could go on, but he is just going to claim this is ad hominem, incorrectly. Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, the charge of WIKIHOUNDING is ridiculous. Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

IQinn and I are rarely on the same side in this topic area, but I think that the statement made V7 highlighted in bold above is not just mildly unacceptable, but wholly unacceptable. Nothing whatever can justify that sort of language here, and nothing IQinn has edited gives a justification for the use of such language anywhere. DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Incident report against User: JoMontNW

There is disruptive editor by the user screen name JoMontNW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has been continuously and repeatedly putting false, unsourced, and unneutral information regarding a couple of American television news programs. The programs in question are The Today Show and Good Morning America. This editor is determined to make his edits stick no matter what the cost is. For The Today Show, he put the false information regarding the debut of two of their personalities, Matt Lauer & Natalie Morales. For Good Morning America, he put unsourced, as well as unneutral information regarding their success compared to The Today Show. There was even a moment yesterday where he even went to the extreme and delete nearly 75% of the information in GMA’s Wikipedia article. Various editors including myself have tried to revert his various disruptive edits. But he is determine to change them all back to the way he had it before, thus making all of us engage in a silent edit war. Just this morning, JoMontNW left me a not-so friendly comment on my talk page regarding all of this. I choose to take the high road and not reply, no matter what I might be thinking. He has already got various warning from a few administrators for disruptive edits on other articles. Enough is enough. I’m getting sick and tired of putting out all the fires caused by this editor. I would appreciate it if an administrator step in and sanction JoMontNW for his disruptive ways (if not completely silence him). Thank you for your time. Fourviz (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Your complaint is noted and being examined. You can greatly assist us by providing diffs of the specific actions you wish us to examine. Thanks Manning (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Earlier, I reverted this action by him on the 2011 Iranian protests page. I also noticed that there were other warning on his talk page over the past few days, so I went ahead and gave a Level 4 vandalism warning. I also took the opportunity to look through his contributions. It does seem like he is adding bad information to articles and doesn't feel like stopping. Silverseren^C 15:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, he's at or over 3RR on Natalie Morales (including a few possibly pointy self reverts and self self reverts) Syrthiss (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

He may be a complete newbie so he is currently benefitting from the biggest dose of AGF I can muster. But it will run out soon. I also note that the user has not been notified about this ANI - I'll fix that, but it is poor form. Manning (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

(article content discussion removed) - JoMontNW (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

JoMontNW - Thanks for your input. I have removed your comment only because this page is for discussing the incident and ensuring all parties display proper conduct. If there is a dispute then discuss it at the relevant talk page for that article. This is also where the comment you placed on this page belongs. Manning (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Update: JoMontNW has gone quiet, but by a mysterious coincidence an IP (174.44.29.160) has appeared doing exactly the same edits. Said IP has been blocked for 24 hrs. I'm going to bed, so if someone can take over watching this I'd be grateful. Manning (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You put a block on the IP sockpuppet that JoMontNW is operating under, but no block has been implemented on JoMontNW himself. As a result, he is still continuing to have his stubborn way here on Wikipedia. Until he is blocked, there is no stopping him, and truth be told, this might led to something on here that we'll regret down the road, like an edit war. I'm willing to help, but there is only so much I could do as a civil Wikipedian. Fourviz (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

In addition, going through his contributions and talk page, I noticed that he is making a mockery of Wikipedia and the great people who work endlessly to make it a great website. Of course, it is not my decision to say what to do with the disruptive JoMontNW. But I think it is evident as to what needs to be done with him. Fourviz (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• I think there's a bit too much good faith being assumed here. Any other user would have been blocked by now. Silverseren^C 17:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Then why isn't JoMontNW blocked yet. I surely do not want to be glued to my computer waiting to revert his next disruptive edit. I like Wikipedia, but I do have a life outside of it. My fear is that when I do decide to log off, JoMontNW will be free to put whatever nonsense he can pull out of his youknowwhere and onto various Wikipedia articles of his choosing. Fourviz (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You'll be surprised to learn that WP survives quite well whenever people go to bed. JoMontNW is not yet blocked because he has yet to breach the final warning he just received. I am now going to bed, but other admins will watch the matter and take action if needed. Relax. Manning (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

And I'll be watching to see if Fourviz breaches the warning he just received. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Might I ask why you gave him a warning when he is engaged in an "edit war" with a user that is clearly not following the rules? Silverseren^C 18:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Because there's no exemption from WP:3RR for being correct -- only for reverting vandalism. Note that his later edit summaries claimed he was removed unsourced information, when JoMontNW (whom I just blocked for warring after final warning) had started supplying sources several reverts before. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

...and LakeSwan11 (talk · contribs) down the drain as well.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

And then NatalieMorales (talk · contribs). —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 20:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

All things considered now, I think it's pretty clear what kind of editor we are dealing with. Relentless in his ways, and not going to back down until he does get his way, no matter how unneutral and disruptive it may be. Look at all the sockpuppets he has created since being blocked. This is the type of nonsense I had to put up with for the last few days. I'm surprised nobody has extend JoMontNW's block beyond 48 hours for creating all these sockpuppets, and the unwanted inconvenience on adminstrators to clean up the miss he caused. Clearly this isn't a person who is going to follow the rules. And 48 hours from now when his block is lifted, he will be doing the extact same thing as he was doing before, being uncivil and disruptive. I hope all of you are ready for another drumming by JoMontNW come Friday afternoon. Fourviz (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the master account of a confirmed sock-puppeteer be blocked for longer than a period of 48 hours? Silverseren^C 20:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • It will either recur or not. If it does, an indef block is in order. If not, it's over. DGG ( talk ) 21:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Blake1960 engaging in personal attacks, repeated OR and NPOV violations and refusing to seek consensus

Despite having been recently blocked for 24 hours, Blake1960 (talk · contribs) continues his personal attacks, as well as his refusal to abide by Wikipedias rules against original research and editing from a biased point of view.

Personal attack diffs in reverse order:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMiles_per_gallon_gasoline_equivalent&action=historysubmit&diff=414109310&oldid=414108175

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMiles_per_gallon_gasoline_equivalent&action=historysubmit&diff=413929569&oldid=413637552

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMiles_per_gallon_gasoline_equivalent&action=historysubmit&diff=413362992&oldid=413357637

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miles_per_gallon_gasoline_equivalent&diff=prev&oldid=412867006

Note that the last diff above is the one he was blocked for -- the others are from after the block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

One diff regarding OR and NPOV from Chevrolet Volt:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chevrolet_Volt&action=historysubmit&diff=412866446&oldid=412862181

I can provide other diffs on OR and NPOV edits if necessary.

Also, I suspect he was editing Chevrolet Volt anonymously here to avoid people recognizing his work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chevrolet_Volt&action=historysubmit&diff=413941500&oldid=413410804

Blake's focus on the EPA in other edits makes me suspicious that he is this anonymous editor as well. Is it possible for an administrator to check the IPs?

Note also that Miles per gallon gasoline equivalent was protected in order to stop Black1960's disruptive editing, but that, within two days of the end of the protection period, he/she made 17 edits which were not discussed on the article's talk page prior to insertion.Ebikeguy (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Ebikeguy (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I was not blocked for personal attacks. I was blocked for violating the 3-revert rule. An accident on my part, being new to editing on wikipedia. I did make one inflammatory comment against someone who deleted my entire contribution with no thoughtful explanation, my bad. Won't happen again.

You were blocked for both 3RR violation and "making personal attack" per the original block notice. Ebikeguy (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack was never my intent in any discussion. A few days ago, my contributions were being rudely deleted in their entirety; no attempt was made to help improve or edit them, just delete them. My contributions added new fully referenced information pertinent (I would say vital) to the balance, understanding, and completeness of the article. The excuses given for the wholesale deletion of my contributions included excessive POV, original authorship, or that they lacked references and citations. I reworked and tried to edit/reword as neutrally as possible, and I added multiple references, and citations. My contributions were still glibly deleted in entirety. What adds to my frustration is that most of the rest of the article is horribly lacking in citations and references. When I initially noted some of those cases, those contributions asking for citations were also deleted! Much of my contributions were mainly simply mathematical relations or unit conversions. The math which I presented was based only on the equations already cited and published in the article. That type of authorship is permitted according to wikipedia rules.

If you review the most recent examples of my commentary in the discussion, you'll see that my accuser has little basis for his complaint. You'll also find that he invariable turns to personal commentary rather than discussion of the issue, the subject matter of the article in question. I hate that! I'm only interested in contributing positively to the article. I am not the anonymous editor, whoever that may be, whom he is accusing me of being. I asked the Ebike person to stick to discussion of the issue or to hush. I don't think that is out of line given his history.

Thank you. Blake1960 (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Once again, Blake1960 is resorting to personal attacks and misrepresentation of actual events to justify his ongoing insertion of OR and NPOV language into the article. A review of my involvement in this matter will show that I have not only adhered to Wikipedia rules, but that my edits and comments have also been polite, based on facts, and that I have tried to be helpful in explaining the rules to this relatively new editor. Ebikeguy (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Deleting my entire contributions was beyond rude and insulting. A polite editor leaves the facts and edits the contribution to resolve what he views as problematic. I'm not interested in personal confrontation, just the best wikipedia article with all the pertinent and correct information presented in a clear, concise and easy to read form. That's it. You apparently want to get me kicked off wikipedia. Please provide a specific example why you are seeking that action. You are now accusing me of "misrepresentation of actual events". Gee should I feel insulted or attacked? Well, you misrepresented a valid reason for the wholesale deletion of my contributions. See how that works. Blake1960 (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Blake1960 has been blocked for 72 hours for 3RR violations, so I think that this ANI is now redundant. I request that an admin close this discussion when possible. Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyone willing to delete this revision?

[42]. Thanks, P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 15:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we're really overdoing the requests for oversight for simple vandalism lately. Tarc (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Unless a revision gives away personal information, I don't see the point. Unless it has to do with denying recognition to a vandal? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It was run-of-the-mill "go back to africa!" n-word slurs. Tarc (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If racist obscenities are to be routinely rubbed out, maybe a bot program should be used. That might free up a good chunk of disk space. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the racist call to genocide tipped the scales on this one, which is why I deleted it. But I agree in general, we do overdo it a bit. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

What's the specific reasoning behind such a deletion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Baseballbugs and Tarc on this. We are going a bit overboard on these requests.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The WP:CFRD #2 does seem to include this type of revision, ie "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little/no encyclopedic or project value and/or violates our Biographies of living people policy. This includes slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material of little or no encyclopedic value." I don't have much experience in this particular area, and was going by what was written on that policy page. So if folks think it was inappropriate to redact that revision, perhaps the policy page should be modified. Just my thoughts. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 16:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Could this be automated somehow? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The revdels don't save any disk space since the deleted revisions are still in the database. I generally would go easier on the revdels since the vandalism can become relevant to future dispute resolution involving the user, so the revdels reduce accountability. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 04:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

UltraExactZZ made a judgement call about whether OS was appropriate, based on the policy as written. I think it is best that we now spend many hours discussing whether or not this was an appropriate use of oversight, whether UltraExactZZ has correctly interpreted the policy, and hopefully can expand the discussion to include whether or not UltraExactZZ is even fit to attempt to interpret policy and also whether this is even the appropriate forum to discuss it. Meanwhile it would be a shame to fail to exhaustively examine whether PD Cook was motivated by his own political agendas in even raising the issue to begin with. Bonus points if someone can fit in an articulate and vehement indictment of my motives for posting this flippant comment. Manning (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is questioning UltraExact's motives, only the policy as a whole.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Because you like to build strawmen? No one is remotely suggesting anything like what you've suggested. Rather this is a continuation of the community discussing where the line should be drawn with this fairly new tool.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps my sarcasm was too subtle. "Please do not clutter this page with discussions within a discussion." AN/I should not be used to nitpick a decision made by a competent admin that was clearly within the bounds of the policy as written, there are other forums for discussing policy. Manning (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't dispute the removal as such. I just wonder why it's worth bothering with. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• From the top of the page - "To request permanent deletion of sensitive personal information, see requests for oversight. DO NOT make such requests here; reports here are visible to everyone." GiantSnowman 17:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The information was neither sensitive nor personal so no harm done.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

True enough, but why has it therefore been deleted? GiantSnowman 17:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It was deleted because it fit the criteria of WP:CFRD. Since 2010 there has been a new tool called Revision Delete which is stronger than simple reversion but less dramatic than Oversight. There is some discussion underway over the fundamental merit of the policy, but hopefully no dispute over whether or not UltraExactZZ interpreted it correctly (as written). Manning (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That question is why there are multiple posts to this thread.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to sanction IZAK

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

Resolved

 – IZAK has moved on, and so have the rest of us. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

140.247.141.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
140.247.141.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
140.247.141.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Forgive me if this is the wrong place. I am green to this process. I see IZAK has been recently violating WP:FORUMSHOPPING, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:NPA and WP:POINT. The discussion is above at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Stupid_question. I propose that IZAK be sanctioned, blocked, put on probation or whatever if takes to get him to begin to collaborate and play nice. I think his complaint above has turned into WP:BOOMERANG. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This would likely be taken a bit more seriously if you filed with your real account. Tarc (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not have a "real" account. I wish to maintain my anonymity by editing only from IPs. Am I being forced to register? 140.247.141.165 (talk) 00:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Those issues were from earlier this week. Is he continuing that today, or has he backed off? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know there is a statue of limitations. Is there? 140.247.141.165 (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a dead letter. Drop the stick already. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't feel old. It hasn't even been archived yet. Is there a statute of limitations? 140.247.141.165 (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly, but if someone has been disruptive and then stops, there's really no issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

And as Tarc notes, you appear to be brand-new and are starting out with a sanction proposal. That tends to raise suspicions about your own good faith in the matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm green here but I regualrly edit from IPs. Watch this page a lot and I got pretty disgusted of IZAK's battleground mentality. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That's understandable, but the general approach is that if someone stops being contentious, they're not likely to be sanctioned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I think he only stopped because the thread turned grey in color and it said not to modify it. He was going full speed up to the very end. He violated all of the policies I wrote above, so why does he get off scott free? 140.247.141.165 (talk) 01:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Even so, the admin said, "Stop or I'll block you", and he stopped. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• 140.247.141.165, you've not made a single edit to mainspace - one edit a week ago to somebody's talk page, and now all this ANI. Who are you really? GiantSnowman 01:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I edit from the computers that are available to me. I will not register as I fear for my anonymity. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 01:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I understand, but it would make your case stronger if we could see your editing history/interactions with IZAK. GiantSnowman 01:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • What other IP's have you edited under recently? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I found one. I forget the utility to find a range of them, but I've got it written down somewhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Found the utility. I'll run it for the range 140.247.141.* and see what it comes up with. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→
        • The utility didn't work, but we know what range to look for if the OP here comes from out of left field again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
          • A checkuser will do the trick.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
• I don't see a reason to invoke some preventative sanction except "don't do this particular thing". This doesn't need to be an albatross hanging from IZAK's neck, he just needs to drop the issue. So long as he does, then there is no problem. Don't contribute to drama by continuing to bang the drum. Protonk (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
• This is rich. With all the drama that typically attends this page, its a pleasure to have some comic relief every now and then. Am I the only one who is enjoying Mr. IP's humorously transparent effort to make himself appear "green"? Question for Mr. IP, btw, before we perform a checkuser -- Have you ever edited under a username on wikipedia? And if so, what names have you used? Many thanks, and happy editing. (BTW--since all editors in good standing who have commented here are in agreement, I would support a snow close of this string once Mr. IP has provided his answer, and without prejudice to any subsequent checkuser being performed on him).--Epeefleche (talk) 02:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Just logged on and saw this now. I have long dropped the very quick-moving issue. In particular I have thanked the final closing admin for his fairness at User talk:IZAK#AN/I: "The discussion at ANI is now closed. Your raising of the username was valid even if your motive for doing so was not good. The policy has been clarified. RMS is restricted to using that username as an unblocking condition, so it is not going to change without a) RMS wanting to change, and b) the approval of WP:ARBCOM or WP:AE or something similar. Mjroots (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC) --- Thanks Mjroots, I commend your even-handedness, level-headedness and sense of correctness. I was not aware of all the mitigating factors and the complexities as I bumped into them in the middle of the night so to speak. Much appreciated. IZAK (talk) 07:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)" So I have nothing more to say on this matter. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 03:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

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

New User admits that his teacher assigned them a project to vandalize wikipedia

Blocked User:JNC offical fan 1998 admitted with this edit, that his teacher asked them to vandalize wikipedia. Is there some sort of check user or school block that we can do with this to block other possible accounts?--Jojhutton (talk) 02:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• DNFTT? Protonk (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
• I have considerable doubt as to the veracity of the blocked editor's statement.  Cs32en Talk to me  02:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

He's lying. I confess to pretending to believe him for a little bit because I was bored and his lies made me laugh, which I realize is not entirely in the spirit of WP:RBI. I am sometimes terribly weak. But eventually he broke in the face of my terrifying interrogation and acknowledged that he was lying. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you be sure he isn't lying about having lied? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, given how confused he was about the name of his own school, he might also be confused about the assignment. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I hope you did not use any version of virtual waterboarding, given the absence of any official guideline on how to employ enhanced interrogation techniques on the project.  Cs32en Talk to me  02:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That's all in the past. No use looking back. Protonk (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Might be related to this. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Robert Benfer (Knox) - salted?

Tried to move this to Robert Benfer, while stub-sorting, but find that title is banned from creation. Could someone look into this? Thanks. PamD (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

There had previously been at least one article at Robert Benfer, which was deleted about 10 times at various incarnations because the subject didn't meet the WP:GNG. Its first deletion was so long ago it was actually a VFD not an AFD. Syrthiss (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any results in Google News, or anything besides imdb that isn't self-published. I don't think the subject is ready for an article, yet. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Pam, if you think this chap's notable, maybe create in userspace first? GiantSnowman 01:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no interest in him beyond trying to tidy up the article name while stub-sorting, but when I found that I couldn't move it to the base name title I thought I'd let you lot know! PamD (talk) 08:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Uncertainty about RfC/U certification

It would be helpful if a few uninvolved administrators could take a look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Lihaas#Uncertified RfC. Users there are in disagreement about whether or not the RfC/U has been properly certified, and some fresh eyes would be helpful. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me this should have been settled back when it was "certified" on January 28th, rather than still being argued over 2 weeks later after significant participation in the RFC. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The time to question the factual accuracy of the certifications is in the 48 hours after the RFC was posted. No one seems to have questioned them at that time, and the RFC proceeded. Multiple editors have commented in the two weeks since. It seems clear that, whether it should or should not have been certified, it is indeed a certified RFC and must proceed accordingly. I should further note that, given this dispute, the RFC is absolutely ineligible for speedy deletion. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with both of you. The reason that I brought it up here is that there seems to be an ongoing dispute about that CSD. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from creating non-existent rules Ultraexactzz. Certification has been disputed some two weeks after a RfC/U has been allegedly certified in the past and they have been deleted without an issue; the only time a certification issue can be waived is after it has passed the 30 day period and the RfC has been closed. That editors have commented here (and comment in other uncertified RfCs) is in case administrators dismally fail to enforce the rules like in this case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ultra for your cross post there. I hope that settles it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Just as a further comment: I know there are plenty of users who have both far more time for, and much more experience at, investigating problematic editors. I consider that the RFC was brought as part of a wikicampaign by User:O Fenian. I would just say to these editors if you investigate him you will see an awful lot of wrong doing. The current thing that worries me most is the counter on his talk page, which he has previously claimed he would be banned for were he to reveal its meaning. When one looks at his stated position on Irish Paramilitary activities this moves from suspect to sinister. Egg Centric 20:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If the RFC is inappropriate for some reason, seeking a consensus to delete at MFD is always an option. But speedy deletions are only for non-controversial actions that don't need to be discussed, which clearly this was not. --B (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You are right that there are many experienced editors (some with sysop flags) who recognise problematic editors - and editors whose opinions and stances are not in keeping with the general demographic also. There is a difference, centred around compliance with policies and guidelines. Can you provide examples of recent unactioned "wrong doing" by O Fenian, or where in policy that certain political or cultural allegiances are forbidden? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a pattern of behaviour but the short answer is: no, I can't. Others may be able to though. Ask User:The C of E... or indeed User:Lihaas - they may be able to help. Egg Centric 10:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• I will note on another point that the subject of this RfC/U, on 28 January 2011, did in fact ask for evidence from the certifier about what attempts they made to resolve the dispute. So this was never a matter of waiving the requirements either; it was a matter of administrators failing to do their job and other editors skipping right past the section. That more than 48 hours was granted does not mean that this editor cannot expect to be afforded the protections granted by the RfC/U rules - rules, which I might add, precisely exist to prevent such misuse. Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • If you believe deletion is the correct course of action, I can only suggest that you take it to MFD. Multiple admins (myself included) who don't know these people from Adam have declined to speedily delete it. I have a hard time imagining that changing (although I do have a very poor imagination). --B (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
    • And precisely how long does MFD take...oh yeah, that's right, practically the length of this RfC/U; that an RfC/U can be forced by administrators who happily hide behind red tape simply demonstrates how ridiculous this system has become and that the rules that have been used for years have now become unenforcible; WP:BURO should be deprecated because clearly it's false. Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I have looked at that segment again - I heard it was added by one user and not consensus, in which case it should be looked at as it is in a section marked 'policy'. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Tidal power

User 202.169.177.107 (talk · contribs) used an altered pseudonym for user Rehman here, with hints towards autism. -- Crowsnest (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

"Play the ball and not the man"? Nice irony. Karenjc 10:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

User 202.169.177.107 continues with personal attacks, see here. -- Crowsnest (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

IP is now cold. With some 16 hours since the last edit on it, blocking is likely pointless. Cheers. lifebaka++ 08:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Crowsnest (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this some kind of strange wording for "Don't hate the player, hate the game"? --King Öomie 14:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Page move / lockout at Mathematics in medieval Islam

Can anyone help me reverse a page truncation that seems to be locked out using a technique I am unfamiliar with? I also need help protecting this (and probably other) articles while I wend my way through the system to try to get a more permanent remedy. It's a long story.

This is an ongoing content dispute, festering since last April, wherein a large number of editors became upset (perhaps not without some cause) with user Jagged85's edits. They have an RFC/U, Jagged agrees, the original intention is Jagged will help them clean up the content. Jagged doesn't help, but retires instead, complaining (perhaps with some cause) to have been railroaded.

Fast forward to the fall, a group of the unhappy editors becomes frustrated trying to clean up Science in medieval Islam and truncates the article. And there it is to this day, sitting there truncated.

This week, some of these editors, perhaps notably user:William_M._Connolley (and alternate id user:WMC) and user:Ruud Koot decide to have a go at cleaning up Mathematics in medieval Islam, work on it for a few days, get frustrated, truncate the article and move the truncated content into a work area for "renovation".

Today, having seen 700 years of Islamic science discarded, unwilling to see Islamic mathematics meet the same fate, unable to reverse the actions taken on the mathematics article by these other editors (clumsy as I am), I am here to ask for a guardian to maintain the peace while this issue receives a fair hearing with the visibility and consideration it deserves.

To wit, I request (an injunction) the assistance of an administrator to restore Mathematics in medieval Islam to its state prior to this week, and RE-protect it pending a discussion on the merits of the larger issue; an issue involving many articles which I can no longer idly stand by and watch go down the drain. There may very well be other articles on Islamic science, culture and history facing a similar dilemma as we speak. They all need protection, as this issue has gotten to the point where it requires attention at the highest levels of deliberation available to content on our encyclopedia.

Thanks in advance for your attention,

Aquib (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

For some background reading see: Wikipedia:Jagged 85 cleanup. —Ruud 00:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

For the material from Mathematics in medieval Islam see here. For the Science in medieval Islam this is the edit, from User:SteveMcCluskey/SMI, but this comment is not so good. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, as far as I can see, what appears to be a well-developed mainspace article has been moved to a user subpage as a result of a content dispute. Am I reading the situation correctly or am I missing something? Manning (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That what appears to be a well developed article was in fact a huge pile of factual inaccuracies, misrepresentation of sources and POV pushing written by a single editor as documented in great detail at Wikipedia:Jagged 85 cleanup. —Ruud 00:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Well from my own general knowledge, I am aware of the tremendous significance of the Islamic contribution to mathematics. Having said that, if there has been systemic insertion of bias into the article then that needs to be removed. Do you have a timeline for restoration of the older article in mind? I do find the current gap between the two versions to be a bit unsettling. Manning (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Your feeling of unsettlement is based on the false assumption that the gap between the current and the "older article" contained a factual account of the Islamic contributions to mathematics instead of a fabricated story. An assumption that would have been hard to make after reading Wikipedia:Jagged 85 cleanup and its associated pages. —Ruud 02:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No, my unease it's based on the fact that the old article clearly contains at least some elements of truth (the Islamic contribution to mathematics during the 8th-13th century was clearly significant), and the new article is only a handful of lines. I've read the account at Wikipedia:Jagged 85 cleanup. It does not clearly prove that every entry ever made by this user is false, although it does demonstrate a clear pattern of bias, so I'm not challenging your actions overall. My question was: how long before you think that a reasonable version of the article will be restored?Manning (talk) 03:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Given that there has never been a satisfactory article on this subject, "restored" does not seem like the right word to use here. For a good article to be written, months to years would probably be a conservative estimate. —Ruud 10:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Without especially commenting on the current state of the article, I have to point out that this is one good reason to use inline citations. I've been in the same situation with badly written articles before, where I knew there was good material, and yet it wasn't easy to sieve it out because it wasn't clear what references were supporting what material. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This is in essence a content dispute. There are no procedural issues at present. The context is Wikipedia:Jagged 85 cleanup, and the article talk page. The is no obvious reason why admins need to be involved. having seen 700 years of Islamic science discarded is absurd hyperbole. Was has happened is that an article with many many very dubious unchecked claims has been stubbed out, because it seemed easier than weeding out the bad stuff. There is nothing strange about that.

Please see the discussion on the article talk page - the one being unreasonable here is Aquib, with his If anyone stubs another article in this effort, I am going straight to the arbitration committee William M. Connolley (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and locked out using a technique I am unfamiliar with is meaningless, of course William M. Connolley (talk) 08:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No comment about the content dispute, but the point about "locked out" is sort of valid: the material was not merely cut out from the article and copied over into the user space draft, but the whole article was moved there and replaced by a new stub with a new edit history in mainspace. Now, the move can't technically be reverted without admin tools, and the material can't be copied back in without breaking the attribution chain in the edit history. I would have preferred a "normal" stubbing back. Would you mind me merging the histories so the main page history is again where it belongs? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me William M. Connolley (talk) 09:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That would actually make it significantly more difficult to find the content of the old article as opposed to making it available on a subpage. —Ruud 10:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the old contents can still be copied into a subpage, but as I understand the subpage is going to be used mostly as a static archive, and the re-development of the article is going to take place in the mainspace version, the mainspace page is where the old history should be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not technically possible to copy an article, while retaining its revision history. Keeping the revision history together with the "static archive" seems more appropriate. —Ruud 10:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that can be solved by providing a clear link to the article state at the time of the stubbing on the talk page. FP has already copied the pre-stub to Talk:Mathematics in medieval Islam/Jagged 85 so the state is clearly visible William M. Connolley (talk) 11:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Future Perfect at Sunrise for your description of the technique used to truncate the article. My description of a "lock out" is accurate. I am not here to argue content, I am asking for an admin to help keep the peace while I get a fair hearing. As demonstrated by the end result on Science in Medieval Islam, and the technique used to truncate Mathematics in Medieval Islam, I am dealing with a group of editors whose approach leaves much to be desired.

Perhaps the other editors would be so kind as to furnish a list of articles they have applied these techniques to in the name of Jag cleanup.

Perhaps an admin would be prepared to enforce some order on this process while I get a hearing on the content. -Aquib (talk) 13:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Block evasion by an anon

User:SingingZombie was indef blocked a little over a year ago for making death threats on abortion related articles.([43]). 207.237.243.185 is a confirmed, admitted sock and made two unsuccessful unblock requests. The ip was blocked for evasion ([44]) but that block wore off and the ip has been editing the same articles again. Shouldn't the indef block also apply to the ip pending a sucessful unblock request? - Haymaker (talk) 11:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

We generally do not indef IPs, due to the fact that most are not static and we wish to avoid collateral damage. Cheers. lifebaka++ 12:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Person has been editing from same IP address for almost a year -- sounds like a static IP. You've got /16 range blocks running for 6 months at a time causing massive collateral damage in big metro areas--a long block potentially causing collaterial damage to a single IP seems pretty trivial compared to that. I'd give it at least a few months. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I already did. :) (What I had initially written: Full agreement there. That said, we do apply lengthier timed blocks when disruptive behavior continues, so I've blocked the currently stable IP for six months and explained yet again that he needs to appeal the block under his named account.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Wild inconsistency needing help

Resolved

 – This is being discussed off-wiki; Ticket:2011012110008608. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a serious (and arguably libelous) inaccuracy repeated in several articles where I have a COI. Notwithstanding the WP:COI guideline saying that the way I should handle this is to discuss on the talk page, when I tried to discuss the issue on a talk page, there was a huge fooforah from editors seeking to create a fuss over me to win editing disputes elsewhere on Wikipedia, and an administrator unilaterally stepped in and threatened to block me if I ever discussed the issue on-wiki. The administrator refused to get involved otherwise, and I was told that I should take the matter to OTRS. So I sent an email to OTRS, explicitly identifying the problem, noting that I'm not allowed to discuss the matter on-wiki, suggesting a fix, and providing a dozen sources backing up my position. It takes four weeks for someone to write back and say it's OTRS policy not to fix any such factual errors, and that I need to take it on-wiki. So now what do I do? I'm not blaming anyone; it's just a coordination problem. Happy to discuss this off-wiki, where I can be more specific: I don't want to run afoul of the block warning by discussing details. THF (talk) 11:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I am closing this thread because there is current and ongoing conversation between you and an OTRS representative. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Failure to acknowledge consensus and policy on Leo Prime\Lio Convoy

The Circle That Must Be Broken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Je suis partout (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
New York Sun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Questions Left Unanswered (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
200.175.3.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
A valid observation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Trash can of fortune (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:TriPredRavage and User:The Matrix Prime have decided to move the article Lio Convoy to the much less widely used name of Leo Prime. They have ignored consensus and policy, on the basis that the RM discussion in which the consensus was reached was started by a sockpuppet. They have misrepresented the results of discussions and sources to achieve their goals. This should not be tolerated any further, which is why I am filing this complaint. Questions Left Unanswered (talk) 12:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This is your third edit, and you're obviously not a newbie. What other accounts have you edited under previously? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I feel no obligation to sacrifice my privacy for the sake of your curiosity. Questions Left Unanswered (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It's OK, I think I've figured it out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be one of 4 editors who appeared solely to "vote " on this issue. In addition to the 3 added above there is an IP at User:200.175.3.99. Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

A friend of mine told me off-site of this dispute, and I chose to participate, especially since I had already started an account some time earlier. It's none of my business if he told others. Questions Left Unanswered (talk) 12:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the old "a friend did it" tale. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Fuck you. If you don't want to believe go ahead, just don't act all-knowing. Questions Left Unanswered (talk) 12:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It sucks to get caught red-handed, doesn't it? :) Regarding the "F.U." part... no, thanks, I gave at the office. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The "I am everywhere" and "New York Sun" accounts were created within a minute of each other, an hour ago. However, QLU is a "sleeper" created in mid-January. If someone wants to run an SPI, they might want to look for other "sleepers". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The following accounts are  Confirmed as being the same editor

• Je suis partout (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• New York Sun (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Questions Left Unanswered (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 200.175.3.99 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks ) - it's an open proxy / misconfigured server

I've no idea if any of these are The Circle That Must Be Broken (talk · contribs) though, from the technical evidence alone - Alison ^❤ 13:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if we should have a filter in place that automatically blocks accounts with 'truth' or 'facts' or 'questions' in the username. ;) Syrthiss (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Or "valid". Note the new one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

a valid observation is now blocked. Syrthiss (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I see the IP has been given a lengthy block. Could you also block the 3 other socks connected with it as noted above? Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Profanity and homophobia

Sighs another day, another IP and another overzealous editor. This time its over at Talk:Raining Men (song), with 91.154.107.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) using profanity. In particular he/she has directed homophobic slurs at myself (even though I've not professed to being homosexual), not that I have an prejudices against anyone, and more importantly has made offensive comments such as "now i know your a ho-m-o.. thats explains it all.. your so fu*kin stupid" which imply that there is a correlation between homosexuality and intelligence. I would like to see such comments removed from the page. Additionally I think its evident that the IP is unable to respond to concerns about his/her view might be considered incorrect and fails to respect the nature of discussions. There could be a link to sock master User:Iluvrihanna24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has previously clashed with all involved editors multiple times before being banned and marked as a sockmaster. also could be linked to Arky91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who harrassed my talkpage not long ago. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Homophobia and disrespect towards others should not be tolerated IMO — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 06:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I recommend that you delete the IP's dumb-headed comments, and also your own comment so it won't be left orphaned, on the grounds of "not feeding the troll". They're not likely to block the IP since he's only made the two entries. But you could start an SPI, if this becomes an epidemic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• It is my experience that there is a correlation between homosexuality and intelligence; everyone I know who fears or hates it and its expression are morons. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Putting it slightly more charitably, I suspect that loud opponents of anything that has to do with "gay rights" (or any kind of "abnormal" sexual behavior) are either not sufficiently in touch with their own sexuality, or else believe that what's "right" for them is how it has to be for everyone else. Even at that, it's amazing the social progress that has been made in the last 50 years in America. Not just gay people, but the subject itself was "in the closet" when I was young. The AIDS epidemic, and Surgeon General Everett Koop's courageous insistence on dealing with it instead of hiding from it, brought the issue out of the closet for good. However, there are still a sufficient number of morons out there, on any number of subjects. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Bugs, ANI is not a soapbox. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I think most anyone who was around in 1970 would be amazed that, for example, "same sex marriage" would be approaching a level of acceptibility a mere 40 years hence. However, just as there are still racists around, there are also still sexists around. P.S. If you want to also lecture the admin LHvU for calling them "morons", feel free. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a troll, plain and simple. I removed the trolling and warned the anon. With hope they've already moved on and no more action is necessary. If not, well, that's what blocks of increasing duration are for.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Guys, while I don't disagree, you're getting very close to attacking people for their religious beliefs. Just because I agree with you doesn't make it okay. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It would be quite a stretch to consider this diff[45] to be an expression of "religious belief". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"everyone I know who fears or hates it and its expression are morons" -LHvU. Now I think homophobia is entirely unjustifiable, but between Islam, Catholicism, and Protestantism, there's about 2 billion people who at least nominally believe it to be sinful, a good chunk of whom probably do hold the beliefs described. I'm not saying LHvU is wrong, but he's treading a dangerous line and sacrificing the moral high ground. Let's stick to the matter at hand. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't rule out the satirical element. And by the way, I know plenty of folks who were raised Christian (myself included) who are a lot more tolerant about these things than our religion theoretically dictates. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't include all Protestants - the Church of Sweden, for instance, doesn't even nominally believe that homosexuality is a sin. (Some of its members believe it is, of course, but the CoS teaches that it isn't.) Anyway, to bring this back on-topic, it would never have occured to me that LHvU's comment could have been interpreted as an attack on religious beliefs. Fear and hate of gay people isn't limited to religious people, and even those people who do believe homosexuality is a sin don't necessarily fear or hate it. Some do, vigorously - I don't know any such people personally though I wouldn't be surprised if I were to agree with LHvU about their intelligence if I did know them - but I'd guess an "oh I wish they wouldn't cos it's a sin, but it's nothing to do with me really" kind of attitude is much more common. --bonadea contributions talk 08:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

What Bonadea said; some religious inclined people seek understanding and compassion - even when not agreeing with the practice - when interacting with gay people and some atheist/agnostics are hostile toward same. My prejudices are in regard on how people respond to the issue, and not how they derive their misconceptions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

A good example of tolerance is what Steve Martin said in his, "What I Believe" bit: "I believe in equality. Equality for everyone. No matter how stupid they are, or how much better I am than they are." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

People, this is not a soapbox for general discussion. This is ANI. Take it elsewhere. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Should such comments not have been removed from the edit history too? I believe its called RD2ing? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That would be the correct criterion for redaction, but I am not sure that this is sufficiently grossly offensive that revdel will be better than revert, block, ignore. "Not sufficiently grossly offensive" is a pretty low standard, so I would not complain were someone else to delete it. That is block-on-sight material, but there has been no activity from that IP for nearly two days now. A cursory scan does not present any suggestions for a potential range block, one of the above accounts is perma-blocked, and I do not see any contributions from the other (oversighted or typo?). If there is a regular pattern of harassment or of "new" accounts making similar statements, it may be worth asking for a sock puppet check. If you are being harassed at your user page, you can ask me or WP:RFPP to semi-protect the page temporarily; if you take this option, I would ask that you set up and monitor a parallel unprotected page so that non-autoconfirmed editors may contact you. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The troll's comments are unintentionally funny, being rife with both obscenities and horrendously bad spelling. And who censors the "F-word" by spelling it "fu*k"? Removing it might actually make the IP look "better" somehow. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Repeated religious attacks by WikiManOne

WikiManOne (talk · contribs) has repeatedly brought up others' religion during content disputes.

• Here, he brings up an editor's Catholicism.
• Here, he agrees with another editor who questions the credibility of an editor who has a Christian userbox on his page.
• Here, he questions my credibility (without naming me) and basically says any Christian should not be allowed to edit articles on controversial moral/religious subjects. He is rightfully called out for it.
• Here, he makes a completely uncalled, false, and irrelevant attack on Catholicism in a dispute over sources.
• Here, he is warned on his talk page but shows no remorse and denies everything.

I think I got them all.

There's a fine line between getting heated in a content dispute and making highly offensive and unwarranted personal attacks on someone's religion. This editor is the most uncivil and belligerent I have ever seen on here. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This thread is going to do nothing whatsoever to cool the dispute and ease tensions. --B (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

NYyankees51 is hardly beyond reproach. DeCausa (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This of course coming from the editor who claimed that I was pro-human death because of my pro-choice stance. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply}

Yes, I admit without hesitation that I am guilty of making personal attacks. But I have never seen an editor go as far as to attack someone else's religion and question their credibility as an editor based on their religious beliefs. I am fully willing to be punished for what I said to WikiManOne. But I can't stand watching this sort of unabashed bigotry go unpunished. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Your perspective speaks of your own prejudices and bigotry. To you, a religious belief is sacrosanct, whereas any other belief isn't and can be denigrated. I think that's repugnant. DeCausa (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I can say that, in general terms, "Pro-Choice" is in fact an "anti-life" stance. But to accuse a specific user of literally being "anti-life" or "pro-death" is rather over the top. Meanwhile, implying that conservatives on this point shouldn't be allowed to edit, is also over the top. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say that if you look carefully. What I said was that any admin that closes the discussion on the move in question should not have any obvious positions on the move, I clarified that being Christian doesn't disqualify one in my mind from being uninvolved by citing Episcopalians. As for the NCRegister, I still do not consider it a reliable source because it is run by a Church. My general statements about Catholics there were not directed at any editor and furthermore what I said about abuse and disrespecting women, I'm sure I could find you reliable sources for, they've been widely criticized for those things. I'm not going to answer every accusation thrown on these threads (as I've learned that replies seem to only fuel the flame on ANI) so if an uninvolved/neutral admin has questions, I can be reached here

Bugs, that first comment was gratuitous and isn't going to do anything to cleanly and easily rectify this situation. I'd appreciate it if you'd strike it out. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. My conservative friends have pointed out to me on various occasions, the "anti-life" aspect of "pro-choice". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

And it does no good whatsoever to bring that sentiment here. Wikipedia is not a political discussion board. --B (talk) 02:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You must have missed the recent dispute over whether to rename "Pro-Life" as "Anti-Abortion". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Still not relevant here. Calling pro-life "anti-life" or "pro-death" is a smear tactic, and flatly untrue. Your conservative friends have fed you a common POV talking point, that's all. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not so. There is a valid, logical basis for those terms, which I can explain for you if you would like. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to expound on my talk page. Though I'm fairly certain I've heard the argument before, in a few variations. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

[46] --B (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Why did you post a link to a comment that you made earlier in this section? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It was to say "This thread is going to do nothing whatsoever to cool the dispute and ease tensions" in reference to your comment about anti-life. Of course, it loses something when other users jump in front of it and modify the comment order. --B (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it might have been clearer to just restate the original statement. Here we have users at opposite poles that are at war with each other and accusing each other of bad faith and bias, and they might both be right. Good luck to the admins trying to figure this one out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm <-- Basically sums all of the discussions that have occurred over the last few weeks.

If you can tell what real life POV someone has, they are (probably) editing wrong. If people can tell that about you, then you're (probably) editing wrong. There are 3,558,998 other articles on the Wiki, and editing completely random ones is often far more fun. NW (Talk) 03:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The lot of them should be banned from AN/I.Griswaldo (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Their user pages pretty well summarize their personal stances, and the unfortunate consequence, rightly or wrongly, is that it tends to raise suspicions about their edits. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I still find it amusing that I somehow said "any Christian should not be allowed to edit articles on controversial moral/religious subjects." I find that very amusing considering that I am myself a Christian as my userpage says. :) _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 05:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The citation claiming that you say, "any Christian should not edit",[47] actually says that Christians who are part of the "Right to Life movement" are problematic; not all Christians. I don't see how any Christian could support abortion-as-contraception. Regardless of that, Yankee mischaracterized what you said in that one diff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, please stop making every discussion a soapbox for your own political views. Talk:Pro-life was a bad place for it, and AN/I is worse. The issue at hand is WM1's comments and whether they were out of line. Unless you're arguing that being a Christian is indicative of bias on abortion-related articles, in which case you're implicated in this fiasco too, the comment you made is not a productive one. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

My political views are not as straightforward as you seem to think they are. Anyway, NYyankees51 significantly mischaracterized one of Wikiman's statements. Whether that was deliberate or a misreading, I couldn't say, but it does tend to undermine his argument. Yankees also makes it clear on his user page that he's conservative and a Roman Catholic. So raising questions about his neutrality seems fair. It's perfectly clear that Wikiman is politically opposite on that issue and in my opinion he's not neutral either. But while Wikiman's comments may be a bit pointed, they are not inherently unfair, as I see it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think if you look at my history, you will find that I don't let my personal views interfere with my editing. Besides, this is not about me or the abortion issue. This is about Wikiman repeatedly bringing others' religion into a content dispute. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You need to do something about your mischaracterization about this quote[48], where in your initial post here you said, "... basically says any Christian should not be allowed to edit articles on controversial moral/religious subjects." That is plainly not the case. His issue is with churches that are actively involved with the right-to-life stance, which the Roman Catholic obviously is; and he names some other denominations that he considers to be more liberal on abortion rights. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare is totally correct, it can be so much more fun and rewarding editing topics you are not emotionally involved in - try this - if your emotionally involved in an issue then stay away from editing it. This issue pro life and abortion is clearly a train crash in the making and it is going to end in tears, or at least, blocks and bans and editing restrictions. Off2riorob (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, hence why I don't edit any articles (other than the occasional simple tidy up) concerned with my political/religious/lifestyle beliefs/choices. GiantSnowman 17:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at WikiManOne's diff comments above personally I don't see anything presently actionable but he should be careful not to create a WP:BATTLEFIELD and does need to be aware as everyone else does there that the topic is emotive and all users discussing should attempt to be as respectful Wikipedia:RESPECT to the other position as possible. Off2riorob (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, that being said, WikiManOne should focus on one's edit history, not user boxes when determining if a person can remain objective on a subject. Sharing where you stand does not mean that one can't be objective and can actually be helpful as it lets others know whether or not you are knowledgable on specific subjects.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPA clearly states: "What is considered to be a personal attack? ... Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be 'you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?'" NYyankees51 (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to defend wikiman, as I said above, a person should be judged upon what he does/how he edits, not on his self-identification. I'd much rather deal with a rational thoughtful athiest/christian/hindu/Manchester United fan that has identified themselves as such via a user box, than deal with an irrational user who hasn't self-identified where they stand. Despite what some believe, a user box does not equate to lack of objectivity/integrity or the lack of the ability to measure consensus. Some people get too sensitive around the issue of NPA. We need thicker skins around here. That being said, if the rationale to discredit other points of view continues, then there are other grounds upon which the community could act. But 4 edits? He's not there yet.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

One edit is enough. At least, it seems fair to say one edit would be enough had he been doing this Muslims or Buddhists or Jews or whatever. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Should be noted that WikiManOne has been blocked for 48 hours for edit warring unrelated to this discussion, discussion below.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

User Innab repeatedly restoring information without discussion

Innab (talk · contribs) has repeatedly restored a large amount of information to Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder that was moved to and included in its entirety on a subpage Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder management: [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54]. He has done this despite repeated requests by several editors for him to discuss on the talk page: User talk:Innab#Please see the talk page and discuss, User talk:Innab#Edit warring on ADHD, User talk:Innab#ADHD. The talk page discussion is at Talk:Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder#Moved content to subpage. Although Innab has not violated 3RR, I believe it should be considered edit warring because of repeated reverts and his absolute refusal to discuss. My personal opinion is that blocking him is the only thing that might put a stop to this. But if not, I hope at least that an administrator should discuss with him: (1) The information is already on a subpage, with a link to it on the main page; and (2) repeatedly reverting while refusing to discuss is entirely inappropriate. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I notified Innab about this discussion: User talk:Innab#ANI. Cresix (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan, who is an admin, has commented on Innab's talkpage. If the editor repeats their edit without discussion or against consensus then I suggest letting SarekOfVulcan know, or me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Innab still hasn't edited since my last comment. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Troh César Hougnonhouon

This AfD was opened on 3 January by Zanoni (talk · contribs) but nothing in the article history to show that it was ever tagged, and I doubt it was ever listed at AfD. Can an admin please rectify/close? Thanks and regards, GiantSnowman 17:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I've think I've managed to list it correctly now, can somebody double check though please? Thanks, GiantSnowman 18:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ban proposal Access Denied

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

It's been past 48 hours. Closing as Access Denied is now banned by the community. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 16:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Access Denied (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created many socks and doesn't really seem to have any intention of stopping. I proposing a full site ban for Access Denied. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 03:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support As nom. Inka⁸⁸⁸
• The user has been blocked since December. I doubt anyone is going to unblock him. --B (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• We've blocked so many AD socks that we've actually stopped marking them. I can't believe it actually needs to be stated, but yes, I support a ban. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support He had not been banned? Why wait. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 03:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment when was the most recent sock blocked? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• • Support per Heironymous Rowe, Depressing I was shocked when he was blocked for Socking and I sent him an email encouraging him to help at another WMF project to get the block reconsidered. I remember him quite fondly and I hope one day he is another Jack Merridew and come back and get back to content creation. That day is not now in the mean time but it seem he has left us no choice.The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support-didn't his latest sock pop up on ANI last night to taunt and get blocked[55]? I alrready assumed he was banned, but if not the situation should be remedied.Heiro 03:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• DFTT Kthx. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Btw, ban proposals usually go to AN, not AN/I. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment He's not the one who's been disrupting ANI? And is this the proper venue for this proposal?--Jojhutton (talk) 03:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Serial sockpuppeteer ,wasting the time of other users, admins, CheckUsers. Hobartimus (talk) 07:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Fetchcomms's point is well-taken, and last time around I didn't see the point of a ban, but if he's still at it and a ban makes people less nervous about reverting his silly trolling, then sure. 28bytes (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Gloomy sad regretful upsetting...support Been hunting him down for more than a month, he's [like] a 4chan troll now. --Perseus8235 18:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

  See also: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Access Denied. --Perseus8235 18:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Can you put some AD socks on my talk page (ones that aren't tagged yet)? --Perseus8235 18:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Ban or not, all this sock-tagging is pretty pointless, IMO. He's not some wily supervillain who needs a team of forensic analysts on the case 24/7, he's just a bored former editor who occasionally drops by to troll. RBI is really the best thing to do here, ban or not. 28bytes (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Support - AD has failed to behave in a collegiate manner and has used many sockpuppets. We've blocked so many of them (even though I am not an administrator). As far as I know, trolling and sockpuppetry are not tolerated, and therefore, they must be put in their place. He has crossed the line several times while he is blocked. So, enough is enough. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support It's disappointing to know this guy once was a constructive editor... what a shame. Diego Grez (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

  WTH User:Kathryn NicDhàna/Admin Toolbox User:Pigman/Admin toolbox and ANI are in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Access Denied? --Perseus8235 18:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

  Perseus8235 what are you saying in above statement The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

  Perseus had accidentally tagged this page as a sockpuppet of AD. Since fixed. 28bytes (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support: It is a shame, but AD was, when he was here, a good editor. Why he took this path, I am not sure, but it is disappointing to say the least. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Very sad support. It doesn't appear to be stopping and it's gone on long enough. It is with much sadness that I !vote this way, but still. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support through my tears. Access Denied was brilliant with the code and knew his way around the wiki like no one else. He helped me calculate range blocks. I have no idea why he turned to the Dark Side either. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Endorse ban - I've been waffling on this one for a bit. I was originally going to oppose because obvious vandalism (like what Access has done) already falls under the list of exceptions to 3RR; site-banning another editor makes their contributions eligible for reversion on sight. He's effectively de facto banned already (to be perfectly blunt, no admin who isn't on crack will unblock him), but there is disruption which cannot be accurately categorized as exempted from 3RR (such as trolling, personal attacks, outing, and MoS violations); this renders a formal de jure community ban necessary. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 20:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I am Access Denied and I hate to ware a perfectly good ip to say this. I would like to return to new page patrol (I have only created one sock inthe last few weeks the Mexico ups were not me). My account is global locked which is only thing stopping me requesting unblOck to work on new page patrol again. Thanks for reading this 74.117.233.130 (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Have a new acct could we try WP:ROPE? Access Denied2 (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Per above. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 22:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. This is really ridiculous at this point. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Anyone who socks this much is up to no good. --Rschen7754 00:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Enough is enough. If he's going to continue evading his block as he evidently did today, then we really have no other choice. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. About time. It's funny how when I made a ban proposal, it was shut down as DNFTT. As if waiting a few weeks has made any difference. DNFTT is the most misunderstood guideline on Wikipedia and, therefore, utterly worthless. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Yay! If we must, but really? Mono (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That is a bit uncivil. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 17:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

How? Mono (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I really don't think that it should go as far as a ban yet. It appears to me that most of the accounts were created on or before January 11th. Only one was created after that date. All of the IP's are assumed to be him on very limited evidence. I do support the block though, but I believe that AD could come back and be a constructive editor. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 17:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support This user has changed since he abused that account when he retired. Don't know why he kept going by making sockpuppet accounts and he even ran for adminship at one point. WayneSlam 21:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Access Denied unblock appeal

Resolved

 – Access Denied was community banned and there is no chance of him being unblocked at the moment Inka⁸⁸⁸ 05:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Acct global locked so cannot request from there. Would likeunblock to be able to go back to NPP work thank you Access Denied2 (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The above user is either a sock or is pretending to be, and I've reported it to WP:AIV. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • What is or was preventing AD from logging in from his main account and posting a proper unblock request to his talk page? I don't see "cannot edit own talk page" in the block log. 28bytes (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

    It's globally locked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

He's welcome to email Arbcom arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org (that's a lower case L, not a 1) with a sensible proposal for a return to productive editing. He doesn't need access to Wikipedia email to do it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe an standard offer set six months from the last sock. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 23:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not if they are banned... →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 23:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

He's not banned yet. I support a ban. I was saying if we choose not to ban him that is a possible road to take. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 23:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The standard offer still applies to banned users; though given the large number of socks (43 confirmed in addition to another 7 suspected), I doubt that the community would be willing to let him back in after just six months. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 23:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

For the record, a ban is going to happen. There is unanimous support for the ban and AD's posts to the section just added more. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, that's what I meant. It would probably take a lot longer than 6 months to get the community's trust back. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, [56]. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Though as a general rule, ban discussions need to run for 24-48 hours before closing, perhaps we could invoke IAR on this one and close it early? HalfShadow's tagging is correct; Access was effectively banned already – this discussion is a mere formality, albeit a necessary one. In any event, it's becoming a blizzard out here. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 00:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• AD, if you're reading this, the community is obviously not willing to let you back at the minute. That doesn't necessarily mean they never will (you can see why folks might be just a little bit pissed off), but you need to totally disengage, at least from this project for at least 6 months (under any account or IP) and let people start to forget how much disruption you caused and how much unnecessary work was created in cleaning up after you. If there's a WMF project on which you're not blocked, making yourself useful there wouldn't hurt your case. Wikipedia will still be here in 6 months or however long it takes for you to regain the community's trust, but for every sock you create, the slimmer your chances of ever being allowed back become. Nothing that is done on Wikipedia cannot be undone and no user who is blocked/banned cannot be unbanned, but it's not going to happen overnight. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

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

BLP violations? Anonymous sources in report of sexual assault.

I don't believe any of this material is appropriate: [57]. There is a "discussion" in Talk. Go ahead and block me for saying "fucking" if you like. Mindbunny (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that the source is appropriate. If a reliable source chooses to trust an anonymous source, or a source that chooses to remain anonymous to the public, then we can take this as an indication that the information is reliable. Circumstances should be taken into account; for example, if a particular article appears to push a particular interpretation of an event, then we would probably treat the information more cautiously.  Cs32en Talk to me  02:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, I disagree. It might be otherwise if our normally "reliable source" qualified their report by saying "according to ...", but in this case, I don't see that happening. Journalism can be largely self-referential, and occasionally irresponsible, but reliance upon a tertiary source as far as we are concerned should be unacceptable unless we are discussing journalistic responses from a third-party POV, which I don't see happening here. In particular, WP:BLP requires scrupulous and ultimately reliable sourcing, and as far as I'm concerned, this second-hand, unqualified, reporting, just doesn't cut it. We shouldn't just treat it cautiously; we should remove it, with extreme prejudice. Rodhullandemu 02:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

In a BLP, on a subject like a sexual assault? (And since when is the New York Post reliable?) The idea that an encyclopedia may rely on anonymous sources in discussing someone's sexual assault is pathetic. Mindbunny (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Whose BLP is being violated? Certainly not hers. Who is it then? Her captors? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) WP:RS and WP:V don't talk about where secondary sources get THEIR information from. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's USAToday's current report:[58] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

We should not be propagating sections of the press's weak titillating claims like we are a online volunteer Reuters- notnews is clear about this imo - Its not however a topic that requires administrative intervention or .. forum shopping at multi locations as is happening,. Off2riorob (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Unless they're trying to claim that she "asked to be attacked", I don't see how this qualifies as a BLP violation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

While there may well be situations where repetition of anonymously sourced statements would be inappropriate, this doesn't look like one of them. The statements were published by major, reliable media and are not particularly intrusive. Even the Post statements build on Logan's own reliably reported comments that she'd reviously been accused of being an Israeli agent. I think the rather rancid "personal life" section is far more deserving of closer scrutiny. Why does an encyclopedia need multiple links to galleries of "swimsuit photos" of her, which I greatly doubt carry RS-verifiable identifications? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That part would seem to be irrelevant and POV-pushing... because it implies that "she asked for it". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

First, I don't know why people keep referring to reliable sources. The sourcing in the questionable material is : 1) anonymous + New York Post (mob screamed "Jew"), 2) anonymous + New York Post (Logan was afraid of Egyptian hospitals & police), and 3) anonymous + Wall Street Journal (she wasn't raped). That's 1/6 on the reliability checklist. The violations of BLP, in my opinion, are just describing any aspect of a person's sexual assault when you don't really know what's true. Saying she was or was not raped based on an anonymous source, and saying she was afraid or not afraid of hospitals/police are direct comments about her. The incident happened 48 hours ago. WTF. Give it a rest. The accusations of anti-Semtism are part of the sexual assault and the sourcing is a tabloid. A BLP has a high standard, and a matter of a person's sexual assault should carry a doubly high standard. Leave out what isn't known. Mindbunny (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I would surmise that the Wall Street Journal knows about the identity of its source, but chose not to make the identity public.  Cs32en Talk to me  03:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree. This information is sourced quite adequately, and these details are all over the news, including Logan's employer, CBS News. Cresix (talk) 03:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? CBS news didn't say she wasn't raped. Nor did it say anything about the mob screaming "Jew". Nor did it say anything about her reporting or non-reporting to Egyptian police/hospitals. Neither CBS, nor Logan, nor Logan's family are the sources for any of this. Wikipedia is essentially repeating anonymous comments about whether somebody was raped, when the victim has not chosen to make that information public. Mindbunny (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That User:Cresix should post his cites or stop posting uncited claims - I can't find anything from CBS reporting that, has he got a link for his claim? Off2riorob (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Why should we assume that the text published by CBS is the only information about this event that is available to reliable sources?  Cs32en Talk to me  04:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Assuming is actually what we are trying to avoid. CBS are the people closest to the source, she works for their media outlet, they would be a very strong source for any controversial claims... large sections of the press are also not reporting it either. the BBC and the Guardian neither are reporting a mob chanting jew jew jew as they sexually attacked her. It just seems to be coming from that new york post report with an unnamed source, as we don't have to sell anything, lets wait a day or two and get the clarified story.Off2riorob (talk) 05:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, you are obviously assuming (!) that CBS is the only possible source for any information about the event. Given that there were numerous journalists on Tahrir Square at the time the incident happened, this assumption appears to be implausible. Furthermore, the information is not anonymous. The New York Post does not say: "An anonymous caller to our news desk said", but refers to "a person familiar with the matter".  Cs32en Talk to me  05:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That user Cresix hadn't got any reliable citations, when I asked him he said he saw it on telly, its easy on noticebords to make keep I saw it on telly claims but we need to weed out such worthless supports. 05:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Mindbender, forum shopping is considered disruptive. You've raised this issue on at least two different pages now that I know of. First, BLP Notice Board and now here.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we should have anything about her being sexually assaulted unless she comes out to ask for it to be reported. It can't help with the healing process to have sordid things like that all over the internet. This has nothing to do with whether there are WP:RS available. Egg Centric 09:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I know you are "new" here, but that is an editorial decision that goes far beyond our usual bounds. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, our role isn't to assist in the healing process, but rather to record notable events/story lines. CBS made this into a national story when they shared that she was attacked. There are plenty of RS reporting the attack; we may think something is crass, but for better or for worse, this has raised Lara's profile. Unless she leaves the industry, she will be known as the reporter who was assaulted in Egypt. For us to leave it out would be POV. Now that being said, we don't need to put undue weight on the coverage. I think the "not rape" comment should definitely be in there, I mean when the story first broke that is what everybody assumed "sexually assaulted" meant. But the stuff about chanting Jew Jew and the ethnicity of her attackers down to their blood lines----not needed.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not new here, I'm new to using an account and faffing around with bureuacracy. However it has since come to my attention that she signed off on the CBS story so is obviously comfortable with it being out, so I don't have a complaint any more. Is it really unusual though? Would you (not you, Wikipedia :D) name a rape victim if they were a celebrity? I'm no knee jerk feminist but that seems wrong to me. Egg Centric 15:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I doubt anyone will suspect you of being a feminist (knee-jerk or otherwise) if you espouse an attitude which some might see as containing an implicit assumption that someone who has been sexually assaulted should be ashamed of it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Whether we, or for that matter, anyone else thinks that this should be the case, the reality in many cases is that it is the case that victims of sexual assaults feel ashamed of it. Our BLP policy should reflect this reality (and I actually think that the policy largely does so). I wouldn't support the inclusion of information about the incident if it would not (a) have happened during her time on the job (b) be reported by multiple (about all mainstream) reliable sources in the United States.  Cs32en Talk to me  17:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Doubt anyone would be stupid enough to see it that way! I think people are far more likely to see it as per Cs32en Egg Centric 19:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The kitten is out of the bag. But yes, if a rape victim is notable/famous, then yet it would be included. We have numerous articles that include mention of the rape/sexual abuse. Just to name a few: Gabrielle Union, Teri Hatcher, Connie Francis, Fran Drescher, and Kelly McGillis. I am surprised that CBS released her name, but it was released as news in part because of who the victim was. If it was a member of her staff, then it wouldn't have been news. But we are dealing with a known personality.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The current version of that part of the article seems ok to me. The incident was widely reported by news media, though the WSJ is the only one I've seen that specifically used the R-word regarding what did or didn't happen. Maybe that's the anonymous sourcing Mindbunny is objecting to, that is still in the article. The "Jew" stuff and the part about being afraid of Egyptian hospitals is gone now, and those parts seemed more concern, with the hospital part making no sense at all. Yes IMO we do have to apply a bit more skepticism with such sourcing (the NYT acknowledges anonymous sourcing decreases credibility[59] and the WSJ also took some heat[60]) but I think that particular statement is not very contentious and is mentioned just briefly in the article, so it seems ok to me despite minor misgivings. The other info in the WP article is consistent with what I've seen in general news coverage, though I haven't followed the story in detail. Off2riorob's remark about our not being an online volunteer Reuters is well-put. Breaking news reports very often don't and can't have the reliability we aspire to as an encyclopedia. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This plainly needs an admin in some way. ThinkEnemies is plainly edit warring. Technically, I am probably edit warring too, but I feel there is specific policy that applies regarding BLP. But, interpreting policy is always a bit subjective. I don't know what to do. In any case, the article is seeing edit warring, and material involving anti-Semitism and sexual assault is being added to the article based on a tabloid (and an anonymous source). Mindbunny (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The citations are clearly well sourced and omitting them at this point is arbitrary censorship. V7-sport (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

User talk:GutiLucian02

Time to withdraw Talk page edit privilege from this guy? (I haven't notified him this time - there's clearly no point) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Replace page with Template:indefblock, remove talkpage editing privileges (my vote anyway). --King Öomie 15:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorted now, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

If he does anything like that [61] again I think it's time to revoke and move on. Doesn't seem to want to contribute anything of value. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Good call. So much for second chances. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Resolved

User:N Wilson01 and its sockpuppets User:ChicagoHistory1 and User:Chicago Public Schools299 are adding unfree images to various Chicago area schools. He has been warned several times but he continues to upload. An admin should look into this. Thanks—Chris!_c/t 01:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Add User:Love For Chicago to the mix. Zagalejo^^^ 02:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, first off, we cannot have multiple accounts; the following are  Confirmed as the same person:

• N Wilson01 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ChicagoHistory1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Chicago Public Schools299 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Love For Chicago (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 67.173.132.111 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

I will note that the IP is not from Chicago Public Schools or any other official entity. –MuZemike 03:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked the three Chicago-themed accounts indefinitely and tagged them as socks. Blocked N Wilson01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for copyright violations and sockpuppetry for 24 hours. So far as I am concerned this can be upped to indefinitely on the next copyvio. The IP has not edited for two days, so I left it alone; if it is still registered to the same user, it will be caught in the autoblock. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

AIV Backlog

There is a backlog at WP:AIV. If an admin or two could take a look, it would be appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

user:97.90.124.232

Per WP:NSONGS, I proposed a merger of several singles by Ellie Goulding into either the article on her or her album. user:97.90.124.232 disagrees, which is fine, and removed the proposed merge templates, which is not. I replaced the merge templates and warned user:97.90.124.232 not to remove them pending consensus, but s/he retaliated by blanking my user page and has started to remove them again. I don't want to have an edit war so I have not reverted their removal of the template a second time; what's the way forward? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW }

• Incidentally, from a brief glance at user:97.90.124.232's contributions, this seems to be a WP:SPA.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

AnomieBot is Requesting Assistance

Resolved

Please see here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, I believe. The request had a suggestion that appears to have been the case. Go, AnomieBot, go! - 2/0 (cont.) 05:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Gotta love bots who tell you there is a problem. Anomie needs to fork over that code to other bot makers so they can add to their bots. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit by 188.192.109.47

At Talk:Prisoner functionary#Suggested merge there is a discussion of a proposed article merge with Kapo (concentration camp). In opposing the merge, user 188.192.109.47 says here "I suspect that this is an attempt at 'soft' Holocaust denial, by blurring and obfuscating the historical record specific to the Holocaust." As a supporter of the merge and a participant in what until then had been a slow-moving and cordial discussion, I found the suggestion insulting, both to me and to the community, and said so.

I request that the IP be warned against making casual and ill-founded accusations, and that their post and my reply both be expunged from the record. --CliffC (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

First, you must notify any user who you discuss here, which I've taken care of for you. Second, while the edit in question is possibly in poor taste, it does not appear to me to rise the level of anything sufficient enough to take administrator action. "Casual and ill-founded accusations," as you refer to the edit, happen all the time around here; they don't normally lead to expungement. Your reply directly after that diff made your opinion known; I would say "enough said" at this point.  Frank  |  talk  02:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The edit doesn't appear to rise to the level of an attack. Editors must be able to express themselves in lively debate, even if some of the rhetoric may seem offensive to some.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Frank, I had an edit conflict with you making my own notification, as I had a problem formatting mine to include the thread ID. It's one thing to be accused by an IP of being an asshole, another to be called a Holocaust denier. I don't see where any "lively debate" is warranted. I'd like to have both posts permanently off the record. Thank you. --CliffC (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing in WP:CFRD to support this; indeed, "ordinary" personal attacks are specifically excluded. Since you weren't the proposer, I have an even more difficult time making the leap that it was a personal attack anyway. I suggest you let the discussion play out.  Frank  |  talk  09:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

E-Mail User Links not Working

Resolved

 – Version 1.17 bug has been fixed. No admin assistance needed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

When I click to email someone via Popups, I get the message: "You have not specified a target page or user on which to perform this function." When I go to the Special page, I get: "You have requested a special page that is not recognized by Wikipedia. A list of all recognized special pages may be found at Special:Specialpages." Both times, it gives me a link to the Main Page to click. Is this related to the 1.17 update? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The email this user link on usertalk works, though (confirmed by emailing my alt). - 2/0 (cont.) 08:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like Popups is just failing to pass the user parameter. I assume it used to work? I have it enabled, but very rarely email people. Anyway, you might get a better response at Wikipedia talk:Tools/Navigation popups or WP:VPT (or whichever Village Pump deals with gadgets). - 2/0 (cont.) 08:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie....posting to those pages. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I think they must have changed the format recently; popups passes a parameter, but it now uses the URL itself (i.e. Special:EmailUser/USERNAME) It should be a fairly simple fix, and I think I see how it could be done - but no way am I confident in my Javascript foo to be confident on that :s --Errant ^(chat!) 09:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

@ErrantX: Please post that over at Wikipedia talk:Tools/Navigation popups. If they see it is easy fix, it might get fixed quickly. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it got fixed :) --Errant ^(chat!) 10:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it did. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Joungok

Joungok (talk · contribs) keeps removing the {{AfD}} template from Jin Wang Kim. He now did it twice. Please keep an eye on him and block (him, or the article), if he does it a third time. --bender235 (talk) 10:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Admins are on it, but for future use it'd be better to use WP:AIV, the vandalism-specific noticeboard. Regards, GiantSnowman 12:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive IPs

I am here reporting User talk:173.66.71.79 and User talk:70.110.28.109 both of which recieved warnings and have made similar edits to Hi Hi Puffy AmiYumi. The edits change the date of aired to 2011 and the network to also include the Disney channel. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected the article for a couple of days, seeing as the IP's aren't discussing, and the article appears to have a history of this sort of vandalism. You might try WP:RFPP in the future, faster response. As the IP's are changing (and have stopped for now) it seems no point in blocking any of them. this has the dubious distinction of being my first click of an admin button :s so fingers crossed it was a good decision ;) --Errant ^(chat!) 14:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Dubious my foot - this one looks like an easy call to me. No use blocking, as you say - these IPs appear to be rotating on a large ISP. Protection is the correct call. Well done, that, and congrats on the mop btw. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)