Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive603

Current events

Okay, so we have a problem with Portal:Current events. Two IP addresses have vandalized the page multiple times, and I suspect that they are the same person. In any case, This,and this show a pattern of blatant and persistent vandalism. I suggest that a CheckUser look into this to find out if indeed the same person simply switched their IP address to dodge detection, and an admin deal with it. I have already given both a "level 1" warning.--RM (Be my friend) 21:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Patrick Syring

I previously posted this here, but got minimal response, so I'm trying again in a more concise manner.

I have reason to believe that Patrick Syring, a man sent to prison for threatening James Zogby and other members of the Arab American Institute, has been editing Zogby's article, the articles of other prominent Arab Americans, as well as his own article. I've found evidence that he has used multiple accounts and multiple IP addresses to do this over the last few years (the latest IP address being 98.204.183.125), as well as evidence that ties those accounts to Patrick Syring himself. What is the best way to handle this situation? Wikixote (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Who the editor is aside, I'd support a block of the IP based on this kind of thing. I don't care if he/she has already been warned for it; it's totally intolerable. There's vandalism and then there's extreme libel. See also [1] and [2]. The IP has been warned enough times. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Also look at Special:Contributions/71.163.234.23 for stuff like [3] and [4]. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked User talk:98.204.183.125 for following his edit with another accusing with no sources a person of being anti-semetic. Clear agenda pushing, not acceptable. The second IP that Mkativerata mentions has not edited since Sept 2009 so I think can be left alone (though if those edits were current I would also endorse a block). For a more long term solution, they are clearly the same person on different computers or rotating IPs. SGGH ^ping! 09:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Semi protect Patrick Syring perhaps? SGGH ^ping! 09:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that semi-protecting the James Zogby article would make the most sense, as this editor seems to have quite the fixation (having targetted this article with multiple accounts since at least 2008, and Zogby himself since 2007). I suspect that the Patrick Syring article may need extensive reworking, or possible deletion, as it was mostly written by Syring himself. Wikixote (talk) 02:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

User:THEQUEEN99

Can someone investigate user:THEQUEEN99, who is making all the same disruptive edits as banned sock master user:Polylepsis? 88.106.83.219 (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Polylepsis is open for further examination. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Another User:Polylepsis sock

User:Einkleinestier is restoring the reverted edits of user:THEQUEEN99, a banned sock of user:Polylepsis. 88.106.83.219 (talk) 00:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Whacked; will add to the SPI if not done already. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 00:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

problem on Ghost

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.

---

Unresolved

 – Classic WP:SHOT: Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs) blocked for edit warring Toddst1 (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC) (Later unblocked per promise to not edit Ghost article.)

I keep trying to remove or {{Fv}}-tag a footnote on Ghost that has failed verification, but I have a number of editors consistently re-adding it and removing the tag. The statement in question is the bit about 'pseudoscientific belief' (in text, based on footnote 3) which refers to the 2006 version of the NSF's Science and Technology Indicators. the current (2010) version of this document - available here in html and in a more complete form here in pdf - supersedes the 2006 version, and makes no mention of either 'pseudoscientific beliefs' or ghosts. Note that I am not objecting to the NSF or the pseudoscience bit per se, just to this misrepresentation of their position.

I have made this point two or three different times in talk and edit summaries, but none of the editors involved in the page have seen fit to acknowledge it.

If you want to take me to task for being bull-headed about this issue, we can discuss that, but I am bull-headed and right in this case, and I am tired of struggling with non-communicative editors. someone please fix it. --Ludwigs2 21:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

As I predicted in an earlier thread, you have set yourself up to not accept consensus, expressed in several places, concerning the NSF report. There's nothing that needs to be fixed here except your behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place to bring edit conflicts. Woogee (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This is, however, the place to report editors who are tendentiously violating wp:V. you've got three or four editors insisting on the inclusion of a quote that appears nowhere in the most current version of the document they are citing - how does that improve wikipedia as an encyclopedia?

to your other points, I'll simply remind you to comment on the topic, not the editor, and then I'll forget all about it. thanks for sharing, though. --Ludwigs2 00:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I'm glad to see my powers of observation and extrapolation remain in fairly good shape. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

well, BMK, I do think you misunderstand the nature of consensus. consensus is not a tool for getting what one wants, it's a tool for building an encyclopedia. I am not particularly concerned when a number of editors form a consensus that detracts from the value of the encyclopedia, and I don't mind standing up to such a group even if it causes me some trouble. The problem here, as I keep saying, is that from just about any rational perspective I am in the right. I'd be happy if someone could demonstrate that I am not in the right, because then I could leave this stinking, stupid, thoroughly irrational conflict and go do something more productive.

Now, if you would care to discuss this with me rationally and demonstrate that I'm wrong, I'd appreciate that. I'll be very surprised if you come up with a feasible argument, but I will appreciate it and accept it if you do. On the other hand, if you don't have a feasible, rational argument... what are you criticizing me for? --Ludwigs2 05:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I am criticizing you for ignoring a clear consensus when it is put in front of you, because it's not the result you wanted, and for continuing to attempt to manipulate things to get the result you want in the face of that consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"The problem here, as I keep saying, is that from just about any rational perspective I am in the right." ----> see WP:TRUTH, get bonus points from implying that other editors are using irrational perspectives. "I'd be happy if someone could demonstrate that I am not in the right (...)" ---> us people have been trying to do that at Talk:Ghost and WT:NPOV. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not really possible to demonstrate that someone is not right when they excell in the practice of not hearing what's being said, which is clearly what's going on here, and will continue to go on until Ludwigs2 is in some fashion compelled to follow the community consensus he doesn't like. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me - what part of "The quote being used does not appear in the source being cited" are you having trouble with? BMK, you can attack me personally until the cows come home (I really don't give a flying f#ck what you think about me), but you seem to be arguing that we should violate wikipedia policy because you don't like the person pointing it out.

Policy is on my side here - it's too bad that you're too blinded by your own emotions to see that to see that, but I really don't care. argue the point or go away. --Ludwigs2 16:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(out) Hopeless. I suggest this thread be closed, as there's no admin action to be taken here, unless someone wants to look into L2's intransigence and deliberate ignoring of consensus; certainly nobody that L2 is complaining about has done anything against policy, no matter how often he pounds his chest. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

so, in other words, you're not going to make an argument, you're simply going to ask to have the thread closed without due consideration? yes, hopeless is a good word: complete incapacity to understand policy or engage in rational discussion. very sad. Honestly, you'd server yourself better by taking the time to explain your position than by continuing in this kind of... heck, I can't think of a polite word, so I'll leave it hanging. go away, and allow someone who is willing to discuss the matter to explain it to me.

Unfortunately, you may have a significant wait, since no one is willing to discuss it with you, because you don't hear them. Toodles! Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm patient, that's fine. it's not like the problem is going anywhere. thanks for contributing, at any rate. --Ludwigs2 22:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, this is not about scientific research, where new findings replace old and outdated ones. The NSF report changes slightly from year to year. In the absence of any evidence that they have changed their POV, the contents of ALL the NSF reports are legitimate sources. The part that's relevant and fits the ArbCom wording exactly is found in the 2006 version and possibly others. Just because the NSF declared belief in ten concepts to be "pseudoscientific beliefs" in 2006, doesn't mean they are suddenly not pseudoscientific beliefs today. What you say above really doesn't matter. It's just another diversionary attempt (by substituting a different version for the one which contains the content overwhelmingly approved by two RfCs). The National Science Foundation is a legitimate source and my simple proposal has overwhelmingly passed muster in two different RfCs found at Talk:Ghost and at Talk:NPOV. There are two overwhelming consensus against you. I invite you to bow to the consensus as any good Wikipedian does. Your continual violation of consensus isn't taken lightly here. You have just been blocked and unblocked based on a promise not to edit the Ghost article, but your disruption is still very evident on talk pages. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

BullRangifer: Your entire argument has been that this 'pseudoscientific belief' terminology - which only appears (to my knowledge) in the 2006 revision of this document - is significant enough to the NSF that we can justify the claim that the NSF objects to any non-scientific belief, whether or not it was ever presented as scientific. The fact that this terminology only appears in that revision, and was subsequently revised away completely so that it is no longer used in the current version of this document (or anywhere else), is a pretty clear indication that the NSF does not mean to say what you consistently claim it means to say.

Even scientists make mistakes. The hallmark of a good scientist is that s/he corrects the mistake and moves on, which is what the NSF has done. You, by contrast, are clinging to an unsupported, outdated statement simply because you want it to be true. You had very thin grounds for making this assertion in the first place, and even those grounds have slipped away with the NSF revisions.

Let me be frank here. I am being a hard-assed bitch about this issue (yes, I know that), and I'm doing it for a very particular reason. You spent a good month insulting me, misrepresenting me, defaming me, and otherwise acting like a hysterical fool (I have a couple of hundred diffs that will demonstrate that, which I will bring up when I take you to RfC) all so that you could reach this point where you could dismiss a logical argument on purely emotional/personal grounds. It is a masterful and thoroughly disgusting example of political gamesmanship, and I salute you for your perseverance, if not for the ethics or intelligence of the act. I will continue to argue this point (yes, like a hard-assed bitch) until the wikipedia community makes it clear that (a) I have misunderstood the situation, or (b) that they prefer your brand of poison to my brand of reason. Frankly, the difference between your position and mine is minor enough that I would have given this up as pointless ages ago, except that I cannot stand this kind of political manipulation.

So, I thank you for your reasoned response above; as I have shown, your reasoning is flawed. would you care to make a stronger case for your position, or are you going to go back to ad hominem attacks? posted by Ludwigs2 at 12:51, 12 March 2010

BINGO!       (Pointy too.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, was that an actual argument, or another ad hominem? As you can see, I heard him perfectly well, I just think he has a rather stupid argument. can you do better? I'm sorry BMK, but if you haven't got anything intelligent to say, it's probably time for you to stop talking. I mean, it's fine by me either way - the more you harass me like this, the stronger my case gets - but I'd rather this were decided by reasoned discussion. --Ludwigs2 21:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You really need to review the definition of an ad hominem argument. Tan | 39 21:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"IDHT" accusations are at least a borderline ad hominem if they are patently false, as here. Hans Adler 21:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No, they are not. I'm not making any judgment as to who is right or wrong, or the validity of the claims. I am just saying that Ludwigs2 repeatedly claims that other people are using ad hominem arguments, when they are not. Ad hominem != personal attack. Tan | 39 21:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the fact that "BINGO!" above is linked to WP:IDHT. Beyond my Ken is clearly accusing Ludwigs2 of using the "I didn't hear that" technique. While such an accusation can be justified in some cases, it is not so in this case because Ludwigs2 actually has the better arguments, which are simply being ignored by the opposite side. Therefore when Beyond my Ken linked to WP:IDHT, it was at least a borderline ad hominem. Clear now? Hans Adler 22:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no, it's not "clear" at all. I think that you, like Ludwigs2, have a misconception of what an ad hominem argument is. Tan | 39 22:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This is extremely off-topic, but I maintain that it is a borderline case of the definition of "ad hominem abusive" under Ad hominem#Types of ad hominems. Basically, Beyond my Ken said: "Ludwigs2's arguments are invalid because he is in the minority on Talk:Ghost and has been so for some time." (The reason the IDHT link must be interpreted in this way is that Ludwigs2 has an extremely strong argument – that this is an egregious case of quote-mining – which nobody is addressing. I.e. the IDHT actually occurs on the other side.) There is a connection between Ludwigs2's situation and his credibility, but it is weak.

Ludwigs2 is absolutely right here, in every respect. The IDHT is clearly going on on the side of Brangifer, as usual (I can give you a few more examples if you are interested) and resisting against an attempt to push a policy violation through by bullying is never a POINT violation, even if the policy violation itself is not a big deal when taken in isolation (i.e. without the attempt to push it through).

I think we have a problem here with people who have no idea how scholarly citation works and who think quote-mining is good academic practice. Hans Adler 21:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

<-- Hans, this has gotten blown all out of proportion by User:Ludwigs2, User:Dbachmann, and now by yourself. If I'm wrong, then my fault is the extremely serious policy violation of believing the overwhelming majority of editors, including notable admins, who have clearly stated that they support my proposition in two RfCs, and who have actively resisted their arguments. They haven't convinced them, but have apparently fooled you into joining them. Abiding by such a great consensus is apparently a very serious offense! After all, in the world of Ludwigs2 and Dbachmann, CONSENSUS has NOTHING to do with how Wikipedia works. In Ludwigs2's and Dbachmann's world it obviously doesn't, so they must be right and I must be mercilessly hounded by them in all venues, talk pages, and noticeboards (as I have been!), including a planned REVENGE RfC/U.

What was it that the overwhelming majority endorsed so clearly in TWO RfCs?:

• That the National Science Foundation is a reliable source for what it states. It stated that belief in the ten items they listed in a very independently clear manner (in relation to the original source) were "pseudoscientific beliefs". (There is no evidence they have ever changed their position, and lack of mention in a later version is irrelevant to that point. The pseudoscientific concepts they mentioned are still pseudoscientific.)

Is that such a radical proposition when they stated it so clearly? Am I such a terrible person for innocently believing what they say? Is that "quote mining"?

Ludwigs2 expressed very clearly that the RfC at Ghost was formulated improperly, and based on that Ludwigs2 has refused to accept the consensus from the RfC and the RfC at Talk:NPOV. Well, it really is irrelevant whether Ludwigs2 was right or wrong in that matter. Even if they were right, that wasn't the question dealt with in those two RfCs, and Ludwigs2's rage over losing two RfCs is misplaced and simply disruptive revenge, which he's planning on wreaking on me in an upcoming RfC/U. I have already told him that the gun is in his hand, and if he's going to shoot, then do it. It's not my fault that the gun is pointed at his own foot, since he's the one who has violated multiple policies since this started, most notably the rule of consensus, which generally trumps nearly all other policies. (Note that when and if a consensus is wrong, the solution is not to persecute those who followed consensus, but to change policy.)

My three faults are in

1. believing and abiding by the overwhelming consensus of a large number of editors in two RfCs, and
2. believing the arguments made by many of those editors who have debated this with Ludwigs2 and Dbachmann, and then
3. pointing out very clearly that Ludwigs2's and Dbachmann's behavior (personal attacks, edit warring to the point of Ludwigs2 being blocked), and other policy violations were/are against consensus, disruptive, and very improper. (They obviously consider such "revealings" to be incivil.)

Are those three things punishable offenses? Let's see what the result of the RfC/U against me shows. If editors here fail to defend me and allow these two (or three) editors (the "gang of three") to use the RfC/U to distract from the real issues, then we have a serious problem. If the gang of three can convince other editors that my actions (in pointing out the improper nature of their policy violations, refusal to accept consensus, and edit warring) are gross incivility violations that are worse than their offenses, well, then those editors will have succeeded in fooling everyone and elevating refusal to abide by a consensus and edit warring against it to acceptable practices.

Why do I say that this has been blown out of proportion? Because my fault is in refusing to address a very different matter that wasn't dealt with in the two RfCs. I refuse to let the gang of three divert this away from what the overwhelming consensus has approved. They approved those two RfCs as they were worded, and they obviously believed they were worded properly. And ever since then the consensus editors have resisted the efforts of this "disruptive" (is that really so incivil a word?) gang of three who refuse to abide by the consensus. No one says they have to believe it, but they should be silent and let Wikipedia continue to function. Instead they are pursuing this matter in many venues, noticeboards, and a planned revenge against me personally in a coming RfC/U. That's serious disruption and a classic example of tendentious editing: "On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors." Read that essay and you'll see it was written with the gang of three in mind.

In fact, if editors here fail to meet up at the RfC/U and make their voices count, they will by default have voted for such a change of practice here. Consensus will mean nothing. Is that what we want? Are those three "faults" of mine really faults, or are they the proper way to defend Wikipedia against the two editors (Ludwigs2 and Dbachmann) who have declared ownership of the Ghost article and have grossly ignored and warred against a very clear consensus? What think ye? (Frankly I think they should have already been blocked and then topic banned from all fringe (paranormal/pseudoscience/alternative medicine) subjects (articles and talk pages), and if they start an RfC/U against me, they should have their blocks reinstated and lengthened for frivolous and disruptive misuse of RfC. Dbachmann should also be desysopped no matter what. He should know better than to do the dastardly things he's already done.) -- Brangifer (talk) 08:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, yes, consensus means nothing if it's only based on random sociological factors rather than reasoned debate, if it obviously needs to be revised because its result is absurd, and if it will be revised as a matter of course once the wider community looks at the matter.

According to you, the NSF has claimed with its full scientific weight that belief in ghosts and reincarnation is belief in pseudoscience.

The purported NSF claim is patently absurd because it implies that belief in most religions is pseudoscience. Ghosts feature in Christianity (resurrection of Jesus), Islam (genies) and many other religions. Therefore belief in Christianity or Islam would be belief in pseudoscience. Similarly, belief in Buddhism and Hinduism implies belief in reincarnation and therefore belief in pseudoscience.

A definition of pseudoscience compatible with this claim would be so broad as to be essentially meaningless and contradicts the very paragraph before the one that you are quote-minging: "Pseudoscience has been defined as 'claims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility'". (My italics) Hans Adler 11:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hans, your comment is based on a misunderstanding and is therefore misleading and a straw man argument, which you then use to discuss religion, even though religion isn't part of the quote or my argument. You write "according to you", but even a relatively careless reading of my wording and the quote makes it clear that neither I nor the NSF have "claimed...that belief in ghosts and reincarnation is belief in pseudoscience." The NSF statement and their reference to the Gallup Poll clearly focuses on beliefs, not the items listed. That doesn't mean they couldn't have done it, but they didn't in this instance. They clearly state that beliefs in the ten items are "pseudoscientific beliefs". That's not the same as stating that the items are pseudoscientific. That's your interpretation. Although it's an accurate interpretation of fact, it's not accurate to make the quote say that. What can accurately and justifiably be concluded from the Gallup Poll and the way the NSF use it is that the NSF equates paranormal beliefs with pseudoscientific beliefs because Gallup never used the word "pseudoscience", but repeatedly used the word "paranormal". The NSF then took that and used the word "pseudoscience" when referring to those items. I hope that ends the use of this misunderstanding of the quote. I totally AGF since it's an easy mistake to make. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The misunderstanding is entirely on your side. I maintain that your distinction is meaningless pedantry.

If it was true that it did not follow that these subjects themselves are pseudosciences, the your proposed addition to WP:POV would be completely off-topic. You have advertised this list of ten subjects with the words: "In fact, I can hardly think of a better or more authoritative example". Now that you are under pressure, now that you realise that your position is indefensible, you are moving the goalposts. I am not surprised because that's exactly the kind of disruptive debating to which I am used from you. And this is precisely why we need WP:Requests for comment/BullRangifer. This and your habit of conducting character assassination campaigns on other users. (To any pseudo-pro-science civility police admin considering to punish me for the last sentence with a block: Diffs proving the allegation beyond doubt are of course available. Better look for a different pretext.) Hans Adler 18:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You are missing my point. I didn't say that "it did not follow that these subjects themselves are pseudosciences". I actually implied that such was the case. My point is that isn't what the quote actually says. Let's not engage in OR by making the NSF state something they didn't state. That's all. Do you understand what I'm trying to say? BTW, I'm not proposing to "add" anything to the actual wording of NPOV, only add a ref. You seem to be loading your guns, while I'm offering to smoke a peace pipe with Ludwigs2 on my talk page. I hope that you will join in and accept my offer. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Of interest to other editors, Hans did appear on my talk page and totally and deceptively baited me. I naively AGF and offered to settle differences, but he than took my offer, turned it around, and showed he had set me up in the worst manner. Very unethical and a total lack of good faith. That's a serious policy violation for which he should be blocked. He cannot be trusted. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

For the peanut galley (anybody left?): You can find the things that were actually said at User talk:BullRangifer. Short version:

• Hans: "You can prevent [the RfC/U] by convincing us that it's not necessary. You would have to convince us that you finally understand what is wrong about your behaviour and that it has to stop."
• Brangifer: "Your comments reveal that what you wrote above regarding seeking to lay this behind us if I admitted that my comments had hurt you were just baiting, lies, entrapment and deception".

I hope I am not the only one who sees the disconnect between these two versions. Hans Adler 14:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that is what you are driving at. I see. So you are making the same distinction that you made (under your former user name "Fyslee") in your character assassination campaign against Unomi: You knew that the fishing expedition against Unomi had ended with the result: "Checkuser evidence shows no IP-relationship nor any geographic relationship nor any other checkusery sort of evidence between the three candidates." You knew that the admin who had blocked Unomi as a sockpuppet had apologised for the error afterwards. Yet here is what you wrote on ANI:

"You were User_talk:Unomi#Indefinitely_blocked_-_apparent_sockpuppet_of_User:Immortale and a CU was indeed performed, which you did slip through. See case again." [5]

Later you defended this behaviour as perfectly OK. Things are beginning to make sense now. Apparently you believe that anything goes so long as what one says can be interpreted as only extremely and intentionally misleading rather than literally false.

Here is news for you: That's not how the world works. When you work actively on making people believe something that is not true, then you are lying. Hans Adler 20:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: BullRangifer has moved my above comment from here [6] to his talk page [7], where it now appears under the heading "Moved from NPOV talk" as if this was WT:NPOV, (See new heading below.) which of course it isn't. If ANI is not the place to discuss problematic editor behaviour then somebody please tell me where the right place is. Hans Adler 08:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion. I have retitled it to Moved from Talk:AN/I. I have stricken the no longer accurate wording. Sorry again. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hans, the proper thing to do is to respond to my comment above, rather than bring up old conflicts (which I thoroughly explain on my talk page) as an ad hominem attack, which is designed to do what ad homs are supposed to do -- distract from the real point. As such your comment is a totally misplaced personal attack of the worst kind. It's character assassination and poisoning the well.

Please repond to my comment properly and civilly. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems you forgot the point of this section: Ludwigs2 had to come here because a bunch of editors were bullying him while protecting an inaccurate claim supported by a misquotation. You were one of the worst bullies: You opened no less than two frivolous RfCs. The first one begged the question: It asked whether the NSF is a reliable source for a certain statement (which it didn't actually make in a meaningful way) and whether it can be considered to express the scientific consensus (when it claims to do so, which it didn't). The second tried to change a policy in order to further your position.

While trying to address these problems I became aware that the underlying conflict and your complete failure to grasp what is wrong with the problematic article content that you are supporting is part of a wider behavioural pattern that already became apparent in your earlier behaviour in relation to Unomi. You don't just make up your mind and refuse to change it much longer than most reasonable people do. You also make very forceful statements which, while not being entirely false (assuming some weird interpretation) at least strongly suggest something that you know not to be true. And you insist that this is not lying, is perfectly OK, and (in the latest instance) even we as Wikipedia are allowed to do this in our articles.

This is very much the core of the present ANI dispute. Hans Adler 20:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hans, that's a very deceptive misrepresentation of the facts, which are attested to by the multiple supporters of the two RfCs. I would never be able to fool them with such shoddy tactics as you propose. Your consistent failures to AGF are affecting your judgment.

Your first paragraph is misleading in several ways, most notably that I am not changing policy in any manner. I'm only adding a ref. That's all. Nothing would be changed. Your next paragraph is also misleading. I did not lie. Period. AGF. Thirdly you are returning to your attacks on me, rather than replying to my comment ("You are missing my point...") above which pointed out your error. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ghost, arbitrary break

It seems to be clear what's going on. For some reason Ludwigs2 has acquired a reputation of being in the "pseudoscience" side, and so a lot of people have made up their minds that he must be wrong when he holds his opinion against so many others. But it turns out that he isn't. Which is why dab is on the same side at Talk:Ghost. I would have done the same if I had seen earlier what's going on there. Unfortunately I first saw the mess when I became aware of an RfC about editing a policy. The RfC was started by Brangifer. The RfC did not even have a link to the NSF source on which it was ostensibly based. When I looked for that, I eventually found it at an earlier RfC also started by Brangifer, which was still open. Both RfCs already were extremely messy. So I simply stayed out of the matter. My apologies to Ludwigs2 and dab, but I don't have that much time to waste for fighting against WP:Randy in Boise. Hans Adler 22:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that I have your attention, hopefully, may I ask everybody to turn on your brains and ask yourselves how likely it is that the NSF really meant to say, with its full scientific weight, that certain fields are pseudosciences without any further qualification, but instead of publishing this important contribution to the demarcation problem, a known-hard philosophical problem, they did it casually and even omitted this significant contribution to the pseudoscience debate from later versions of the paper. Hans Adler 22:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hans, you are very mistaken on four points:

1. The RfC at Talk:NPOV -- Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#RfC:_Using_the_National_Science_Foundation_as_a_reference has always contained a link to the original source. Look again and click the link. It looks like this:

   --- Source: "Science and Engineering Indicators 2006", National Science Board, National Science Foundation, "Belief in Pseudoscience". (See Note 29)

2. While your linking to "Randy" is amusing, it's also very deceptive, offensive, and incivil. It is Ludwigs2 and Dbachmann who are acting in a tendentious manner, not I. If they had the RfC consensus on their side, you would be right, but that's undeniably not the case, so your argument carries no weight at all. It's totally wrong and thus also adds to the disruption.
3. The NSF statement did not state that the ten items "are pseudosciences". The NSF carefully declared that "belief" in those items were "pseudoscientific beliefs". There's a huge difference. While that does, in effect, label the ten items as pseudoscientific in some manner or other, your statement is just plain wrong. Read the actual quote above in the RfC. What's really interesting, and what proves they were very deliberate in their statement, is that they were referring to a Gallup Poll which only used the word "paranormal". The NSF then used the word "pseudoscience" instead of paranormal, thus demonstrating their understanding of an obvious truth, that paranormal beliefs are pseudoscientific beliefs.
4. Their "omission" from any later editions really means nothing. There is no evidence (but some OR indulged by certain members of the gang of three) that the NSF has changed their opinion, and those items have most certainly not ceased to be pseudoscientific in some manner. The NSF report is a yearly report and it varies somewhat from year to year, often citing research, articles, polls, etc., which are actual at the time of publication. All of those reports are valid sources. None of them supercedes another later version, since they aren't scientific research, where newer research supercedes outdated and incorrect previous research. These are different. When one actually adds up the various things they have labelled as pseudoscientific in some manner during the years in all those reports, it adds up to quite a few more than just the ten they mentioned in 2006, and we could/should justifiably create a properly sourced list of all of them and state in an NPOV manner that the NSF has declared them all to be pseudoscientific in some manner or other. We have the NSF as a V & RS to do it.

Brangifer (talk) 09:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• It's a matter for unambiguous attribution. "In <year>, <source> said <statement>" should work. If the source has since come out with a conflicting statement that would be a problem but to simply drop it does not indicate that it is no longer the case. Aside: one wonders if they have had as many griefers badgering them about it as we have and have simply decided to walk away from the advocates of nonsense. Guy (Help!) 10:18, March 13, 2010 UTC

Sorry, but I have refactored the above comment to include nowiki tags as the tags used in it were interpreted as real by the software and broke this page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Saved me doing exactly that, thanks. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Guy, that doesn't work because this claim has been assembled from something in the main text of the NSF document and a footnote. (See my hatted paragraph "What the NSF really said" below.) It also wouldn't solve the problem that it's quote-mining in the first place. Hans Adler 11:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Re 1: I stand corrected. (I did end up at the other RfC when trying to make sense of things and looking for the reference itself. I guess it has something to do with the weird formatting of your proposal, but I shouldn't have mentioned this at all.)

Re 2: You are using a strategy that I have often observed: Some of the most disruptive editors are very liberal with certain accusations which accurately describe their own behaviour. (I guess this is not because they understand they are guilty of it themselves and they try to anticipate corresponding accusations so they can claim that their opponent is just mirroring them. Although that would be a very efficient rhetorical technique. But rather, I guess, they use these accusations after being targeted by them and being defenceless. Their conclusion, then, is not: "It's true and I must change my behaviour." Their conclusion is: "This is a highly efficient personal attack that I should take into my repertoire.")

Detailed argument condensed for convenience
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You are also using the same unethical rhetorical trick here that Beyond my Ken used above (see my discussion with Tan): A: There is a consensus here to use [...] quotation in [...] way, but it is wrong. This is not what the authors meant, because [...]. B: You are wrong. A: Why? B: We all agree to use the quotation in this way. It's consensus. [Therefore] it's not a misquotation. A: That's not a valid argument. B: Ha! Now he is practising I didn't hear that and tendentious editing. There are at least three factors that can lead to a consensus: (1) Everybody sees the truth. (2) Everybody sees what is most convenient to reach a certain goal, even if it is false. (3) A bunch of people agree with each other because they are friends or have a common enemy. Do we have a consensus of type (1) here? Let's test this hypothesis. What's the dynamic when we take matters to a more public place? Oppose and objection (by the black sheep, Ludwigs2), Support, Support, Words of caution, Support, Objection (by the other black sheep, dab), Support, Support, Support, Support, Support, Support, Words of caution, Support, Support, (*) Oppose, Oppose, Oppose, Support, Oppose, Oppose, Support, Support, Oppose, Support, Support, Comment, Support. Look at the place marked (*). Before that we have 2 objections and 2 instances of words of caution. And a whopping 11 Support !votes. After the (*) we have 6 Support !votes and 6 Oppose !votes. Doesn't look like a stable consensus to me. (For simplicity I have argued as if the two RfC's were discussing the same question. Yes, I know it's a simplification.)

Re 3: Granted, the passage that you are trying to push into WP:NPOV says this:

The scientific consensus, as expressed by the [NSF], has identified belief in ten subjects to be pseudoscientific beliefs. They are: [...] ghosts, [...] reincarnation, [...].

So you are making a distinction between subjects and belief in the subjects. OK, that's a distinction you can make if you are pedantic. But it is not a distinction that makes much sense when you are quote-mining in the first place.

What the NSF really said
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Here is what the NSF really wrote: Pseudoscience has been defined as "claims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility" [...] [...] about three-fourths of Americans hold at least one pseudoscientific belief; i.e., they believed in at least 1 of the 10 survey items (similar to the percentage recorded in 2001).[29] [...] (Moore 2005b). [29]: Those 10 items were extrasensory perception (ESP), that houses can be haunted, ghosts/that spirits of dead people can come back in certain places/situations, telepathy/communication between minds without using traditional senses, clairvoyance/the power of the mind to know the past and predict the future, astrology/that the position of the stars and planets can affect people's lives, that people can communicate mentally with someone who has died, witches, reincarnation/the rebirth of the soul in a new body after death, and channeling/allowing a "spirit-being" to temporarily assume control of a body. (Moore 2005b) Moore DW. 2005b. Three in four Americans believe in paranormal. Gallup Poll News Service.

The sentence "Obama is a Muslim" is false. If you draw that 'information' from a White House statement then you made a mistake. If instead you draw the 'information' that "Belief that Obama is a Muslim is belief in the truth" from the same statement, it's not more correct, it's just more absurd.

Re 4: Yes, the NSF report varies from year to year. No, they don't do it for your convenience, so that you have more versions to choose from for your quote-mining. E.g. in 2004 they used a more careful formulation: "According to one group studying such phenomena, pseudoscience topics include [...]" with a different list. We don't need evidence that the NSF changed their opinion because we don't have more than very weak circumstantial evidence that they held such an opinion, as a considered opinion with a weight suitable for what you are trying to use it for, in the first place. Hans Adler 11:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• I read it. NSF basically says that belief in ghosts is pseudoscience, a few people don't like it, tough shit. Sorry, that's an end of it. It's been discussed to death and consensus is clear, it's now got to the point of disruptive refusal to accept consensus. I don't see any willingness on the part of the holdouts to compromise, and the arguments indicate to me that the opposition is rooted in WP:TRUTH rather than commitment to policy. How many RfCs and discussions have to go against before people will finally accept this, I wonder? No, don't answer, that's a rhetorical question. And yes I know this is never going to fix the real world problem that close to 100% of scientists agree that the paranormal is pseudoscience whereas a large proportion of the US public in particular remains wedded to belief in such stuff. We can't and actively don't want to fix that, we're just documenting it. It's no different to creation myths, which remain creation myths however many people sincerely believe them. The term is accurate even though true believers are unable to see it without feeling their belief is being challenged - that is their problem not ours. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Beleif in ghost is pseudoscience and there is nothing wrong with stating the obvious so that no one gets confused. The reference says that beleif in ghost is pseudoscience. Yes the 2008 version does not mention it specifically but that does not mean that belief has become ligit in the eyes of science. This whole arguement in my opinion is rather strange. I have specifically asked those who disagree to specify the text this quote should be used to support.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

(Guy, you are arguing on the level of truth rather than wikilawyering, so I am responding on the same level.) Well, we are still writing an encyclopedia here. That requires intelligent reading of the sources rather than quote-mining to make absurd claims. Of course there are strong connections and similarities between religion, other belief systems and pseudoscience. But that doesn't mean it's OK for an encyclopedia to call religious beliefs pseudoscientific and vice versa where it makes no sense. (By all means do so where it does.) Basing it on a misquotation doesn't make the absurdity better.

We all have a tendency to believe that subjects we don't like are more closely related to each other than subjects we do like. That doesn't make it OK to give up all standard distinctions when dealing with ridiculous topics such as ghosts, reincarnation and pseudoscience.

By calling ghosts and reincarnation pseudoscience in general and without qualification, i.e. in the absence of any pretence at being scientific or copying of the language of science (of course there are plenty of pseudoscientists who play their silly games with these beliefs, but they are not dominant for these topics) you are making the term pseudoscience redundant and basically useless.

Basically you have just told me that yes, a Buddhist or Hindu who believes he will be reincarnated, is believing in pseudoscience. That yes, a Muslim who believes that genies exist, is believing in pseudoscience. That yes, an African who believes in witches, is believing in pseudoscience. Is that really what you mean? Then what word are you going to use for the distinctive properties of writings such as Frank Tipler's "The Physics of Christianity"? [8] Perhaps it isn't even pseudoscience but something else? Hans Adler 12:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing "absurd" about the idea that most paranormal ideas and nearly all paranormalists are pseudoscientific. My reading of the source (which reading I like to think is intelligent, given that I am a graduate professional) supports the statement we make, undoubtedly some people don't like that and have spent an inordinately long time raising the issue at new venues in the apparent hope of eventually getting an answer they do like. This has now, in my view, reached the point of disruptive stonewalling. Time to drop the stick. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Guy, you seem to have a serious case of IDHT. Do you count all believing Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus as paranormalists? I was under the impression that you are a Christian yourself, which would make you a paranormalist yourself. (I am an atheist, by the way, so I guess I am safe.) The stonewalling is entirely on your side. Most people who believe in ghosts or reincarnation do so because it is part of their religion (or because it is part of the culture in which they grew up). Most of them are not trying to explain or justify ghosts/reincarnation with science, or confusing these things with science, or otherwise of the opinion that they are in any way connected to science. For them it is no more pseudoscience than it is pseudobakery or pseudomusic. Brangifer's second RfC tries to paint all adherents of these religions as believers in pseudoscience. While I am not personally offended by this in the least (just look at some of my statements about religion in the archives of Talk:Creation myth if you don't believe me), it is simply nonsensical disinformation that dilutes the word pseudoscience almost beyond recognition. The few Christians who go stark raving mad and start writing about intelligent design or weak dematerialization are the pseudoscientists, and we need a word for them. If you call all Christians pseudoscientists we don't have an adequate word. But perhaps that's what you are after? You, Brangifer and quite a bunch of others are POV pushing for the pseudoscientists by attempting to dilute the term so that it becomes meaningless. As a firm believer in accuracy and the scientific method I am not going to watch you compromising the intellectual integrity of the encyclopedia in this way. Hans Adler 18:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Now I am really baffled. Haven't you read anything I've written? Where have I brought religion into this? You are very clearly referring to something I've said, so please provide the quote and diff. If I've written something unclearly, then it needs tweaking. I have clearly distanced myself from those who are painting this feared boogieman on the wall. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you Guy? I didn't think so. Hans Adler 19:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

So now you want to have a private conversation in a public place and you want to accuse others of not hearing because they don't agree with you. I think we're done. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It was done before it started: no there there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Guy, I find it hard to imagine that you fake misunderstanding me, so here is the explanation: I responded to you, pointing out what I felt logically followed from what you said. Then Brangifer came and insisted it wasn't his opinion, of which I am well aware. Brangifer is of course free to comment on what I say to you, even when it starts with "Guy, ...". But when he does so he needs to take care not to assume that everything I say about you actually refers to him. Hans Adler 14:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Heavens to mergatroid... I avoid this thread for a day, and all hell breaks loose!

let me make a few points perfectly clear:

1. If Brangifer held an RfC on the question "Should Wikipedia state as a matter of policy that the sky is orange, based on such-and-such a cite?", I don't care if he got 150 editors to register their support for it; I would still steadfastly and vocally oppose it. RfC's are not intended to be used to insert highly questionable material into the encyclopedia over the reasoned objections of other editors. Using them in that way is a clear and unambiguous perversion of wikipedia's core principles.
2. pseudoscience contains the word science because it refers to ideas that are improperly presented as scientific. It is not a catch-all for any old application of skeptical disdain one would like to make.
3. Cherry-picking particular utterances to make absurd points is not responsible editing. sure, you can talk about using 'unambiguous attribution' to justify your cherry-picking - is that an invitation for me to collect a whole series of 'unambiguously attributed' instances where the NSF doesn't use the terminology? Won't that be charming; "The NSF called Ghosts pseudoscientific beliefs in the 2006 version of this document, but the failed to do so in the 2004, 2005, 2008, 2009, and 20010 versions". perhaps we could then draw the conclusion that belief in ghosts was only pseudoscientific in the year 2006, but then it... got better? pure silliness...
4. Hans said, quite clearly "For some reason Ludwigs2 has acquired a reputation of being in the "pseudoscience" side" and I am compelled to point out that that reputation is entirely and intentionally manufactured by brangifer, just so that he could play this particular political game. It still steams me! if you need any other reason to discount brangifer's efforts in this mess, you need look no farther than that.

I'll add - just in the spirit of clarity - that brangifer's "Peace Pipe" to me came in the phrase "If you'll stop now I won't seek to have you banned [...] I'm putting some very good weed from my stash into the peace pipe."[9] talk about a buzzkill... --Ludwigs2 02:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent)Ludwigs2 how would you like to see the source used? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Ludwigs and Hans, is this really worth so much debate and hassle? A couple things seem fairly clear to me: 1) a newer NSF report not mentioning something in an older NSF report does not invalidate the earlier report or its information. If the NSF thinks it made an error, it will let us know. That's not to say that we can't exclude something if, as editors, we can agree that it is clearly erroneous. I don't think this is one of those cases. 2) Pseudoscientific and superstitious get conflated sometimes. I'm no expert in the area, but perhaps they shouldn't be. Belief in ghosts is always superstitious. If someone tries to make a scientific case for it, or believes in ghosts based on erroneous science, it is pseudoscientific. The lead as it appears right now [10] conveys this distinction, and it seems quite appropriate. I think this can be dropped. II | (t - c) 04:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

This should be closed. Consensus is clearly against Ludwigs and his disruption has now been stopped. Verbal chat 11:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately it hasn't been stopped, and he's once again threatening to persist until he gets his way, even to the point of reopening this thread. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this can be closed. Consensus of all editors who are able to think scientifically instead of uncritically jumping on bandwagons is clearly against BullRangifer and his cronies. BullRangifer will be dealt with by RfC/U.

As to the situation at Ghost: Apparently my explanation at Talk:Ghost helped to clarify that this is not a minority pushing pseudoscience against the majority. In fact, the current text implies that if James Randi did an experiment to disprove a "ghost", he would be engaging in pseudoscience, and that a medical researcher researching ghost apparitions as symptoms of mental diseases is also doing pseudoscience. Among other problems. This is of course blatant nonsense, and unsurprisingly was not actually claimed by the NSF. Doc James, who was on Brangifer's side so far, seems to have understood my point and has proposed excellent wording for dealing with it.

I am sick and tired of so often having to go through so much drama after hysterical pseudo-pro-science editors have made up their minds that proposals they don't understand, based on distinctions they don't understand, must be POV pushing just because the same editor has earlier argued for another position they didn't understand.

Can't we ban this entire crowd of people who think they are scientists because they are wearing the right T-shirts, once and forever, so that we can finally concentrate our efforts on dealing with the never-ending stream of fringers who join the project? Hans Adler 14:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That's about the most deceptively worded comment I've seen on this page. The consensus in both RfCs are against you. Suck it up. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Support per Hans Alder. So much time is wasted on knee-jerk reactions and simplistic/specious reasoning that serve a POV rather than informative content. Unomi (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Unomi, the !voting occurs above, and your vote would be "Disagree", not support. Look at the RfC before making such comments based on Hans Adler's deceptively worded comment. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Forgot which page I was on. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

@ Doc James: I've discussed the proper way to use the quote previously, but (as normal) it was drowned in a sea of confused rhetoric. recapping in brief, the quote is usable to display the NSF's stand on critical thinking (at least with respect to the US) - something like "The NSF notes that large segments of the US population still believe in paranormal phenomena like ghosts, despite the lack of scientific evidence" would be perfectly reasonable, and completely in tune with the greater context of the document in question. I'm more than open to discussing any particular wording, I'm just opposed to the kind of extreme misrepresentation of the NSF's position that brangifer keeps stumping for

@ verbal: yeah, yeah... I was wondering when you'd start throwing spitballs.

@ II: sorry, but you've misunderstood the issue. the problem here is that brangifer has seized on the earlier report and fabricated a position for the NSF which there is no real evidence it holds. It's not a question of arguing that the NSF 'stopped claiming' or 'neglected to add' this position; There is no reason to suppose they were making the claim in the first place.

@ others: I have no real position on closing this debate, but if you try to close it in favor of the irrational position that brangifer is pushing here, I will simply re-open it and continue arguing for reason. If reason has prevailed here, say so; if it hasn't, let's keep at it until it has. --Ludwigs2 17:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

More deception and threats of persistent disruption by Ludwigs2. The consensus in both RfCs are overwhelmingly against you. Suck it up instead of repeatedly insisting on disruptively keeping this alive until you get your way. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• PLEASE CLOSE THIS THREAD and block those who then refuse to abide by the overwhelming consensus in both RfCs. This disruption and the incessant harassment here and elsewhere by these few editors are insufferable violations of multiple policies. This little gang needs to be placed in a wikijail for some time. How about topic bans for them all and letting them know that harassment, including revenge RfC/Us, will not be tolerated? -- Brangifer (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick summary for any admin wondering about BullRangifer's plea:

Dispute

Did the NSF say A in document B2006?

Background

With some effort one can draw something like A from B2006 by assembling the main text with a footnote and ignoring the general context of B2006. One can (almost) do the same with B2004, but not with B2008 or B2010.

RfC1

Is the NSF a reliable source for saying A?

RfC2

To change WP:NPOV so that a footnote in it claims that the NSF said A.

Hans Adler 20:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hans, that's a very deceptive misrepresentation of the facts, which are attested to by the multiple supporters of both RfCs. I would never be able to fool them with such shoddy tactics as you propose. Your consistent failures to AGF are affecting your judgment. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I count 4 or 5 times that brangifer has accused other people of misrepresentation and deception, on this thread alone. methinks he has a guilty conscience...

As I said (and will maintain) I will continue to argue for my side of this debate until it is resolved through reasoned discussion. brangifer's steadfast refusal to discuss the matter calmly and reasonably (as well as his fairly hysterical pleas that the thread must be closed before any such calm, reasoned discussion can take place) just lead me to believe that he should be ignored until the rest of us have discussed the matter properly and come to some kind of conclusion. Let's do that, shall we? --Ludwigs2 00:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as an uninvolved party: it has been discussed, you just don't like the answer. Ghosts = pseudoscience. There's really nothing left to discuss. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

...and 40% of Americans claim to believe the world was made according to the biblical creation story. if wikipedia were interested in the mass of uninformed opinions that people hold, it would be a very different creature - entertaining, perhaps, but useless as an encyclopedia. I don't frankly care about your beliefs on the matter (I don't even care much about my beliefs, which are not at all what you seem to think). There is no proper attribution for the use of the term in this manner, and this garbage is a clear and obvious misrepresentation of the document in question and of the NSF's position. That is what matters. Thanks for sharing your views, though, I'll keep them in mind. --Ludwigs2 20:36, 15 March 2010 (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.

Blanking of Content on pages related to the Chinese Communist Party by User:PCPP

The below discussion was moved from WP:AE and the case adapted for presentation on ANI.

Multiple instances of Sneaky Vandalism, POV editing and violation of WP:SOAP and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. in spite of multiple warnings. A behavior the user has engaged in for years.

In presenting this, I hope to bring to the attention of admins the continual disruption and removal of content by User:PCPP on pages related to the Chinese Communist Party.

The user's editing pattern involves:

1. Repetitive blanking of vast amounts of sourced and centrally relevant material, with no discussion on talk, and often under edit summaries like “rv pov material.”

2. Distortion of sourced content and the addition of personal commentary, which he misattributes to sources already present in the article.

3. And, when under close scrutiny, the watering down of critical sources, with unsubstantiated claims to the effect that they are the content is “pov”, is undue, etc.

4. Attack of other editors to deviate attention when the issue is raised with him.

Even a superficial analysis can reveal his scouring of articles pertinent to the CCP’s human rights violations, from which he removes critical material, while simultaneously piling accusations against those attempting to contribute to those articles.

What I present below is but a sample of such behavior, all from within the past few months, by the user.

1. Article:6-10 Office

Nature of disruption:Repetitive blanking of sourced and centrally relevant material with no discussion presented.Concerns raised are ignored by the user.

The below content, drawing upon one of the few sources available on the topic, has been blanked 6 times by the user since its inception into the article.

"According to the 2008 Congressional Executive Commission Report on China, "Publicly available government documents detail the central role of the 6-10 Office in the persecution of Falun Gong." The report states: ""6-10 Offices throughout China maintain extrajudicial 'transformation through reeducation' facilities that are used specifically to detain Falun Gong practitioners who have completed terms in reeducation through labor (RTL) camps but whom authorities refuse to release. The term `transformation through reeducation' (jiaoyu zhuanhua) describes a process of ideological reprogramming whereby practitioners are subjected to various methods of physical and psychological coercion until they recant their belief in Falun Gong.""

The diffs:[11] [12][13][14][15][16].

Concerns raised regarding this behavior, on the talk page[17][18] is met with no response from PCPP, other than repeated blanking.

Together with the blanking, supported by neither discussion nor edit summary, the user distorts the lead of the article. The statement sourced to Congressional Executive Report on China, 2008: “This entity was charged with the mission of overseeing and carrying out the persecution of Falun Gong, which commenced on July 22, 1999.”, is distorted by the user to “It is responsible for monitoring, studying and analyzing matters relating to Falun Gong, and recommending policy measures for against Falun Gong, and also what the government calls "heretical cults" and "harmful qigong organisations"; and for promptly notifying municipal party committees of trends and developments within "cults".”[19]. The commentary added by the user is mis-attributed and not supported by any source.

2. Article: Propaganda in the People's Republic of China

Nature of disruption: Blanking of 12 paragraphs of sourced, centrally relevant material, with no discussion.

Shortly following the expansion and addition of sources to Propaganda in the People's Republic of China, PCPP blanks almost all the content added. He offers no explanation for this act. And his edit summary runs “rv POV material.”

3. Article: Propaganda in the People's Republic of China

Nature of disruption: Blanking

The above was preceded by a similar blanking of content here. Before this, an editor who has continually supported, worked with, and encouraged PCPP, blanks a portion of the content added to the article[20] with an argument to the effect that its good enough for the article to remain a “catalogue.”

4. Article: Propaganda in the People's Republic of China

Nature of disruption: Whole-scale blanking

In the same article, the user, despite attempts to engage him in discussion, continues to blank a quarter of the article - 10K of content. He attacks the sources themselves, alleging their origin in US makes them anti-China and hence not RS. Kindly review the comments regarding this on talk:[21]. The blanking takes place in these edits: [22]

5. Article: Falun Gong

Nature of Disruption: Blanking.

Three paragraphs deleted with no explanation offered.[23].

6. Article: Falun Gong

Blanks almost the same content as above , this time labeling the sources “questionable” in the edit summary – no supporting discussion on talk. [24]. Concerns raised regarding this can be seen on talk of the article:[25]

7. Article: Media of the People's Republic of China

Nature of Disruption: Blanking of material under a misleading edit summary

Content removed in edits with misleading edit summaries: [26]

8. Article: Mass line

Nature of Disruption: Repetitive addition of unsourced material and blanking of sourced content.

Adds several paragraphs of unsourced content [27]. And here he reverts ( with misleading edit summaries) contributions by other editors removing well sourced and centrally relevant content[28] ( he offers no explanation for his blanking). The issue was raised here on the talk of the article: [29]

9. Article:Thought reform in the People's Republic of China

'Nature of disruption: Removes an entire section.

Edit summary makes no mention of it and no discussion on talk. [30]

10. Article:List of campaigns of the Communist Party of China

Comparatively minor disruptions such as repetitive changing of “Persection of Falun Gong” ( term used by academic sources, HRW, UN, Amnesty, US Congress reports, etc) to “Banning of Falun Gong”[31] [32][33]. Attempts to get the user to present a rationale for his insistence on using the word “ban” can be seen here: [34]

11. Article: Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident

Blanks a para while falsely claiming in his edit summary that the content he blanked is a “misattribution”:[35]

12. Attacking reliable sources on talk to justify blanking of material .

The editor routinely attacks sources which do not align with his POV. Here, as a justification of his blanking of content from that source, the user attacks a Freedom House article by China expert Kurlantzick with claims that : "a) is not a suitable academic source as most of its material relies on original research b) is from an organization funded by the US government, and the countries reported happened to be political opponents of the US c) used as such that claims made by the report is presented as factual evidence in disproportionate amounts"[36] and here he attacks a Reporters Sans Frontiers source on 'grounds' that: " A bunch of rhetorics froma CIA funded organization can hardly meet WP:RS"[37]. The user continues to blank the Freedom House material despite RS discussion[38]. The user also continually engages in personal attack on those attempting to contribute to the article.

--

The above are just a few instances illustrative of the kind of the disruption the user engages in. The arguments the user presents on talk are often of a disruptive nature as well, and often invovles personal attacks on those contributing to the article.

PCPP also repeatedly changes the words from sources to weaken or distort the claims they make, the case often being the latter - distortion of the perspective of the source. These edits he labels: "clarifying", "per WP:NPOV", etc.[39],[40],[41]. In all these cases, the sources said those precise words as were in the article. He provides no other explanation for the changes he makes to them.

PCPP also rarely, if ever, adds any research to the articles. He focuses pulling apart these articles and simultaneously discrediting the contributions of others. This behaviour of his has gone on for a long time and above are but recent instances. I request admins to kindly review PCPP's contribution history. In it is apparent a clear pattern of removal of material critical of the CCP from articles through out wikipedia.

In addition, I would also like to draw attention to a systematic blanking of critical content and images on articles related to the CPP and its human rights violations which, I notice, has been happening on articles throughout wikipedia. Academic and news sources state that the Chinese Communist Party employs an army, hundreds of thousands strong, targeting Web 2.0 technologies such as Wikipedia, Twitter and youtube[42]. My intent is not to imply that editors involved in such removal of material are all directly related to the CCP, but, to point out that the presence of research and reports, which uncover such activism by CCP’s propaganda departments, makes the issue deserving of further attention of the Wikipedia Community. I humbly request a careful analysis of the issue be done, before any judgment is made on the merits of this concern I raise, and if evidence is found of such activity, the necessary steps be taken to counter it. A lot of evidence exists in Falun Gong related pages themselves. For instance, the Persecution of Falun Gong article has had almost all information regarding the persecution( sourced to Amnesty, HRW, UN CAT, Congressional Executive Reports, academic sources, etc.) , blanked from it. Blanking has been done to the point that in the lead of the article itself, it is made to seem as if this major international crisis is but a mere claim made by practitioners. I point out the issue here on talk[43] In the past, these articles have witnessed attack from self-declared propagandists such as User:Bobby_fletcher. Identified by David Kilgour, and David Matas, and articles such as the ones here: [44][ http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/article.php?id=2436], as a major online activist for the CCP, “Bobbly Fletcher” engaged in presenting CCP propaganda on talk, de-tracking discussions, removal of content from the articles, etc. His presence on Wikipedia, and his disruptive activities were continually encouraged and supported by User:PCPP, who himself, as evidence above clearly demonstrates, has blanked vast amounts of info critical of the CCP from these articles.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. [45] Warning by TheSoundAndTheFury (talk · contribs)
2. [46] Warning by Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs)
3. [47] Warning by Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs)
4. [48] Warning by AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
5. [49] Warning by AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) # [<Diff>] Warning by [[User:<Username>|<Username>]] ([[User talk:<Username>|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/<Username>|contribs]] · [[Special:Log/block/<Username>|blocks]] · [[Special:Log/protect/<Username>|protections]] · [[Special:Log/delete/<Username>|deletions]] · [[Special:Log/move/<Username>|page moves]] · [[Special:Log/rights/<Username>|rights]] · [[Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/<Username>|RfA]])

Since the user is obviously active on these pages with a political agenda of white washing the CCP, and since the behavior has continued for years, I believe a topic ban from articles related to the Chinese Communist Party is in order.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Here, in another recent instance of dishonest editing / "sneaky vandalism", the user removes a sentence completely under the edit summary "copyedit"(In the article: Media of the People's Republic of China) Dilip rajeev (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that almost all of the below claims by PCPP are distortions and lies, as may be verified. FOr instance #1 is not an acurate summary of the content he removed. #2. The source he mentions is an article by Kurlantzick, a China Expert. He plays on that some political website hosted the article. The rest are not even replies to the issues raised - but mere statements made for diverting attention from the real issues. Dilip rajeev (talk) 05:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion concerning PCPP

Statement by PCPP

I really don't see how the FLG sanctions can apply to any CCP-related article, as Dilip claimed. Dilip's personal attacks again Bobby Fletcher and rant about the PRC's "web spies" demonstrates exactly why I have difficulties working with him.

1)

I in fact shortened the paragraph to:

The name of the body draws from of its date of formation: June 10, 1999. According to the 2008 Congressional Executive Commission Report on China, the 6-10 Offices maintain extrajudicial 'transformation through reeducation' (jiaoyu zhuanhua) facilities, where Falun Gong practitioners are subjected to various methods of physical and psychological coercion until they recant their belief in Falun Gong."

I summarized the statement into proper English, which is perfectly acceptable within editing guidelines. When Dilip doesn't agree with with such changes, he reverts the entire article, along with everything else that goes along with it.

2-5)

Dilip himself added a large amount of questionable statements from a single unverified source from a political website [50], and completely destroyed the POV balance of the article. The only source I ended up removing was his; which is neither peer-reviewed or have any results on google scholar per WP:RS. I've rearranged most of the article in a more readable fasion, and restored and attributed several others.

5-6)

That was a content dispute between me and another editor. I've since discussed with the editor, [51] who agreed that my edits has merits.

7)

All I did was shuffle a couple of paragraphs around and removed one sentence that is not relevent to the article topic. I only edited that article once, and was immediatle reverted by asdfg in its entirity. [52]

8)

Asdfg removed a large amount of material regarding Maoism, including the template and two web sources[53]. I restored the sources and properly attributed them.

9)

And ignore the fact that I added a large amount of info regarding the thought reform movement. The source I removed was from 1969 and no longer up to date, and contradicted by the info I added. I even searched google scholar for asdfg's claims, and found nothing as it claimed.

10)

The terminology itself was highly disputed, the sources themselves didn't even come to an conclusion, and an AFD on the terminology didn't even come to a clear concensus [54]. I referred to the Chinese's government's official label of the campaign per WP:NAME

11)

The source is disputed on talk page [55] and reached the concensus that it is misattributed.

12)

I am within my right to question such sources per WP:RS, and within my right to remove sources that lacks peer review or citation and is used to push a single POV.

I find the current situation utterly ridiculous. No matter what I add, the FLG camp always find minor excuses over a couple of paragraphs or labels, and revert my edits entirely because of it. Dilip himself has a habit of disappearing for months, completely ignore the changes and concensus that has since ocurred, and revert back to his preferred version with little discussion. It's even more ludicrous that I have to document every change to single-purpose accounts that are used to promot Falun Gong.--PCPP (talk) 07:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Note Dilip's response only highlighted his own editing problems. He provides misleading diffs and expects it to stick, when a closer examination shows that the paragraph has been replaced, not removed. He lawyers around WP policies and completely disregards WP:RS and WP:NPOV, refers to all of his favorite sources as "experts", no matter how unsubstantiated the claims are [56], while dismissing anything from China as "propaganda" [57] [58] [59].--PCPP (talk) 12:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to Jtrainor

LMAO, FYI I'm Australian, and neither am a Chinese govt employee nor Chinese citizen, and I don't even live there. And there's plenty of complaints about the neutrality and editing problems present in the FLG articles [60] by editors of a wide range of backgrounds including a Canadian, American, Swede, New Zealander, and Hong Kong resident.--PCPP (talk) 12:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to Jayen466

I find it hilarious to see me being single out and dismissed as a Chinese "web spy" by the creator who runs a FLG promotional website and advocates on Wikipedia [61] [62] . I am neither a member of the CCP nor an anti-FLG activist, and am not editing Wikipedia to promote these causes. My concern is over the POV problem present in the FLG articles and the existance of promoters here to spread their cause[63] [64], and due to their pervasive editing habits and constant attacks [65] [66] [67] [68] [69], it's obvious these people aren't interested in building Wikipedia, and I've adopted a no-nonsense approach to their behavior. --PCPP (talk) 12:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning PCPP

Comment by Asdfg12345

PCPP focuses on picking apart the contributions of others, and watering down the parts that aren't too friendly to the Chinese Communist Party. His behaviour is consistently destructive, and it, along with the explicit and implicit support he receives for it, has seriously eroded my will to contribute to this project (among other things.) Recently he has refined his methods, too. Instead of outright blanking, he just blanks some parts and weakens others; instead of saying nothing, he says a few perfunctory words and discredits the other editors intentions; instead of doing zero research, he does a bit. He is a drag on contributing, and exerts a net negative influence. He only destroys the value of others' contributions, rather than bringing his own ideas and sources to the table and working together for how to incorporate the different viewpoints. He only says the viewpoint of this or that scholar (it would seem, actually, every scholar who has documented the crimes of the CCP) is POV and tries to delete it or weaken it, without any regard for NPOV, which calls for all significant views to be represented. He has recently deleted swathes of material from several articles, then writes misleading edit summaries and notes on the talk page. What's even more bizarre is how the editors calling for my downfall don't care when he does this stuff. It's a bit farcical. I have left maybe a dozen notes to PCPP saying how I would like to work with him, asking him to explain himself, asking him to bring sources to the table that support the POV he wants to see introduced. But he doesn't play ball and just rebukes it all, going right ahead with the deletions and whatnot. It's a very effective technique, to be honest. At the very least, it's dampened my usually boundless enthusiasm--at least enough to take a break from all this for a while. I'll be back, but hopefully he won't be around. (Note: if he changed his approach and started doing research, and discussed his changes nicely, I would love to work with him. He has robust opinions on these subjects that, if sources can be found to support them, need to be represented and explained. But his focus on destroying my work really gets to me. I asked him to just paste onto the talk page stuff he deletes from now on. Maybe that will help. Though his deletions of any mention of the word "indoctrination" or "struggle session" goes on.) --Asdfg12345 05:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by PhilKnight

The only relevant evidence is that which relates to the Falun Gong. The rest could be relevant to the user conduct Request for Comment, but shouldn't be listed here. PhilKnight (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I second PhilKnight. Long-term behavious is better addressed through an User RfC. ANI is more appropriate for dealing with issues that require more immediate admin intervention. Abecedare (talk) 06:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The RfCU has not seen a lot of traffic, and it is mostly the usual suspects who have commented. I would urge uninvolved administrators to look into the allegations properly, and either clear PCPP's name or substantiate the allegations. --JN466 16:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I present here conduct, as recent as a few days back when the such behaviour of the user escalated. RfC has proved ineffective since there is a group of editors covering him up for and encouraging these edits. They win by democracy. This is precisely the cover that has allowed for such behavior of the user to carry on for long. I hope that admins would take a careful look at the case as many of the diffs I present are just a few days old, and constitute evidence of clearly disruptive behavior( for instance, the large-scale blanking in "Propaganda in the PRC" article) which calls for admin intervention. Dilip rajeev (talk) 06:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Epeefleche

The nom raises some points here that deserve close examination (which I've not had time for at the moment), and if which accurate should likely be addressed in some manner, though I agree with Phil that the only relevant information is that which relates to the Falun Gong, which does not appear to be the focus of many of the above diffs.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Jtrainor

Would be interesting to see if this guy's IP resolves to a Chinese government server. Jtrainor (talk) 06:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Jtrainor, I have had concerns along the same lines, and the issue is certainly worth investigating. But having explored this subject a bit, I have a feeling the issue could be more complex than that. You may want to skip through these articles:[70][71], and this material ( a significant portion of which was also recently blanked by PCPP). Dilip rajeev (talk) 07:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Gladys J Cortez

All eleventeen-squazillion of these evidentiary bytes seem (to me, at least) to have a better home than AN/I--has anyone tried adding all this info (ALLLLL this info!) here?? I mean, if we're having an RFC, it seems silly to have evidence spread in multiple places like this...esp since some of it seems relevant to the stuff already being discussed there AND I don't see a view by Dilip rajeev anywhere over there. Might be a thought......(Plus this bundle-o-text makes my scroll-wheel sad.) GJC 17:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Jayen466

PCPP's top mainspace edits: [72][73] 7 of the top 10 articles are Falun Gong-related, another 2 are related to the Communist Party of China. We have scrutinised pro-Falun Gong SPAs, we should do the same to SPAs on the other side. And if anyone has a spare afternoon, the Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/PCPP needs outside input. Moderated discussions may be the way forward. JN466 11:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Edward130603

Thinking that PCPP is a PRC gov't agent or something similar is really stupid. It doesn't mean that Dilip is paid/hired by FLG to push their POV and massage their image on Wikipedia, right? Funny how this ANI comes from a person that reverts constructive material of other users all the time.--Edward130603 (talk) 10:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Harassment by 58.96.94.220

Resolved

- IP seems to have cooled down (at least for now) --OpenFuture (talk) 06:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

58.96.94.220 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) added some links to a commercial course on Permanent makeup. [74] I removed it, it got re-added, so I removed it again, and used the normal template for spam warnings [75] and since then the user has been harassing me, refactoring comments [76], accusing me of edit warring [77], personal attacks [78], "highly offensive profanity" [79] and "swearing" [80] and all sorts of things. I decided to try to ignore the person, and archived the conversations of my talk page as a part of this, but he/she keeps reverting it [81], so obviously ignoring doesn't work either.

I'm clearly out of my depth here, desperate and can not handle this situation, and need administrator help to get this harassment to stop. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You listed the wrong IP. It's actually 58.96.94.220 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, cut and paste error. How did I not see that? Anyway, the IP subsequently of course reported me (see below) and was rebuked by several contributors. Hopefully that should solve it, we'll see. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Abusive profanties by OpenFuture

Resolved

- IP did not return. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This contributor did not wish to express his opinions on the discussion page and permit others to consider the merits of his opinions preferring to simply delete the contributions of others and then engaging in edit wars to maintain his dominance over the page content. Attempts were made to point out to OpenFuture that the time stamps on the page clearly indicated that he would not have had sufficient time to evaluate the external links before the first page edit that he made. OpenFuture did not wish to engage in reasonable dialogue on the merits of the information contained on the linked pages and the value to the article in question he preferred to just keep labelling it as spam in multiple locations. OpenFuture was invited to make a positive contribution to the page that he was so keen to edit by providing alternative sources of information that contained the same valuable content as the linked pages but he has chosen not to contribute in a positive way.

OpenFuture then resorted to swearing See History after swearing and being offensive he tries to hide his use of profanities by deleting the entire discussion and edit warring to prevent it being seen by others. Then OpenFuture tries to play a victim.

Is this honestly the type of immature behaviour that wikipedia tolerates from its contributors?

I see where you've added spamlinks but I don't see OpenFuture's use of profanities - please be more specific. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure how you can of missed it? It is quite clear that an alternative profane term for bovine excrement was used by OpenFuture towards me. That term is both vulgar and is highly offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.94.220 (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

OpenFuture's describing your attempts to justify the addition of spamlinks as "bullshit" while not exactly polite, is nowhere near as big a deal as you make it out to be. Suggest you disengage or if you must, take it to WP:WQA. Finally, please stop re-adding comments to OpenFuture's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Well if you are going to say that it is OK for participants to abuse others with swear words when they dont like an opposing opinion then wikipedia will just decend into yet another forum for flame wars. The term is both vulgar and highly offensive, a highly respected magistrate once said that the best measure of if a discourse is offensive is would you use the language towards your grandmother? if you would not then it can be reasonably considered as offensive.

Are you going to ask OpenFuture to stop editing the contributioners of others without engaging in discussion first? Are you going to tell him to stop using profanties when communicating with other participants? Or is this the good old USA club where its OK to do as you please and abuse those from other countries who object? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.94.220 (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with other countries. I suggest you drop it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Profanity is currently allowed on Wikipedia. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:43, 15 Mar 2010 (UTC)

The links are clear spam, and were reverted per policy. You were edit-warring to keep spam links. While we don't advocate discourtesy, your determination to keep the links and attack those who remove them might move someone to indelicate language. The article has been a spam magnet, and in late 2007 was the subject of tendentious edit-warring, including legalistic innuendo, from an Australian editor. Acroterion _(talk) 00:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a clear difference between the use of a profanity within a literary or artistic context and its use in abuse of another party. I also object to the attitude that a person should not express their opinion if you don't like it, such attitudes are arrogant and unhealthy and I would suggest completely at odds with the stated principles of what wikipedia is supposed to represent. Unless of course all wikipedia wants to represent is USA culture and opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.94.220 (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Other discussions here have pointed out that Americans seem to be more sensitive to the use of profanities than other English-speaking nationalities. I have no idea what nationality has to do with permanent makeup. In any case, profanity is allowed, you were spamming and got caught, and are now trying to make trouble for the person who called you out on it. Please drop it. Acroterion _(talk) 00:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Correct nationality has nothing to do with permanent makeup and yet the page contains 6 external links all to USA regulatory and industry sites, not one to another country. How odd considering that the USA has less than 5% of the worlds population. great effort is being exerted to ensure that the opinions, regulations, views and ideals of other countries are excluded. Edit wars are used to maintain the current poor quality content on the page. Any way I have heard enough of your USA is always right Bullshit (apparently abuse and profanties are OK here so enjoy). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.94.220 (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how things are today, but when I was in school, the instructors new what to call creative writing made up spuriously and designed to baffle readers by drowning them in words. When I was in school we generally abbreviated the term as BS. I find the use of the colloquialism thus described far less troubling than that the adding of spam links and the success in changing the subject form that blockable behavior to calling BS BS. Dlohcierekim 03:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You have done an admiral job of providing a perfect example of what you are desribing within your own description, well done.

And for the record a link to a commercial site does not automatically constitute spam (which is a misnomer in such use anyway but thats another story), wikipedia is full of external links to commercial sites and even more links to sites that have a 'narrow benefit motive' (sites that claim no profit motive but they have a obvious commerical feel and benefit a narrow group or an individual). The question is not if a site has a commerical focus its whether the site has significant information that is of sufficient interest to make it worthy of linking to and if that information is on topic to the content in question. Of course if a person knows nothing about the subject matter and has no intention of contributing to the subject matter then they may regard it as sport to simply sit back and throw stones from tne sidelines. As is the case.

I would go further and say that the page in question is atrocious and contains a litany of misleading information, its poorly constructed and wait for it .... like many wikipedia pages it has an extreme bias towards the US perspective. In contrast external links provided contain a wealth of factual information.

The thing that can be gleaned from this is that content on wikipedia simply cannot be relied upon, in short much of it is created by the uninformed or to use your favorite vernacular BS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.94.220 (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it can be said this is resolved. The IP violated a number of Wikipedia policies in removing OpenFuture's comments on his own talk page. His violations of WP:3RR and WP:TALK probably should result in a block, if any such actions continue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

We'll see what happens tonight, if the IP has given up or will return. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Outing

Resolved

 – diff removed Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

User:76.226.211.125 outed User:Jpgordon . Can someone quickly remove the edit? Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the diff from your report, please file an oversight request. Nakon 02:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Best to err on the side of privacy and contact oversight first. —DoRD (talk) 02:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Kinda hard to "out" as openly identified a user as I am. Thanks, certainly. (And I'm sure grateful for caller ID.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Try not to post this kind of thing on a highly viewed board such as ANI. Instead contact oversight through email or through IRC.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

English Democrats Political Position

Resolved

 – content dispute, no admin action needed at this time

Dear Administrators,

I see that the page about the English Democrats describes them as being 'Right Wing'. The only sources provided for this Political Position is:

1) A link to an article in The Telegraph from 30 Sep 2007 about Christine Constable, but Christine Constable stood down and left the Party in 2008, please see the following link : http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/english-democrats/52891-christine-constable-steps-down-edp-vice-chairman.html

2) A link to an article in East London Advertiser

In my opinion these are two very weak sources to use to label a political party. Until better sources can be found with which to label the Party I would like to suggest the 'Political Position' should be left blank.

If something needs to be added to the Political Position shouldn't someone consult the manifesto and make an intelligent informed decision?

Yours faithfully

Silvatici4

Link to the English Democrats website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Democratic_Party#cite_note-1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvatici4 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to need administrator attention at present - it should be discussed at Talk:English Democrats Party to find consensus there. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please help

At Daniel Rodriguez someone keep putting wrong Olympic song sung by tenor. He sang "America The Beautiful".. There are a few mistakes in articles such as Media Wire article that names incorrectly as God Bless America, - that is not correct. There are now 3 sources including from Beijjing that show the correct song, in this article. Can this be helped to keep correct. Thanks 66.216.233.50 (talk)

This comment has been copied to Talk:Daniel Rodríguez#Can someone please help. The editors who are active on that article are the best folks to ask for help. Thanks. — Satori Son 17:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Shakespearian fringe theory and some awful articles

On noticing the above threads about arguments concerning user conduct at articles related to WP:FRINGE theories about Shakespearian authorship, I've had a look at suich articles as Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, Oxfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare's plays, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, Shakespeare authorship question etc. These are written in ways that blatantly violate WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE. Headings explain that Will Shakespeare is to be referred to as "William Shakespeare of Stratford", fringe terminology is used refering to those who defend the mainsteram theory as "Stratfordian", and the articles are heavilly weighted in support of the fringe theory inviolation of WP:DUE.

Michael Dobson says in the The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare:

Most observers, however, have been more impressed by the anti-Stratfordians' dogged immunity to documentary evidence, not only that which confirms that Shakespeare wrote his own plays, but that which establishes that several of the alternative candidates were long dead before he had finished doing so. ‘One thought perhaps offers a crumb of redeeming comfort,’ observed the controversy's most thorough historian, Samuel Schoenbaum, ‘the energy absorbed by the mania might otherwise have gone into politics.’

The doggedness to which Dobson refers has left Wikipedia with a whole swathe of articles that risk turning us into a laughing stock.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I've said more than once that there is a coordinated effort to use Wikipedia to promote a fringe theory. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Feels like I've stumbled onto a conspiracy theory website by mistake.. Rehevkor ✉ 05:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

These articles should of course all be merged. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I used to believe that most of these should be left alone as a harmless playground while the grown-ups concentrated on keeping the more definitive accounts, such as Shakespeare authorship question, sane and stable. The recent history there has shown me how I was deceiving myself and some other way forward, supported by the community, is definitely needed. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Making sure the other articles information is accurately reflected in the Shakespeare authorship question and then redirecting seems reasonable to me. But I don't have time for more conspiracies right now, that's for sure. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not around much this week sadly, but I agree that they should be merged into the Saq article, except for the bio, which should only mention the subject briefly. Dougweller (talk) 08:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I have duly added merge templaters per the consensus here. I recommend that a thick-skinned admin expedites this.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm just wondering how this article Baconian_theory achieved Good Article status. It follows the same format as the Oxfordian Theory article.Smatprt (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Some people seem to have short memories - see Talk:Baconian_theory/GA1 (all of it). --GuillaumeTell 16:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is an excellent archive to reference. It shows that efforts were made to balance the article the exact same way the Oxfordian Theory article is - both have a "mainstream view" section at the beginning of the article which clearly states that the majority of academicians do not subscribe to the theory, and both have a "critical reception" section at the end. With these sections, which I helped to add, the article achieved GA status. As such, it should be the model for other notable theories. Notability has been easily established. The recent NY Times survey of college english professors Did He or Didn’t He? That Is the Question, shows more acceptance than was previously believed (6% of Shakespeare professors agree and another 11% acknowledge that it's "possible"), a major university now offers "Authorship Studies" and another university has just opened a multi-million dollar Shakespeare Authorship Research Centre. And 3 current Supreme Court justices have recently declared themselves authorship doubters. I sincerely doubt that is the case with Moon Landing Hoaxes or the like. Smatprt (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW it might be useful is an admin checked this merger thread at Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question#Merging. I have my suspicion thta sockpuppetry is going on.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That is a rather serious charge. I'm wondering what your evidence is to support it? If you feel like a witch-hunt, then by all means, have an administrator check IP's and the like. But I must say that as a successful sock-puppet hunter, I completely disagree with your "suspicion". Smatprt (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Some of this confusion was brought on by Shake-speare himself. When he received his first royalty check, he informed his family that he was "Bringing home the Bacon". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

POV at Whitefish Mountain Resort

Resolved

Starting back in December, various IPs (each an SPA user) have been turning up at the Whitefish Mountain Resort article and inserting the POV statement that a reverse stock split "was regarded as a hostile takeover", a statement which is pure original research. The material has been removed by a handful of editors (mainly myself, but a couple others as well). My best guess is that the user is the same as the IPs who have been characterizing the reverse split as such on the talk page for nearly two years.

I posted on the talk page about the edits at Talk:Whitefish Mountain Resort#POV of "Hostile takeover", but there have been no replies to dispute my comment that there are no reliable sources which describe the transaction as a hostile takeover (and it's a different type of transaction than described at hostile takeover, so it's not a common usage issue).

The article was protected March 8th for one week; the protection expired this morning followed a few hours later by the IP again restoring the POV. I was uncertain as to the best way to respond to such a tenacious editor; either to request longer page protection, to request dispute resolution (which seems pointless as the IP has not posted to the talk page since the start of these edits), or to request here for more eyes to monitor the page. I chose to start with the last of those here, and to move forward from here based on suggestions. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure how the admins can help us here, right now. A longer semi-protection might be worthwhile. Or we can just steadily revert the anon. There are at least 2 sets of eyes on the article. Maybe just kill the change steadily a couple of days and if the anon just won't talk and just won't stop, lock it again for a while or request a block for the anon then. Say, Thursday unless the anon breaks 3RR?- Sinneed 15:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that blocking the anon would be effective - he/she rarely edits more than a couple times under the same IP. And the anon's edits are usually no more than one per day - so it's too slow-motion of an edit war for 3RR to likely ever become an issue. That just leaves extending the semi-protection, or getting more eyes on the article to manual revert the POV material (which, hopefully, this ANI thread will encourage others to also watch and/or comment on the article talk page). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You and I are watching. The reasoning for non-inclusion is pretty clear: fails wp:NPOV and wp:V. The article could certainly use more eyes and editors.- Sinneed 16:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that this IP editor has worn out his welcome long ago. See the protection log for the background. The article first came to my attention on 16 August, 2008, through a request at WP:RFPP. Since all the edits are so boringly similar, I think we can safely conclude that this is a single individual who has a grievance against the management of the Whitefish Mountain Resort and just never gives up. See Talk:Whitefish Mountain Resort if you think there is any glimmer of good faith here. Due to this IP editor's tenacity, and their lack of response to feedback, I suggest that one year of semiprotection would be appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

My last revert lasted 26 minutes. I support the long semiprotection, this is a time-waster on a very minor article, and clearly the anon strongly feels this belongs in the article (edit to add) and cannot or will not provide a source.- Sinneed 15:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

To employ the finance term "hostile takeover" certainly doesn't imply point of view. It has an objective definition.

However, it was not a hostile takeover, but a going-private transaction.

Appears 600+ shareholders were 72% of total shareholders owning less than 3 percent total equity. My guess is, these were locals with emotional attachment to their "ownership" rather than financial. These holders were required by the transaction to get cashed out.

See [[82]]

In this sense, perhaps, the transaction was "hostile" to the emotional interests of some of the shareholders, though this is merely an assumption.

Calamitybrook (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

But, as you stated, this is only an assumption - original research that has no source available for it.

I agree with others above that long-term semi-protection is the best available alternative at this stage. Wikipedia isn't the place for soapboxing of opinions, reliable sources are needed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Article has been semi-protected for 1 month. It may be worth marking this resolved. One may hope the anon will be satisfied with the expansion of the section on the reverse split, or at least moved to talk.- Sinneed 20:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Article deleted on March 15, 2010 by User:Binksternet

Resolved

 – No admin intervention required yet. Discuss at Talk:Steinway_D-274. —DoRD (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The article "Steinway D-274" created on March 13, 2010[83] was deleted today by User:Binksternet. The article was – against the Wikipedia proces – deleted without noticing the creator of the article. Furthermore, the article was deleted before anyone could make the requested changes and before a discussion was started on the discussion page.[84]

If User:Binksternet does nor like the article he still must follow the processes on Wikipeida. Fanoftheworld (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing was deleted, the article was just redirected to another. Such disagreements should be sorted out at the article talk page. I do see a budding editwar at the article, which should stop. Ucucha 18:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Du you have an intern link to the article?

"Such disagreements should be sorted out at the article talk page." – But if one can not find the article and the talk page?

"I do see a budding editwar at the article, which should stop." – Where? Fanoftheworld (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Steinway & Sons. SGGH ^ping! 19:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Steinway D-274. Ucucha 19:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Links failed. They do not display the article. Fanoftheworld (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

See the history. Binksternet changed the page into a redirect to Steinway & Sons. Ucucha 19:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you for helping. Fanoftheworld (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

At Talk:Steinway_D-274#References there is a discussion forming about the remade article. What has been seen by editors Karljoos and myself is that the article Steinway D-274 is a recreation of a previously deleted article, without any establishment of notability—the same problem that it had last time. Binksternet (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The article is completely new and created few days ago.[85]

If one has requests about sources/references or other he can write these on a discussion page - not just redirect the page, of course. Fanoftheworld (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm having trouble determining what the deleted article was that this is a recreation of. I see no deleted edits in the history of Steinway D-274 or Steinway model D-274 (concert grand piano). I see no discussion at Talk:Steinway_D-274#References about it being a recreation of a deleted article. I have some concerns about the accuracy of some of Binksternet's claims here. -- Atama頭 19:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

See Steinway Model D-274 and Steinway model D-274 (concert grand piano). —DoRD (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not an administrator, and I have no ability to delete an article. What I'm referring to is the deletion of all content in an article, to change it into a redirect, as I did here in August 2009 with the article Steinway Model D-274, an action which was arrived at after talk page discussion. That same action was upheld three months later by User:THD3 in this edit here. I am aware that Fanoftheworld considers his creation of the article Steinway D-274 a new one, however, the subject matter is the the same, and the same lack of reliable sources is evident. Binksternet (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

But the article that I have created on March 13, 2010, is a new article. If a new article about the same subject is made, and you think it got the same problem as the old article, you must remember and respect that it is a new article.
If you think an article needs references, you can write that on the talk page instead of redirecting the article.
You claim on the discussion page for the new article that there is a lack of references/sources that mention the model "D-274". The problem is that you do not know that D-274 is also known as "Steinway's concert grand piano" – D-274 is the only Steinway model, which is a concert grand piano. Furthermore, the look of the D-274 is different from all other Steinway models – one of the differences is that the D-274 has a Steinway logo decorated on the side. So there is no lack of references/sources. Fanoftheworld (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This still does not appear to be an ANI issue. --Smashville^talk 21:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Errr. Wait a second. It seems we do have a much larger issue here. Fanoftheworld appears to be a Steinway & Sons promotional account. Virtually every single one of his 2000+ edits (yes, 2000+) is either adding Steinway & Sons information to a page, removing the name of competing company in edits such as these, removing positive information about a company, adding fact tags to articles on competing companies on some very mundane sentences. While many of these edits are within policy individually, when looked at as a whole, you kind of get an idea of the motive of this account. --Smashville^talk 21:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

To Binksternet... Please keep in mind that a delete and redirect are two very different things. When it comes to article recreation, if an article was previously deleted through a discussion of some kind (such as WP:AFD) then recreating the article with substantially similar content, or not addressing concerns raised in the deletion discussion, might merit an automatic deletion of the article per G4. Also, if the article was previously deleted through speedy deletion the old speedy deletion rationale might apply to the new article which would also result in immediate deletion. Edit summaries such as this one are misleading at best. If someone objects to the previous decision to redirect, then a new discussion is warranted. An edit war to enforce the previous discussion is not acceptable, and at present you are one revert away from violating WP:3RR.

To Fanoftheworld, if you are in any way affiliated with Steinway & Sons, an acknowledgment of that affiliation would go a long way toward gaining the community's trust. I strongly recommend declaring such an affiliation on your user page. -- Atama頭 22:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

To User:Atama, I am not affiliated with Steinway & Sons in any way. I am only a young Steinway fan, who is proud of Steinway. Fanoftheworld (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Which leads to things like WP:COI anyway through bias. Are you sure your contributions are not affected by your liking of Steinway? SGGH ^ping! 13:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The amount of bias coming from his edits is simply astounding. Just some examples in the last week or two: removes brand from one artistbut adds to anotheradds this to dozens of college pagesnominates a competing product for deletiona fact tag on a photo --Smashville^talk 14:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It is astounding, but in his defense, Fanoftheworld has taken part in editing a few articles about Freemasonry and lawyers' groups—nothing to do with pianos. Binksternet (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

To Atama: Please forgive me for using the word 'delete' inexactly. Unfortunately for our purposes here, its use in English includes both the deletion of all content from an article, saving its web address, and the deletion of that article's web address along with its text. I will be more careful in the future. Binksternet (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem Binksternet, I just wanted to let you know that it could lead to confusion (at least it did for me, I spent quite a while trying to track down what page got deleted). :)

As to Fanoftheworld, our conflict of interest guidelines cover affiliations, not just bias. Bias alone doesn't constitute a COI, bias leads to POV editing, which is different from, and in most cases much worse than a COI. A COI just means you need to look more carefully at a person's edits, while editing with a POV is just disruptive. Our neutrality policy is a core part of Wikipedia and it's a big deal when someone flouts it. If, as Binksternet suggests, Fanoftheworld is productive outside of Steinway-related topics, then perhaps a topic ban would be appropriate, restricting Fanoftheworld from editing articles about Steinway, or perhaps pianos in general. -- Atama頭 16:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

If a topic ban is considered, it would have to be all piano articles, as we have seen Fanoftheworld push POV-driven changes against other piano makes and models, such as nominating the Imperial Bösendorfer for deletion, a proposal with scant validity. Binksternet (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Abfall-Reiniger has performed quiestionable article moves w/out discussion

Just a heads up for admins: User:Abfall-Reiniger has performed the following moves on the following articles (which I have all reverted):

• Noynoy Aquino -> Noynoy Aquino, the champion of Philipipne politics
• Manny VIllar -> Manny Cuttervillar
• Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo -> Fernandina Edralina Marcos - in reference to Philippine dictator [Ferdinand Marcos]
• Prospero Nograles -> Prospering Nograles (as in "prospering" the verb)
• Diosdado Macapagal -> GMA's father - in reference to Pres. Arroyo
• Silvio Berlusconi -> Silvia Berlusconi - changed gender

In these moves, no requests were made, and no discussion took place. These moves appear to be politically motivated, as the affected articles are about politicians. As mentioned, I've reverted these moves. Thanks in advance. --- Tito Pao (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

From comments he made on a few userpages, it seems he was blocked for a day on de:wiki only to request an indef block which was granted, as he also did here. Since that was denied, perhaps hes gone rogue--Jac16888^Talk 02:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought so, too, after taking a look at the user's recent edits. I've left level-1 user warnings in the meantime. --- Tito Pao (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

aaaand now they're indef. blocked. Woogee (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The Magnificent Clean-keeper refactoring other user's talk pages

Resolved

 – Initial report by Gerardw was premature. Subsequent arguing is off-topic; this isn't the place for pointless drama. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I made a funny. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk · contribs) removed another user's content here [[86]]. I restored and placed notice here [[87]]. User reverted again [[88]]. 15:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerardw (talk • contribs)

Surely some mistake! The Magnificent Clean-keeper had closed the discussion at Wikiquette Alerts and another user started adding material to it (and actually refactoring MCk's closing comment). MCk then removed the material that had been added to the closed discussion, reopened the discussion and invited the editor concerned to add their comments. Why has that been reported here? Bluewave (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks to point this out Bluewave. Please take a look at the history and my editsummaries at wp:wikiquette alerts and user:Zlykinskyja. That should put things in perspective. Thanks, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I attempted to add my view of the discussion, which Magnificient deleted so that only his view of the discussion would be seen. There has been a long term pattern of harassment and intimidation by Magnificent Clean-Keeper against me, intended to drive me off of the article and off the project, including WikiHouding. I am now so filled with stress that I cannot continue participating today or for a while. He indicated that he intends to 'get rough' with me and used disgusting profanity at me. I have offered mediation as a solution. But I think he and Bluewave just want to get me off the article. Beyond this, I can't say more today because I have serious illness in the family and a flooding problem and these people are just filling me with feelings of stress and intimidation. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

More misinterpretation of the events and more personal attacks that are addressed at wp:Wikiquette alerts here.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No personal attack at all. My concerns are valid ones. But obviously now will not be considered since the complaint is already "resolved", by what means I do not know. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

concerns about too much of user:Mythdon on AN/I

Resolved

 – Mythdon Blocked indefinitely by FayssalF.

The user just came back from 6 months ban, during which the user could not have edit their own talk pages. Now the user is making lots of contribution to AN/I that including, but not limited to fishing accusation of of being a sock-puppet and responding in a strange manner to an user apology that has nothing to do with Mythdon.
Few other editors find the user contributions here not helpful:

• [89]
• [90]
• [91]
• [92]

IMO somebody should keep an eye on the user, or better yet ban the user on contributing to AN/I--Mbz1 (talk) 03:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Well...

• As for this; I had misread "incensed" as "licensed", but when I finally realized it wasn't, I reverted (retracted) my comment. I should have paid a bit more attention.
• This comment by Atlan (talk · contribs); a concern that I'm being hypocritical in that I feel evidence is need to block sockpuppets, but yet again reported what I had suspected as a sockpuppet- the report was made not to request a block, but for a review as to whether others agree that it may be a sockpuppet as well (it doesn't seem that way, but that's what it was).
• This comment by Xeno (talk · contribs); suggesting that I'm spending too much time on ANI (I don't think that's the case), but I won't deny I spend lots and lots of time here.
• I don't know what to say about this by Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs).

I hope that's clear enough. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to chime in here, Beyond My Ken's post seemed pretty offbase to me. Mythdon had made what seemed to be a reasonable suggestion (albeit one that I did not agree with), and had already been briefly involved in the precipitating discussion at WP:WQA before it even got here. I don't have any strong opinions about the others, but I also don't see anything obviously disruptive. Sławomir Biały (talk) 04:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Well Xeno has agreed with Beyond My Ken.

This should not have been filed here by an absolutely uninvolved user. There was more than enough drama without AN/I post. It almost looked like the user tried to stir things up.

IMO after that message it might have been a good idea to apologize to a falsely accused person especially by someone, who gives advises how to apologize to other users.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, to clarify; I reported the dispute you had with Daedalus969 not in any way an attempt to "stir things up", but rather calm things down. I found problems with all sides- yours for claiming harassment to warnings and blocking communication between Daedalus969; DarkFalls for making accussations of baiting (something that you can't be easily prove), and Daedalus969 for not coming to ANI despite so many warnings not working. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, the "falsely accused" editor cannot be considered "falsely accused". That can only be if a checkuser were to prove there was no socking. The editor was not found innocent of sockpuppetry- only that there wasn't enough evidence, and that the benefit of the doubt be applied. That said, an apology isn't worth it, and the editor cannot be considered "falsely accused". —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Here, where we are differ. Being falsely accused 2 times in sockpuppetry myself, I know the feeling. IMO it is better to miss on a sock or two, than to report an innocent person, who has not caused any disruptions so far.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Please note that I ALSO attempted to address Mythdon's behaviour (in this post and was reverted and nearly rebuked (the next 2 diffs) for my time. I managed not to post my one-word opinion in reply, but I can't say I'm crushed by his block, either; something about "living by the sword"? GJC 14:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Block explanation requested

I do not see anything in the above, nor in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Mythdon banned and related pages, nor in any of his contributions that i have looked at (which is admittedly far from all of them, that warrants a block, much less an indef block. Perhaps User:FayssalF would explain exactly what actions of Mythdon required and warranted this bock? Because this is not clear to me, even if it is obvious to everyone else. DES ^(talk) 13:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps User talk:FayssalF would be a good place to request that explanation? See also User talk:FayssalF#Block of User:Mythdon (note it is collapsed for some reason, along with the rest of the threads on that page) –xeno^talk 13:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocks, as I understand it, are supposed to be reviewed and discussed on this board, particularly when they are in response to threads here. This has much greater transparency, particularly if the block winds up being challenged in due course. DES ^(talk) 14:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Not typically. Blocks are discussed on this board if they are contentious or high-profile; they are not "supposed" to be by default. I've blocked over three thousand editors; good thing we didn't discuss every one on AN/I. Granted, the vast majority were vandals, but the point remains - ANI is not a default block review. Tan | 39 16:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me put it this way, if a non-arbcom block is challenged, is ANI not the normal place for review? Particularly when the block results from an ANI discussion? While I am not yet prepared to challenge the above block, I don't see any valid reason for it at the moment, and if none were provided I might (depending on the results of my own research) be disposed to challenge it. Does the possibility of such a challenge from an uninvolved editor in good standing make the block contentious? Given that, is ANI not a proper place to ask for such an explanation? In any case I posted about this thread on User talk:FayssalF, indicating that I was asking for an explanation of the block, so if FayssalF prefers to respond on his own talk page, or for the matter of that on mine, that is an available option. Any such response could of course be copied or linked here if further discussion here seems needed. DES ^(talk) 17:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the block was issued not because of the thread, and was rather a coincidence. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

To DES. The case of Mythdon has been discussed in depth from more than a year. This indefinite block makes an end to those lengthy —but empty— discussions. His AN/I reports on people he's got no business with was discussed more than enough at his talk page and the point was brought to the attention of the ArbCom during the case which involved him and an administrator who lost his administrative tools for good reasons.

As the drafting arbitrator of the abovementioned case, I must say that I am —obviously— well aware of all the details surrounding Mythdon's case. I'd urge you to read the case beforehand. This block is a result of a non-ending tendentious behavior by Mythdon. Although there were calls to restrict Mythdon from ArbCom and AN/I pages, I thought at the time that it was too harsh as a sanction. Now, after his case ended (refusing any kind of a mentorship) he chose —a couple of weeks later— to get back to his old habits. He then got a 6 months ban as a result of his actions. 6 months later and just days after his return, here we are here with Mythdon invading the AN/I with reports on users involving cases that has nothing to do with him whatsoever.

P.S. It just happened that I am both the drafting arbitrator and the AE enforcing administrator. Please also note that I had asked Mythdon 17 explicit questions during the case. I really don't plan to ask any more question. Enough is enough. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, FayssalF, for that explnation and those links. i will review them. DES ^(talk) 00:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I might also point out that Mythdon's last 500 edits to Wikipedia space only take us back to June 2009...quite a fixation given the 6-month ban that time period encompasses. There's nothing wrong with editing Wikipedia space, but...search that list of contributions for edits that include the phrase "statement by Mythdon" or "amendment" or "clarification" to get an idea of the drama that Mythdon has been involved in just since June. Note: I'm saying involved in very specifically; I don't presume to suggest it is all self-generated, but...much of it is perpetuated by Mythdon.  Frank  |  talk  03:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Small Comment, I must admit I haven't gone over his edits in the past 6 months, but from reading his posts that are on this board now, they seem fairly sound, in all cases were there disruptions taking place and likely actionable behavior. He seemed far less prone to incitement than the involved parties. Sure, perhaps he should have sought to have brought them to WQA or some other forum, but ideally we should welcome people trying to head off drama before it escalates, which imo is exactly what he seems to have been trying to do. His proposed remedies were if anything milder than what was sought by the injured parties. Again, I have not had the time to look into his history, but if FayssalF had considered restricting him from ANI yet not done so then he can't rightly be expected to know that he would be sought indeffed for bringing issues to our collective attention. By all means if it seems necessary then seek such a restriction, but his recent actions, by themselves, do not clearly seem to warrant indef. Perhaps I missed something crucial. Unomi (talk) 10:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You won't find any edit during the last 6 months as he was banned for 6 months. He has just returned last week and came straight to AN/I. I encourage you to go through his edits, his talk page history (the archives), ArbCom case and judge by yourself. I'll then listen to your views and be ready to unblock him (with an AN/I, ArbCom and policy pages restrictions) if you believe that would be beneficial to the project. Spending 99% of the time on AN/I (looking for disputes all over Wikipedia and report them here without leaving a chance for the parties to try to sort out their problems at their talk pages beforehand), ArbCom pages and discussing policies is not what Wikipedia needs from its volunteers. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Mythdon engages in 2 activities here on Wikipedia: RC patrolling, and diving headfirst in disputes, be that on talk pages, ANI, Arbcom or Rfc. The first he does pretty well, with the occasional incorrect rollback because of lack of attention. The second activity is where the problem lies. While well-intentioned, Mythdon is generally clueless about when to get involved and when to stay away, and how to properly conduct himself when he does get involved. Lately, his mission seems to be to go around like some kind of civility police, butting in every time someone utters a cuss word or isn't all but friendly with their fellow editors. It's quite aggravating and brings more heat than light. The main reason for the 6 month ban was Mythdon's refusal to get a clue. This clearly hasn't changed at all. Even now he's all "what do you mean, what concerns?" on his talk page.

If we're considering unblocking with restrictions, Mythdon should be restricted to mainspace editing. Just restricting him from ANI, Arbcom and policy pages won't do, because he'll just cause more trouble on user talk pages. I'm not a big fan of such restrictions because I feel it limits the editor too much, but I don't see any other way for Mythdon not to be a source of disruption. If this results in endless requests for clarification and amendment again like 6 months ago, block indef again.--Atlan (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I would oppose lifting the block and replacing it with yet another restriction. History has demonstrated that doing so will prove to be a timesink with this user, and not learning from this history would be just as clueless as his conduct imo. The amount of time he spends in these venues is more of a secondary issue; the primary problem is how he spends that time here, and the quality of those contributions. Weeks/months were spent providing evidence, then even more time was used to workshop and enact ideas (both before the case's conclusion, and after) that would give Mythdon plenty of opportunities to get his act together. Unfortunately, it has not been sinking in even after the 6 month ban, and many case findings still remain as relevant today as they did back then. To be frank, I'm surprised it took so long before someone reported this issue. The amount of good faith that has been extended to him has been enormous, and I'm left wondering how much longer we as a community are going to wait before formally cutting our losses. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Note - I already had a post-block discussion with Mythdon here, which Mythdon has since collapsed since it wasn't "getting anywhere". It's more of the same stuff...nothing has changed.  Frank  |  talk  16:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Community ban proposal

It is clear from the above that Mythdon's approach and conduct has not changed after his return from a 6 month ArbCom ban and the multitude of sanctions that have been tried. I don't want any administrator who happens to stumble upon an unblock request in the future to reverse the effect of this block without community approval, regardless of whether the appeal is made directly to the community or via ArbCom. Therefore, I formally propose the following:

1. Mythdon is indefinitely community banned from Wikipedia.
2. Mythdon may not appeal this ban more than once a year.
3. Mythdon may not appeal this ban more than once every four months.

• Support both as proposer. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)seems to be going in direction of de-facto ban, but added additional proposal seeing this is being considered anyway.
• Seems unnecessary at this point - user is indefinitely blocked and an administrator would be foolish to unblock without looking deeper into the issue (somewhat ironically, it is partly for these types of proposals that Mythdon is blocked!). –xeno^talk 16:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • However, there is no restriction on the number of times Mythdon is permitted to appeal which was the type of problem that led to the ban, per here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
    • They haven't even put a single unblock yet which is an improvement over past performance. –xeno^talk 17:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
      • There's nothing to suggest that this circumstance will remain permanently though; if he can continue from where he left off 6 months earlier, I don't see why we have to reopen such a discussion 1 month later, 3 months later, or even 6 months later when it occurs. This may just be a formality, but it's effect is more preventative than a straight block. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
• Mythdon is notorious for his number of appeals concerning his arbcom imposed restrictions. However, he takes something of a defeatist attitude toward blocks (collapsing discussions, asking for his talk page to be full-protected, etc.), so I think imposing a sanction to restrict his number of appeals is unnecessary. Let's just mark this topic resolved and go on with our lives. If no administrator is willing to unblock him, he's de facto banned anyway.--Atlan (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
• If ever understands why what he's doing is a problem, and works to avoid it, then I'm sure he'd be a welcome member of the community. Despite the continued problems, I'm somewhat reluctant to community ban him outright, especially with that limited number of appeals (if this is considered, it should be six months or less per appeal). As of right now, he's blocked, and I doubt too many would willingly unblock him considering the notes in his block log. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Jansenguus

Hi, a new user, User:Jansenguus, posted an odd comment, thanking me for blocking him. I'm not sure if this is an admission of sockpuppetry or what? Bearian (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC) P.S. I haven't blocked any registered users since November 25, 2009. I have only blocked IP addresses in that time. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Might sound like a stupid non-admin question but did you block one recently witout ACB?--SKATER ^Speak. 21:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I think it's a sockpuppet of User:78.55.98.200 and/or of User:78.55.51.144. Bearian (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I suspect they are all puppets of the master User:KingofFilm. Bearian (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

wp:civil admin:milborneone

Resolved

 – Yet another Truthseekers666 IP sock blocked Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

admin milborneone issue has been ignored by all admins looking at i t. The issue is that User Alr described ufo researchers "nutters and idiots" and was not warned by Milborne one for this wp:civil, yet user:truthseekers666 was warned. Why did Milborneone choose to be selective with who he admonishes. We do not appreciate whitewashes over this subject by admins who keep changing the subject. Petey Bristol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.193.212 (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any links so we know what you are talking about? SGGH ^ping! 23:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone please block the ip as a sock- or meatpuppet of truthseekers666.--Atlan (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Incivility, claims of harrassment, and talk page drama

• Mbz1 (talk · contribs)
• Daedalus969 (talk · contribs)
• Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs)
• DarkFalls (talk · contribs) Adding this one because he's had more involvement than I. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

For the past few hours, there has been issues between the above editors, regarding incivility and warnings.

Daedalus969 has been expressing concern about Mbz1's personal attacks [93] (only one found) , in which Daedalus969 warns against [94] [95], and then reports to AIV. Mbz1 has been claiming that these warnings are harassment [96] [97], in which Daedalus969 denies as harassment [98] [99] [100]. Mbz1 has responded incivily to these warnings [101] [102], and has requested Daedalus969 to not post on their talk page [103] [104].

This controversy has been stirring on the talk page of Daedalus969's. Baseball Bugs is backing Daedalus969 up on the issue [105]. DarkFalls (talk · contribs) has expressed concern about Daedalus969's warnings that they are baiting Mbz1. Since then, Daedalus969 has been accusing DarkFalls of personal attacks and not taking their own advice.

While not necessarily involved, I have commented on the issue on Daedalus969's talk page.

I am bringing this to the attention of the community for formal review. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):I would like to correct a small mistake Mythdon has made. Daedalus969 posted warnings at my talk page not two times, but 11 [106];[107];[108];[109];[110];[111][112] [113] [114] [115] [116], and then the user reported me reports to Vandalism noticeboard.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that is a complete falsehood. I warned you exactly four times for personal attacks, and notified you about what harassment was, replied to your messages on my talk page(the other 6 times).— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• +cmt(calling other human beings 'its')
• It will always be it
• even a bigger idiot than I thought it was
• "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."Albert Einstein:
• →To be exact: new section) Here, they say, and I quote, BTW I agree it was a little bit premature to call you an "idiot", when I did. I should have done done it later, after you reported incivility to to vandalism board
• +cmt Mythdon, you did not understand. Actually my emotions were very positive after I saw that incivility was reported to vandalism board. As a matter of fact, when I saw it, I started laughing, and I still am. I'm even ready to forgive the harassment I was the subject to after the user left 11 warnings at my talk page in few hours. At least in the end the user made me to laugh, and to realize I was right all the time.

Those diffs stand on their own. A user shouldn't be let off with a wrist slap for this, as this user has been. I know that I am at fault as well. Next time after a user refuses to stop personally attacking me, instead of trying to warn or template them, I'll screw it and go straight to an admin. I am not saying that the circumstances excuse what I have done, but I couldn't find any active admins to report this to. I tried AIV, as that is where I have reported PAs in the past. I would like to make a request for a PA reporting project page, like AIV, but for PAs, since AIV isn't the place, as I have now been told. It would be nice, that if such a page were created, it would be added to twinkle as well. I tried warning this user against PAs, and I guess I lost my nerve, although I tried my best to remain civil. Instead of trying to warn this user in the first place, I should have just abandoned the endeavor. It was a waste of time, and now my clock is reset. I'm not posting anything more to their page now, and in the future, in case it wasn't obvious by my ceasing of edits to their page.

The above was actually a pending ANI thread as well, but seeing this one when I clicked preview to prepare for the ani notices, I saw Myth's alert on my talk page.

Although Myth only found 1 PA, I list several above.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Partly related break: To put it nicely, I am not my normal temperature right now. Don't expect me to respond, I am taking a short wikibreak of some amount of hours to cool down.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement from Factsontheground

Full disclosure: I have been involved in several disputes with Mbz1 about various issues of content and policy. However, I have always tried my best to be civil and polite with her despite the fact that Mbz1 has never treated me with anything other than contempt.

Why? Because I complained on ANI about her friend Gilabrand spamming racial hate material into an article I wrote. Incredibly, she defended Gilabrand's actions in that ANI thread. I am amazed at how many personal attacks on me she has gotten away with since. ([117], [118], [119], [120])

She has recently taken to calling me it ([121], [122], [123]), a slur that she has not apologized for or given any indication that she is going to stop ("it will always be it"). (I did report her for sockpuppeting, but with good reason. And I was civil about it).

Her attacks on me have managed to drive me away from editing at least one article and she is utterly remorseless and unstoppable. But on the other hand, the admins don't seem to care at all, so I guess I can't really blame her for continuing behaviour she isn't being punished for. The "it" thing is really the last straw for me. If people can treat me like an animal on Wikipedia what's the point of hanging around? Factsontheground (talk) 04:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

So...

Bitter goodness.

Tempers flared. Users did not act with good faith toward each other. There was hostility. How about everyone backs down and have a nice cup of tea?

There should never be an environment on Wikipedia (fantasy Wikipedia) where editors are pressured by other editors either in a positive or negative way. The purpose of a collaborative environment is self expression and dealing with other individuals to work together. Mbz1 should not be "ganged up on", as this is perceived. At the same time, Daedalus et al need to remember that "doesn't deserve a slap on the wrist" to a good faith editor is contrary to spirit and policy. Doesn't deserve a slap on the wrist applies to vandalism and other non-good faith contributors.

Let's all walk away from this and remember that words carry more weight when you can't see a person, and drama is stupid. Keegan (talk) 05:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, Mbz1, act cordially, including calling users "it" to be passive-aggresively insulting. I've got my eye on you. Keegan (talk) 05:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

So, Keegan, it's okay for me to be continually insulted to the point that I'm literally driven off pages, all for having the temerity to complain about hate speech? Why do you think I don't deserve to be treated like a human being? This isn't new. It's been going on for days now.

And what makes you think that Mbz1 is being "ganged up on"? Factsontheground (talk) 05:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not okay. and I put that in quotation marks for a reason, I didn't say that that is how I feel about the situation. If Mbz1 feels that they are being hassled in a coordinated attempt, real or not, that's going to be the reaction even if it was predicated by misbehavior. This is not an excuse for being hostile, threatening, and uncivil.

Basically, Mbz1 is out of line. That's pretty cut and dry. The opportunity here, since it has come to this noticeboard, is for everyone to walk away and keep an eye on Mbz1's behavior towards you and others in the current and future. Blocks are not punitive, they are preventative. If this has stopped with the thread, then we have this part of the issue resolved. Your grievances are real, and legitimate, and Mbz1 must take them into account in future interaction with other users. Should Mbz1 flinch an iota in dealing with other editors after this notice without civil discourse, we will have a different issue. Factsontheground, I do hear your concerns and will watch. Keegan (talk) 05:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

What's the point of "watching" Mbz1 when she has vowed to continue calling me "it", hasn't admitted any wrongdoing, refuses to apologize and still proclaims to be the aggrieved party?

The thing is that I could come up with lots of differences to explain why I used "it". SPI request was the last drop only.I will not take it back. [124]

You're not even going to give her an official warning, which is just unbelievable.

I'm no saint, but I try to be civil and I admit when I make mistakes. For example, I apologized to Gilisa after telling him to "Learn English".

Mbz1 is blatantly flouting the rules and getting away with it, as always. Factsontheground (talk) 06:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

This shouldn't be the end of this matter. This week, Mbz1 has gone out of her way to be as offensive as possible to as many editors as possible. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948), for instance.) The abuse heaped on Factsontheground just happened to be the most recent, and most egregious, example.

Before Mbz1 accuses me of harassment, I'll acknowledge that we disagree with one another about a lot of issues. Nevertheless, I have always tried to be civil toward her. In return, I get comments like "as always you're missing the point" (with a lovely edit summary to boot). Also, Mbz1 has started referring to User:Drork in her edit summaries, as in "I'm starting to understand what Drork meant" and "Drork was right!" Since DrorK made many personal attacks against me, I asked Mbz1 to stop insulting me in her edit summaries, so (of course) she used it as her edit summary for her three replies to my message.[125][126][127]

I hope somebody will take these issues seriously. Mbz1 needs something stronger than a cup of tea. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah Malik. "Drork is right" has nothing to do with incivility. Just between the two of us I'm disclosing that I used this edit summary to communicate with Mossad. Of course now, when I disclosed it to you, I will use it no longer. I will have to come with something different that only me and Mossad would understand :) BTW what did you mean under "Mbz1 needs something stronger than a cup of tea"? Did you mean I need a cup of coffee :)--Mbz1 (talk) 06:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Keegan, you are right. Somebody should keep an eye on me. Thank you for your warning. I'll try to behave.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as someone that primarily uses sarcasm, satire, and tongue in cheek references, I would like to clarify if you are being serious or not, because I'm not sure. Mbz1, this is important. Keegan (talk) 06:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about you, Keegan, but to me, the above was an obvious insult directed at Factsontheground. If you read through several of Fact's diffs, in one of them Mb calls Fact a conspiracy theorist. Mossad, as linked, is an intelligence agency, and as conspiracy theorists or the people who are labeled that sometimes think that the CIA or other intelligence agencies are hiding secrets from the citizens/civilians or wire-tapping them.

Another reason why I do not believe this is sarcasm is because this user has a history of incivility. It shouldn't be allowed to continue.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, Daedalus969, that was definitely a snipe meant for me. Mzb1 has continually accused me of being a conspiracy theorist for writing an article she didn't like and her "Mossad" snark is a reference to this. She refuses to stop taunting me even during an ANI about her behavior but the admins don't even give her a warning... so frustrating. Factsontheground (talk) 09:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

And I suspect you see no irony in someone who sees normal collaboration between like-minded editors as "good reason" to conduct a sockpuppet fishing expedition then complaining about being described as a conspiracy theorist. *Sigh* -- Avenue (talk) 13:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

People sockpuppet on wikipedia, there's no question about that. When it comes up that someone who has a history of personally attacking others and, in their view an IP that comes out of nowhere to do the same thing, it isn't that far off from a good reason. Maybe you should take a second look at your comment and retract the personal attack. The Theorist comment came before any SPI, so your comment is rather off.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with NPA before accusing people of attacking you. Grow a thicker skin, Avenue's criticism is not a personal attack. —Dark 05:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid that neither getting familiar with NPA nor growing a thicker skin would be enough in this particular situation :)--Mbz1 (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Not an attack at all. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Getting a thicker skin has nothing to do with this. I have read NPA, have you? A baseless accusation is a personal attack. Mb, back the hell off with your personal attacks as well. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, so stop acting like you do.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Motion to archive

Looks like the user, who initiated the post was blocked indefinitely. Maybe time to archive that one, if for nothing else just to safe some space :)--Mbz1 (talk) 06:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Uh, no. The initiator is not the one under the spotlight, it is you and your behavior. As you still continue to personally attack others, the issue is not resolved, and there is no reason to archive this thread.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

What I wanted to say that you still could move it to Vandalism noticeboard like the last time, you know :) See the last time it was deleted so fast that I had no time to ask you what exactly I vandalized :) --Mbz1 (talk) 07:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This is pathetic. You people are trying to twist every little thing Mbz1 says into something that you claim is a personal attack. She makes a joke about Mossad and you claim it's a personal jab at Factsontheground? Am I the only one who realizes how completely stupid that sounds? Everyone needs to grow up and get back to contributing positively to the encyclopedia. This is just petty, and isn't in line with the WP:5P. Breein1007 (talk) 07:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that an admin just confirmed this is not new for Mb, I see no reason to not take it as an attack, as they have insulted Facts before. Thanks for backing up your buddy when he clearly does not deserve it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oh, and it is patently obviously a personal attack. We don't need to twist it at all.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

My buddy? You don't know me or anything about me. Watch your assumptions. And you have no right to comment on other people's motives. Please WP:AGF. Breein1007 (talk) 07:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you take some of your own medicine. AGF? You accuse of of twisting everything into a personal attack. Why don't your read it for what it is. A personal attack, and stop accusing us of twisting everything to suit our needs.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, right..... sorry for not understanding that "I was communicating to the Mossad" is in fact a clear personal attack against Factsontheground. Common sense, right? What was I thinking... Breein1007 (talk) 07:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

In case you have failed to read the above, Mb has called Facts a conspiracy theorist. This happened before the SPI case. In case you failed to click the link on Mossad, Mossad is an intelligence agency, a common subject of conspiracy theorists. Ya, it was blatantly an attack. And back off with the sarcasm. You state below that this is a collaborative project, so why don't again, you take your own medicine.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't need a lesson on the Mossad, thanks. What you fail to understand is that you do not have the privilege of being able to declare other people's motives. You do not have the authority in that field, no matter how many times you continue to hit your head into the brick wall in hopes that people will agree with you. When editors on Wikipedia make comments, you are expected to take their comments literally for face value, and read no further than what they have explicitly stated. If you do any reading between the lines or make any assumptions about the "real" purpose of their message, you are in the wrong. This is the last time I will be explaining this. I'm not going to keep repeating myself just because you refuse to acknowledge policy. Assumptions about an editor's motives, no matter how "blatant" or "patently obvious" you have decided they are, violate WP:AGF. Breein1007 (talk) 07:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Well apparently you do. First, let me address your false assumption of AGF. AGF is not a policy, and even if it was, it is not something that should be used in tandem with this user. AGF should not be used on those who have a history of personal attacks. Maybe I'm wrong to assume, but that doesn't mean my assumption is wrong. Just because you think it isn't an attack doesn't meant that it isn't. Again, take your own medicine. You do not know the motives behind the user's obvious attack above, so you cannot say that without a doubt, it is not an attack, call the edits of others deliberate twisting of the facts. As to my buddy comment, it is rather obvious they are your buddy. You barely make any edits here, and yet, you show up out of nowhere backing this user up. Right.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Mbz1, who calls the warnings from others "harassment", could maybe 'splain his approach in posting this item on Mythdon's page - which he then reinstated [albeit minus the chippiness] after Mythdon deleted it and had presumably read it (sound familiar?): [128] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

A warning!!!!There was 12 warnings you buddy and you left at my talk page. Sure I could explain about Mythdon, but I am not sure you will understand. I posted a message at the user talk page. The user deleted it, then I posted to AN/I and provided the link to the user. That's it. Nothing like your buddy and you did to me yesterday.--Mbz1 (talk) 07:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't sound familiar. She posted the first comment that you linked, which was like you said chippy, and then after it was removed, she posted another one notifying Mythdon of the report that she had filed at AN/I. This is common courtesy. It is not at all comparable to the embarrassing behaviour shown by certain editors on Mbz1's talk page. If that isn't harassment, I don't know what is. Mbz1 was warned how many times for the same thing, 6? She was attacked on her talk page by more than one editor with these warnings. If she deleted a warning once, that was confirmation that she received and understood it. Any subsequent reposts of the warnings by those editors (even if they were reworded) were in violation of Wikipedia policies. I expect that admins who review this case will act accordingly against the editors who breached these policies and continue to hound Mbz1 here on this AN/I report. It is unacceptable for editors to treat each other this way when this is supposed to be a collaborative project. Breein1007 (talk) 07:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Not 6, I was "warned" 12 times!--Mbz1 (talk) 07:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not leave any warnings on your page that I can recall. I left you one informational message, which you then deleted, which you have the right to do, as I stated in that informational message. I'm not sure why Mythdon shlepped me into this section, but there it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Lies and more lies. I warned you exactly four times, and noted to you 6 times regarding the definition of harassment, talk page privilages, talk page ownership, and other things. Breein. Again, take your own medicine. Where have I attacked this user? I haven't, so either back up your baseless accusation or retract it.

So, you expect people who have violated policies to be blocked? What about Mb's continued attacks on others? Why do they deserve to not be blocked when they clearly violated NPA many, many times.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1 toned down his notification to Mythdon, yes, but used the original heading for the section here on Mythdon,[129] where it remains intact as of now. There are a couple of ways this brouhaha could have been minimized: (1) Instead of deleting a warning with an edit summary about "harassment", an edit summary like "acknowledged" would have sufficed; and (2) Instead of making a snide remark about Mythdon in the heading, something like "Complaint about Mythdon" would have sufficed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"I love talking about nothing. It is the only thing I know anything about." Oscar Wilde and --Mbz1 (talk) 08:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

My view

Okay, so I may as well present my view of this issue before I get accused of hypocrisy. I first became involved with Daedalus' and Mbz1's "dispute" when Daedalus reported him to AIV, which I might add, is the wrong forum for an established editor not involved in obvious vandalism. [130] So I had a look at both editor's contributions and came across this SSP. In the SSP, Mbz1 repeatedly called an IP address he was accused of being a sock of the initiator of the SSP report, an it.[131] [132] [133] In the SSP, Daedalus wrote "This doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility to me, given that this user has socked before," regarding the possibility of Mbz1 being a sockpuppet; an accusation without merit [134], which he later redacted. [135] This, although an honest mistake, probably created quite a lot of ill-will between them.

I will disclaim, before I continue, that I believe myself to be a completely neutral admin, prior to my message on Daedalus' talk page. I have no affiliation and had no contact, that I know of, with Mbz1 prior to this incident. I also had never, afaik, talked with either Daedalus696 or Baseball Bugs prior to this.

IMHO, I believe, although calling someone it is incivil, in this case, it is not a personal attack. Daedalus, however, evidently thought it was, and warned Mbz1 for NPA.[136] Mbz1 responded to this by removing the message.[137] Nevertheless, Daedalus decided to warn Mbz1 again, templating Mbz1 using an NPA warning,[138] with a short personal comment underneath. Mbz1 removed the message [139] and asked daedalus to stop posting warnings on his talk page,[140] and Daedalus responded by posting another message, [141] with the warning, You want me to stop warning you against personally attacking another user? Stop personally attacking them. Continue and I'll report you.

This message was removed by Mbz1.[142] Subsequently, Baseball Bugs notified Mbz1 that "Other editors have the right to post legitimate concerns on your talk page," which was removed.[143] Daedalus then posted three messages on harrassment,[144] which were removed with the summary, WP:DRC.[145] Daedalus then posted a message warning that DRC does not apply in this instance, posting "That's nice, but irrelevant. I have not restored any removed comments. What I have done, however, is leave a different message every time. Completely different." Mbz1 removed this comment as harassment [146].

Daedalus then replied by posting a new message on the talk page, [147], stating that what he is doing is not harassment. Mbz1 removed that comment, with " I hope it is going to be last thing. I am sick and tired of you. Shut up, and get of my talk page." [148]. Daedalus countered with a NPA warning,[149] which again, is not appropriate. The edit summary was incivil, not a personal attack. He also stated: Oh, and don't tell me what to do. You have no right to do that. This page is not yours. Mbz1 removed the message [150], stating that "even a bigger idiot that I thought it was.[151] Daedalus then posted a final warning,[152], which was again, removed.[153]

I believe that Mbz1's behavior in this issue is mitigated by the persistent efforts of Daedalus to intentionally inflame the editor. Despite Mbz1 asking Daedalus to stop, he persisted 8 times with messages on the talk page, before taking it to AIV. Although Daedalus believes that policy is on his side, clue and good judgement are equally as important. Daedalus baited the editor into the personal attacks, whether intentionally or not, and does not show good judgement or clue in this issue. That is the reason I warned him about his behavior. —Dark 07:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to apologise to Baseball Bugs in this issue. His involvement in this issue is minimal, and the comments I have made regarding his behavior are not warranted. Sorry. —Dark 07:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No hay problema. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I have not read the whole thing is, but I never used "it" towards IP. I used the word towards the initiator of SPI.--Mbz1 (talk)

it's quite possible I misread that part. Changed, as suggested. —Dark 07:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Even so, this is not all that this thread is about. Sure, it was initiated in regards to the talk page dispute. What do you have to say about their behavior towards other users? Their continued insistence to insult Facts after being warned against it? They are dancing past the line and will likely continue until someone blocks them to prevent them from continuing.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You asked me what the motive for my involvement was. You also asked me to present the evidence. And you accused me of being biased. I dealt with that. And on the issue of Mbz1, I do not feel they acted with civility throughout this issue. I addressed that on my talk page. —Dark 07:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

And look who's talking :)--Mbz1 (talk) 07:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:STRAWMAN. Address your own behavior, I am not the one under the spotlight. I never insulted you.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, you have clearly acted inappropriately and have received a warning about it. If you are continuing to harass other editors, maybe you should be under the spotlight. Breein1007 (talk) 07:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no. I am not continuing to harass anyone. Stop dismissing Mb's behavior because of others. Behavior of others does not excuse behavior of one's self. Mb was warned and Mb continues to insult.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do not forget we were reported together. Your own behavior is much worse than mine. You should be blocked not me. You were blocked for harassment before, and you "agreed to be less bitey" Did you? No you did not. You should be blocked, and blocked for good that no other editor should ever again to experience something like I did last night because of you and you buddies--Mbz1 (talk) 07:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)editor should ever again to experience something like I did last night because of you and you buddies

My behavior? Where did I call another user less than a human being? Where have I called another user a conspiracy theorist. I have insulted no one. My behavior is nothing compared to yours, and your continued inults.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Dark, that is a good summary. Thanks for handling this case appropriately. It doesn't seem that everyone is taking their warnings seriously though, as the hounding is continuing both here and on user talk pages. I think everyone needs to let this go and stop harassing each other. This is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. If people can't get past this, I would suggest that you consider further action past warnings. Breein1007 (talk) 07:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This kind of thing seems to happen frequently: One editor will post something that seems reasonably reasonable on another's page, the second editor will zap it, and flames start to rise. As I said a few minutes ago, if editors would include a low-key edit summary such as "acknowledged" or "read and deleted" when they zap a warning or any other message (some editors in fact do just that), that could lessen the need for ANI fire extinguishers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point. That might help avoid some conflicts. But at the same time, there is no expectation or policy for editors to do that, and failure to do so definitely does not give justification for continuous harassment. Breein1007 (talk) 07:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be pretty hard to have a formal policy for that, although maybe something could be mentioned about it in the page on how-to-use-your-user-page. Here we've seen the consequences of not doing that. Not that this is World War III or something - just a dispute that has gotten personal, it seems. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Handling this case? And it isn't a good summary, as it does not describe the situation completely accurately, I warned the user exactly four times, and, as state above, posted another 6 times to their talk page telling them what harassment was, the rules of owner ship, and various other things. You're one to talk about continued hounding on user talk pages, posting an attack at my talk page, when I haven't posted to Mb's or Dark's in more than 25 hours since I last have. Continued violation of policy is not something to drop Mb has clearly insulted people. Mb clearly continues to insult people. Something has to be done, because this user obvious does not care about warnings from anyone. Dædαlus ^Contribs

Not 10 times, 11 times, which was exactly 11 times too many. You should be blocked for doing this to me, and blocked for good.--Mbz1 (talk) 07:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

A simple mistake, given the situation, and you are in no position to be insulting me in edit summaries.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

My behavior is nothing compared to yours, and it is not worth an indef block. You're just playing the victim here. I know I was at fault, but you continue to insult, and as I have done many things, insult people is not one of them. You are on very thin ice, which I'm sure will break as soon as an uninvolved admin reviews your history of personal attacks on others.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

[154] Mbz1, I would advise you to keep calm whenever possible. Messages like this are not helpful. —Dark 08:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That being said, suggestions of which user to block is not productive to this discussion. Remain calm, and wait for an impartial editor to sort this out. —Dark 08:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely not worth an indef block, but it's also clear that you are baiting him, and that he is taking the bait, which makes you both silly. You should both stop it. If Mbz1 is behaving badly he will continue to do so in the future, but right now, Daedalus, you are just making him look like a victim. You need to keep to proper precedures and behaviour even when dealing with vandals. And Mbz1: Stop taking his bait. Try ignoring him. If he really is harassing you, ignoring him wont' work. Then you can report him here. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would have never suggested an indefinite block, if there were not for two reasons.

The first reason is the user's history.

In one of the users unblock reasons an admin writes: "agreed to be less bitey, discussed in #wikipedia-en-unblock"], which clearly is not the case.

The second (more important) reason is that the user still cannot understand that what he/she done to me

was wrong.

Having said that I do agree that it is silly (not to say stupid) of me to take the baits.

Of course I also agree with Dark comments as well, and that's why I am out of here. --Mbz1 (talk) 08:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop with the lies, really. I already quite clearly said, when I first replied to this entire discussion, that I am at fault as well. You however, still think you are in the right, as you continue to insult me and others.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"I know that I am at fault as well" in case you missed it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Break

Mb is calm, Dark. He knows you won't block him so he continues to insult others when he feels like it. OF, my comments may be baiting, but it wasn't intentional.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I will not be blocking any parties in this dispute due to the simple fact that I am involved. —Dark 08:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I give you full permission to block me, if you believe I deserve to be blocked. You are not really involved with me, mostly with Daedalus969.--Mbz1 (talk) 08:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Your behavior does not merit a block. Just remember this is just a website, keep calm at all times, and you shouldn't have any problems in the future. —Dark 10:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

How does insulting someone after being warned they were on thin ice not warrant a block?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

And the insults keep coming.[155][156] — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure they are. What started with one troll was picked up by few others all with the purpose to drive an unwanted editor away. Here's Alison message at one's of the troll's talk page[157].--Mbz1 (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You are not allowed to call others trolls here, no matter what you think. I suggest you retract those insults now. You were already told you were on thin ice.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Daedalus, I suggest you remove yourself from this issue. Your input isn't helpful. —Dark 20:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, like I said, keep your cool. Refrain from calling people names, even if you believe them to be so. Ignore them. —Dark 20:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

And yours is? How is letting a user continuously insult people helpful?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: Now Mbz1 is violating WP:TALK by striking out another person's comments, not to mention she is getting into a revert war with an admin. [158]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsontheground (talk • contribs) 21:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sign your posts. And no, Mbz1 is not violating WP:TALK. The user Vexorg posted a lie about the result of the SPI. Checkuser confirmed that Mbz1 and the IP were unrelated. Then, Vexorg posted a note on the AfD claiming that they are the same user, in an attempt to trivialize valid comments made by the IP. Mbz1's deletion of the comment (and my subsequent striking after it was reinserted) was perfectly in line with Wikipedia policies. Review WP:TPO. Breein1007 (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Be sure you know the policy you cite. They are clearly violating TPO. TPO says nothing about lies, and Vex doesn't even cite the SPI in his post. TPO quite clearly says personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. As the post isn't any of those, it is not allowed to be removed or struck.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of the policy, as well as the background of Mossad, is good. Thanks for the concern though. I appreciate that you care about my knowledge. I suggest that you carefully review the definition of a personal attack, because this isn't the first time you have shown failure to understand its meaning. Vexorg's comment is a clear example of a personal attack. On the other hand, many of the comments in this AN/I that you have claimed to be personal attacks against you or others, in fact, weren't. Breein1007 (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

So, let me see if I have this straight. You claim that I cannot be a judge of what is, and what is not, a personal attack, yet, you can act like you know for fact, when in fact, you are not Mb, and there is no possible way you could know? Talk about hypocrisy. The above that I claimed were personal attacks are clearly personal attacks, just as clear as the one you claim is a personal attack.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Just leave other people's comments alone. If you think they're lying, then write a response. There's no need to delete or strike through Vexorg's comment. Factsontheground (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a clear need to strike through it at the very least, if not delete it altogether. I chose to do the less extreme and strike it out since I didn't know what would be more appropriate. I hope that an admin will make that decision ultimately. The need stems from the fact that the personal attack trivializes comments made by both the IP and Mbz1, and will influence people's votes on the AfD. Breein1007 (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

And the taunting continues.[159] — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Temporary topic ban

As an uninvolved administrator - I am temporarily banning the "involved parties" here from responding to each others' contributions or talk pages, interpreted broadly, for the next 24 hours. Without regard to origin of the dispute it's being perpetuated beyond reasonable limits. I would like to STRONGLY DISCOURAGE further snipes on ANI but this venue remains open for discussion without threat of sanction.

Community input on whether this separation would be a good long term editing restriction is welcome, though I am not proposing such yet. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Good move. Definitely endorse, although I would suggest that the parties be notified of this restriction.

On a side note, can someone please check out this request by Mbz1? NW (Talk) 00:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think a short term ban is a good idea. I would suggest extending it to the article and AFD that prompted the dispute, to avoid any incentive for people to "get in first" with comments they know the others can't respond to. -- Avenue (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I just checked this, by the looks of it, it was posted pending my diff gathering to another incivil user. There was no message on my talk page, I only have 3rr watched because it isn't as active as ANI. I tried to watch ANI once. Bad idea.

Back to the discussion at hand, however, NW, that request has already been taken care of, and another admin, Mal, restored the archive to what it should be.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with and support Georgewilliamherbert's proposal of a broadly-defined 24-hour interaction ban between both parties, enforceable by blocking; I was going to propose something similar along those lines while I was reading through this.

In addition to George's proposed interaction ban, I would also propose an additional, more narrowly-defined, interaction ban of 1 week between two parties: party 1 is Mbz1 and Breein1007; party 2 is Daedalus969 and Factsontheground. This would also be enforceable by blocking. –MuZemike 00:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

What a bad idea! I mean why only one week ban? I insist on indefinite ban between me and the wikihound, who was mercilessly wikihounding me for the last few days. Please do ban our interactions indefinitely. Please help me to get read of that user. --Mbz1 (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This could not work, both parties seem involved in the same general sphere of articles. The closest thing which might work would be actual topic bans in these areas of interest. Quite honestly though, I think the involved parties simply need to work out a format under which they can interact constructively. First, please do not make accusations lightly and accept that ANI should be the last venue of dispute resolution sought. If necessary, make use of WP:WQA and Wikipedia:Mediation. Not using these venues appropriately runs a risk of censure for WP:BATTLE mentality. Unomi (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I am not asking to impose any ban neither on Breein1007 nor on facts, only on communications between me and daedalus969. It will work just fine. The only things daedalus969 is doing is hunting for vandals and reporting them (wants to became an admin one day), it is of course, when the user does not wikihounding me. The user also likes to put the nose into SPI reports that have nothing to do with the user. I'll never do something like that, never. So the ban should work and work very well. It is not even a ban because I've never was wikihounding daedalus969, but rather a restriction order for the user to stop wikihounding me.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I took your proposal to be extending MuZemikes proposed 1 week interaction ban between the 4 of you. As for you and Daedalus, I would have to agree that it doesn't seem likely that direct interaction between the 2 of you will be constructive or necessary in the near term. I always find it commendable when people speak out against perceived wrongs, but obviously the particular manner of the interaction did not reduce tension. I have no reason to question the initial intentions of Daedalus but ultimately I think he became too invested. Unomi (talk) 02:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Then maybe you could give me an advise how to proceed. Should I start a new topic at AN/I or to go to Arbitration, or open vote in that very post. (I do not think people will vote here too much to read). You seem to know the way around the those boards better than I do. Please help me.Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think you should do anything, just go about your editing work and see what happens. Should you continue to feel that Daedalus is acting inappropriately then deal with it by asking either MuZemike or NuclearWarfare on how to proceed, I am fairly sure they will be able to deal with it directly. Opening a new thread now may work, but it may backfire, in any case I think everyone involved would spend their time better in other areas of wikipedia than ANI ;) Unomi (talk) 03:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay I will follow your advise, and see what happens. That conversation would stay here for the record.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is everyone's business. I am fully within my rights as a user to help in sock cases, and I would appreciate it if you would stop attacking my work in that sector. Sock hunting is something I'm good at, so please, back off.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Attempted outing by Vexorg

I'm not sure if I am one of the "involved parties" here, and I do not intend the following as sniping, but there is an important point that I believe hasn't yet been addressed. Georgewilliamherbert, please feel free to block me if I am out of line. To the point: Vexorg attempted to out Mbz1 by revealing Mbz1's IP address.[160] According to WP:OUTING, "attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block", unless it is unintentional and unmalicious. This was intentional. Should Vexorg be blocked? --Avenue (talk) 00:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not outing since the very same information is there for anyone who wants to go to WP:SPI. (I didn't mention you-know-who in this comment but if it is considered a violation of the topic ban I will remove it. I am posting on the basis that "this venue remains open for discussion without threat of sanction"). Factsontheground (talk)

I didn't think of it as outing until I read Spitfire's comment here. According to them, attaching an IP to a user is (attempted) outing except "when it's done for the purpose of a sockpuppetry accusation". I thought it was an important point to raise, but in respect for George's ban I will now leave it for other uninvolved parties to discuss. --Avenue (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That only applies if the IP is actually the IP of the user. In this case it has been found not to be per the WP:SPI discussion. It cannot be personal information because it's not her IP. Factsontheground (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Re-read WP:OUTING. In a hypothetical outing attempt, even if the information turns out to be incorrect, the attempt is still a policy violation. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Avenue, I personally would hesitate to call this an outing. Vexorg's intent was not to expose Mbz1's personal information; it was merely to draw attention to the possibility of logged-out editing to the effect of sockpuppetry. I don't know whether Vexorg came anywhere near to hitting the mark with his post, but make no mistake: "Registered users who edit without logging in are treated the same as if the IP was an alternate account" under WP:SOCK. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Violations of 24 hour ban

I am not saying anything about this topic except officially recording violations of the 24 hour ban.
[161]
[162]
Breein1007 (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I was just being polite and participating in a discussion that is entirely separate to this. Comment deleted. Also, considering I started that discussion and was heavily involved in it, his reply can also be considered a violation of the topic ban, particularly since it occurred ~50 minutes after GWH announced the ban. I must say that this shows how difficult it is to get on with some people when sincere, polite, friendly comments like that are cynically used as an attempt to get me banned. It was actually an attempt to bury the hatchet and move on, but I guess you just can't please some people. Factsontheground (talk) 01:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I was not covered by the topic ban until after my last post there. Breein1007 (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, you were an involved party, therefore you were banned when the notice was first posted.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, the admin who requested the interaction ban seems to think otherwise. [163] Breein1007 (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I admit my fault, then.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll also just note that Breein1007 and I have a disputes on a number of articles so this topic ban will make it difficult for them to be resolved if we cannot dicuss the issues on the talk pages. Factsontheground (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Try to resolve them after the 24h interaction ban is over. Please just remain calm, everyone. Unomi (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but if the week long interaction ban proposed by MuzeMike above is implemented it would make things very difficult. Factsontheground (talk) 03:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Self-Inflicted Block

Hi. I am wondering whether there is any such thing as a voluntary block, e.g. if I asked to block my account for one year, without me being able to change my mind and requesting it be undone, would that be possible? I'm far too technically skilled to be constrained by the Wikibreak Enforcer! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

In that case I'm sure you're also technically skilled enough to make a new account if your old one is blocked. You realize the kind of time-consuming nonsense you'll create if you ask for an "irrevocable" block and then later ask for it to be lifted? Give the poor admins a break. If you want to self-block your account permanently, just scramble your password. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There are admins who are willing to perform such blocks; see User:Beeblebrox/Self-blocking requirements for one example of criteria for doing so. Ucucha 22:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Use Wikibreak Enforcer but start with a shorter period. Guy (Help!) 09:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record I have refused this request because Red Hat is currently involved in an ArbCom case and there is at least one proposal specifically related to him on the table. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Feng shui and User:ThAmKuEnWeI

I apologise if this is not the appropriate place to put this - if so, please let me know for future. User:ThAmKuEnWeI created a page that was previously deleted: Tham_Fook_Cheong, mostly about a feng shui practitioner. Also, he blanked out a large part of the criticism section from Feng Shui. I've listed the article for speedy - is this appropriate? And can someone look over it to make sure I've done it correctly? Thanks. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 12:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia! This is not the right place to post something like this. ANI is for things that require admin attention. It seems that you've done everything right tagging the page, just let an admin and delete it and rereport him too WP:AIV if he continues.--SKATER ^Speak. 12:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia? He's been here a year... Anyway, page deleted per G4 (someone who spends more time than me at AFD could do me a favor and clean up the AFD (if not, I'll get to it in a couple of hours)). Left a note on User talk:ThAmKuEnWeI as well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done – ukexpat (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, ukexpat. I do it so seldom, I have to find, then read, the instructions each time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I used a script. Now if I just had the time to hunt through my monobook.js to find it... – ukexpat (talk) 02:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Help request wrt the Account Creation Tool Access

Hi guys. Stifle had enabled the Account Creation Tool Access for me. Unfortunately, I am not able to log on because (1)I forgot the password (2) The Password recovery mechanism is not working for me (3) SQL, who is supposed to handle such issues, is out of action currently (4) Stifle's additional support by deleting my original ACC account and asking me to create a new account, also has not worked. Would anyone be able to help me out here or give me suggestions on the next step? Thanks in advance and regards. ▒ ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 06:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Iceland and "Long form name"

There is a user, ArmchairVexillologistDonLives who seems to have a pattern of trying to add something he calls "long form names" of countries to every page he can. I didn't know this and reverted an edit he made earlier to Iceland. This particular edit was only recently the subject of lengthy debate. After reverting the edit I left a message on the talk page. His response lead me to believe that he might actually have a mental disorder, especially a remark asking why I want to "suppress" the name. While I was writing a reply he changed to contentious information again. I've asked that he try to reach consensus on the issue in the relevant discussion section. I don't want to be involved in an edit war, especially with someone who may not be reasonable at all. I'm choosing not to revert his info back. I'm sure other concerned editors will. I only wanted to make the sysops aware of the situation as I'm certain this will not be the only time ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! will engage in this behavior. Thank you for your time. --Leodmacleod (talk) 03:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

When you post here, your required to inform the parties involved, see top of this page for clarification. I've done it for you this time, please remember next time. Cheers.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

He is technically in the right, the Icelandic constitution does use Republic of Iceland and many of our country articles do have the short form, then followed by the long form. Libya is the best example. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and his previous name, ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), does not have a mental disorder. He does have a strongly held opinion on the long form names of countries, especially when it comes to Canada and Talk:Canada/Officialname1. Unfortunately this leads to problems with his editing and interactions with others. something lame from CBW 08:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As long as he is not moving the article to the long name, it is perfectly acceptable to add the long name into articles. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

But not to use it in every instance in which the country is referred to, which gets repetitive and is stylistically poor. Once the full name is established, the colloquial name should be used most often, with occasional returns to the full name as needed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Correct. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Iceland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A number of editors at Talk:Iceland have been claiming that 'Republic of Iceland' is *not* the official name. Consensus may not be clear, it is something like three editors to two against 'Republic of Iceland' among those who commented on that page. But meanwhile ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! made four reverts in 24 hours on 16 March, changing the article text to insist that 'Republic of Iceland' is the official name. (Reverts at 02:20, 02:59, 08:39 and 11:44, getting a 3RR warning at 04:22). Previously, he has urged that 'Dominion of Canada' is the official name of Canada, and this claim does *not* have consensus. He has been fighting battles like this one since 2005. (See Talk:Canada/Officialname1). Since he is clearly not waiting for consensus to form at Iceland, I suggest a 24-hour block if he reverts again. EdJohnston (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The editor has a long term history of disruptive edits and blocks on a range of articles. The ones on Iceland follow the same pattern as on previous occassions and its not just on the official names. British Isles articles, Middle Francia, its a long list. Given his history a 24 hour block is unlikely to have any effect, even ones for several weeks have not made a difference. I'd suggest some more substantial unless he accepts mentoring. At the very least a general 1RR restriction on all articles --Snowded ^TALK 01:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, ZScout, CambridgeBayWeather, (i.e., the "Hang-em High" crowd),

Frankly, there is "no-love" lost between "us". As per my edits on Middle Francia, and the Rigsfællesskabet they were (i). correct, and (ii). helpful.

With the others ... British Isles (per Snowded), and Dominion of Canada (per ZScout), and I believe "folke-songs" with CambridgeBayWeather (I believe he that he was "un-aware" of the "America -- the Beautiful" song) ... your respective opinions really can-not be called "Neutral".

With regards to the (1918-1944), the country's Name was Konungsríkið Ísland (i.e., Kingdom of Iceland), and then after (1944), the country's Names was Lýðveldið Ísland (i.e., Republic of Iceland), ... you know what ... let the mistake of just Ísland stand. Who care's weither Wikipedia is correct or not (I've got better things to do, like learning foreign languages and linguistics, on my own, ... correctly).

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If you looked at my comments here, I said adding the long name is perfectly acceptable in the article (but the article should not be moved to that long title). I gave Libya as a prime example of something that is constantly used in Wikipedia. Plus, people told you that there is no RS about the long title. The Icelandic Constitution does use Republic of Iceland at least once, so it will be perfectly acceptable to add in the article (but just don't break 3RR while doing it). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not getting what the problem is here. The country's official name is the "Republic of Iceland", so says the Encyclopedia Brittannica, the CIA World Fact Book and the country's own constitution presented on the official website.[164]. The country's colloquial name is "Iceland". The official name should be used in the infobox and the lede, and then sparingly throughout the article whenever it's appropriate. No? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That is what I am saying! User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

To Zscout370 and Beyond My Ken, just to clarify, the lengthy discussion on the talk page has been about whether or not the full name actually includes "Republic of", based on the fact that in the (Icelandic version) of the constitution "lýðveldið" (=republic) is written with a lower-case l, and on an answer from the prime minister's office stating that the official name is simply Iceland, and republic of is a description. Some sense of consensus had been reached, at least to the extent that those initially involved stopped complaining or editing, before the recent brief edit skirmish. I've been following the discussion out of curiosity, but with absolutely no interest in seeing one outcome or the other (a feeling that seems to be shared by Iceland, if in fact "Republic of" is not part of its name, given that they routinely sign diplomatic papers referring to the country as Republic of Iceland). StephenHudson (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

In this case, don't go with the politician, who's apt to tell you whatever accords with his or her polical philosophy, go with the bureaucracy which, being innately conservative and abhorrent of change, tell you what's been done for a long time. If they sign treaties as the "Republic of Iceland", then "Republic of" is not a description, it's a name, since that's how they present themselves to the rest of the world.

In these matter, politicans can't be trusted, but bureaucracies, being inherently conservative, can. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Do Piekcatcher's edits ring any bells with anyone?

I've just indef blocked Piekcatcher for a spate of vandalism to John Seigenthaler. Piekcatcher's edits look like someone with an axe to grind and smell rather of socks to me, and the edit history (seven or eight innocuous edits and some sandbox foolery to become autoconfirmed) look like someone familiar with WP. Might these edits be by a sock, and does the style or content ring any bells with anyone? Tonywalton ^Talk 01:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I can think of at least a couple of blocked users who fancy themselves poets. This one mentions Peter Damien. That name sounds familiar. Is/was that an admin? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think it mentions the banned User:Peter Damian, who sometimes made sterling contrubutions, and sometimes was disruptive. Cardamon (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Just add brackets. 68.28.104.240 (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I had it misspelled. I was thinking of the banned Peter Damian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). That doesn't mean it's Peter Damian, though - it could be someone "wronged" by Peter, or just someone trying to frame him (although how one could further frame someone, who's already banned, is hard to say). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The IP, who hasn't edited since a month ago, might also be trying to tell us something. :) It geolocates to one of the ISP's, in New Jersey, that the banned user Pioneercourthouse has used. PCH is known for trying to impersonate other users. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If you take off your Sherlock Holmes hat and AGF once in a while, you will see that it was an honest answer to your question. "Change a Vowel" and add some brackets and you have the answer to your question. I did forget to change the vowel after the pipe. 68.28.104.241 (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The "Jersey Boys" IP's are often harassment accounts, and thus automatically raise suspicions - especially from one whose last edit was a month ago and miraculously happened to turn up here. That doesn't mean that you specificallyare a harassment-only account. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I will assume that somehow your comments should be taken as being polite. Have a nice day. 68.245.148.157 (talk) 02:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

A different IP, 10 minutes later. Go figure. Another sockmaster that comes to mind is ItsLassieTime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been discovered socking again lately. I recall from discussion last summer where one of ILT's snide comments, prior to giving himself away as a sockmaster, was something about Sherlock Holmes. Of course, that's a fairly common metaphor. However, the overreaction to being questioned was typical of PCH, just before his latest sock would be exposed by a checkuser. However, I'm not in the "Sherlock" mode much anymore. I've taken the advice of trusted admins, who've told me that it's more conventient to think of all the different malicious accounts as being basically just one guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually it was Agatha Christie. Another one of them detectives.[165] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The worst thing is, his version of "16 Tons" isn't structured correctly and doesn't scan at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it occurred to me that Tennessee Ernie Ford was probably stirring in his grave. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

And to no real surprise, apparently the Sixteen Tons article has also been messed with this evening, although exactly who was doing it seems to be hidden to us laymen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the edit filter picked up something before it happened. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. And by the same user ID, or a different one? P.S. No need to mention the filter number. No need to give the sock any help. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't if I wanted to, since I don't know. (I just looked at edit summary in the protection log.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Guys, it's User:Johnny the Vandal, who's been doing this with various accounts for the last couple of days. I've adjusted some filters to cover this, but please keep an eye on Seigenthaler and block on sight if you see this recurring. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Is that User:Mike Garcia? Woogee (talk) 06:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, a voice of sanity amidst the scuffles, accusations of sockpuppetry, accusations of incivility, counter-accusations of incivility and all the rest of it that my simple question evoked. Thanks, Nawlinwiki. By the way, the [Agatha Christie reference appears to have been mine in the first place, and no, I'm not a sock of anybody! Tonywalton ^Talk 09:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Big Axe

Big Axe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been changing dates and order numbers on various politicians' articles. It is not looking good at all. Could anyone check their edits so as to understand if it is vandalism or something else? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Not entirely sure, but I'm interested to know why you've given the user 2nd warnings for every offense, and haven't elevated within the warning levels. He's definitely not listening every warning, from what I see. Connormah (talk | contribs) 22:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I was losing hope that this will be responed to :) Good question. The reason for not escalating the warnings is because I am not completely sure as to the motives of the user. Some of his edits appear not to be vandalism. So I went on a holding pattern until vandalism was proved beyond any doubt. This guy is either a prolific editor who knows much more than any editor as far as orders of succession and dates than anyone in those articles he edited or he must be blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. I am simply not knowledgeable enough in these areas to make this call in absolute confidence. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 10:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

File deleted in error

Merged thread with WP:AN#User:Melesse –xeno^talk 13:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sock of User:Roman888

Prolific copyright violator and sockpuppeteer User:Roman888 has re-emerged as User:MostlyMaybe. His contributions have been to restore four pages deleted for copyright violations. I ask for User:MostlyMaybe to be blocked as a confirmed sock and for the G5 deletion and salting (because of multiple copyvio recreations) of:

• Military Scandals in Malaysia
• Military Scandals in the Malaysian Armed Forces
• Military Scandals in the Malaysian Air Force
• Military Scandals in the Malaysian Navy

Thanks --Mkativerata (talk) 08:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted the two that weren't already redirected. Give me a minute to check the SPI if there is one. SGGH ^ping! 11:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

There isn't one, but per WP:DUCK I have indef'd MostlyMaybe for recreating topics with copyrighted material along very similar lines to recently blocked Roman888. SGGH ^ping! 12:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Liberal application of WP:SALT and redirect protection applied. MLauba (talk) 12:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Big Axe

Big Axe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been changing dates and order numbers on various politicians' articles. It is not looking good at all. Could anyone check their edits so as to understand if it is vandalism or something else? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Not entirely sure, but I'm interested to know why you've given the user 2nd warnings for every offense, and haven't elevated within the warning levels. He's definitely not listening every warning, from what I see. Connormah (talk | contribs) 22:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I was losing hope that this will be responed to :) Good question. The reason for not escalating the warnings is because I am not completely sure as to the motives of the user. Some of his edits appear not to be vandalism. So I went on a holding pattern until vandalism was proved beyond any doubt. This guy is either a prolific editor who knows much more than any editor as far as orders of succession and dates than anyone in those articles he edited or he must be blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. I am simply not knowledgeable enough in these areas to make this call in absolute confidence. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 10:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

File deleted in error

Merged thread with WP:AN#User:Melesse –xeno^talk 13:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

new editor who seems like a PoV pusher and is escalating

I was trying to keep Icelandic Viking POWER (talk · contribs) from here, but if this editor is going to start complaining about the level of his/her headings on talk pages – as here – then I really have no option but to suggest that the ditor does not have the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind when he/she makes their edits. As Icelandic Viking POWER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is being used as a single purpose account, I would request a permaban. Physchim62 (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Strongly suggest not. The number of contributions to date does not allow us to identify him as an SPA -- just one who hasn't found another subject to work on yet. I see no admin action needed at this point. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, you failed to notify IVP as is required. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

An "new editor" who deliberately blanks all contributions to their talk page has forgone such niceties, I'm afraid. Physchim62 (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, no, that's definitely not the case.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Why did you change my section to a subsection on that page? What gives you the right to change my input on talkpages? I only joined wikipedia to fix what seemed to me like a grave misreprensetation of information on the Cod Wars article so maybe I am an spa but so what? The best name for The Icesave referendum might not be "The Icesave referendum" I don't really know but per my input on the talkpage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Icelandic_debt_repayment_referendum,_2010#Name_of_the_article_Google_Results it should be obvious to anyone that the current name of the article simply just won't do.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Erm, a look at the "contributions" – if not just at the username – shows that this is an account which has been created solely for the purpose of SOAPBOXing a particular political view: two "contributions" on January 31 (to set a date for autoconfirmed status) and then nothing until March 11, when the account becomes used for soapboxing. The very first edit by this account, or at least the edit summary, is quite instructive: this is an "editor" who knows how to get through the usual filters but, of course, his or her edit was not actually "thoroughly explained on [the] talk page", just that nobody bothered to check! Physchim62 (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

These accusations are outrageous I am not soapboxing but working on having the name of the article changed. As for my Cod wars edit, how could I POSSIBLY! have explained it any better on that talk page? Are baseless accusations like these considered positive and tolorated her on wikipedia?--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 05:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the value of IVP's contributions, there is nothing here that warrants a permaban. SPA's are not a permabannable offense, and it's jumping the gun to call him an SPA at this point. Beyond that, that he used an edit summary when deleting content to point out that he was going to explain on the talk page is admirable (which he did do, whether it was as "thorough" as you wanted or not), not a bannable offense. It is assuming bad faith of the worst order to be insinuating what you are insinuating when what IVP did was exactly what he was supposed to do -- use an edit summary to indicate that he would explain his change on the talk page, and then he explained it. I do not know, nor do I care to comment, on the value of his contributions, being wholly unfamiliar with the original topic, but this is not a permaban, or even really a blockable or bannable offense type situation at all, to my eyes. I see no evidence of edit-warring or anything else I'd expect to see given the accusations here. And, really, again the insinuation above is just frightfully bad form. The autoconfirm bit is indefensible. It doesn't even make any rational sense, given the criteria for autoconfirm status.

Also, nobody foregoes "such niceties" as a notification about an ANI you've raised about them. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys, you remind why I'm not an admin. I simply don't want to be associated with the likes of you... Physchim62 (talk) 11:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the likes of we who actually read contribution histories in response to an AN/I report? Sorry to disappoint you. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Please lock an image

Resolved

 – Image added to WP:BADIMAGE list.

{{Resolved|Tom Crean (explorer) protected for 24 hours.  Frank  |  talk  00:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)}}

Can someone please lock ^{Caution: NSFW link ahead.} File:PAlock.jpg? It's being used by penis vandals to mess around with the current mainpage FA. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

"Penis vandals"? An interesting concept :-) I've protected Tom Crean (explorer), as is common practice on the article of the day. (It had been blanked when I got to it anyway.)  Frank  |  talk  00:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought that just "wasn't done"? Even in the face of rampant vandalism, I don't remember seeing a front page FA locked down while it was on the front page. I'm not actually disagreeing, actually, I think it's a good idea, but I'm surprised both that someone locked it down, and nobody has unprotected or at least protested the protection. -- Atama頭 00:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I've unprotected the article (except for move protection) and have added the image to the bad image list. Nakon 01:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're right that typically TFA is not protected unless there is a flood of vandalism; and in fact, if it is protected the day before it is TFA, it gets specifically unprotected for its day in the sun. Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. Haven't look at the page so I don't make any statement one way or the other as to the propriety of the protection in the present case. –xeno^talk 01:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Bad image list, that's what I meant. :) Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about this, except to say that the specific image and vandalism on the article are two distinct issues. Moving the image to the bad image list won't stop the vandalism; it will merely change it. When I got to the article, in fact, the vandalism was that it had been entirely replaced with the word "Hello" - nothing to do with the image. Seemed a clear-cut case for protection - article of the day or not. Again, I don't feel strongly one way or the other.  Frank  |  talk  01:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you Frank and actually go so far as to think TFA should always be protected with desired edits suggested on the talk page. But that's one of those perpetual requests that is pretty much just shut down. I think there are a lot of masochists around here. :) Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

In this case, putting a lock on the image would seem to be redundant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

*facepalm* Nakon 15:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sock of User:Roman888

Prolific copyright violator and sockpuppeteer User:Roman888 has re-emerged as User:MostlyMaybe. His contributions have been to restore four pages deleted for copyright violations. I ask for User:MostlyMaybe to be blocked as a confirmed sock and for the G5 deletion and salting (because of multiple copyvio recreations) of:

• Military Scandals in Malaysia
• Military Scandals in the Malaysian Armed Forces
• Military Scandals in the Malaysian Air Force
• Military Scandals in the Malaysian Navy

Thanks --Mkativerata (talk) 08:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted the two that weren't already redirected. Give me a minute to check the SPI if there is one. SGGH ^ping! 11:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

There isn't one, but per WP:DUCK I have indef'd MostlyMaybe for recreating topics with copyrighted material along very similar lines to recently blocked Roman888. SGGH ^ping! 12:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Liberal application of WP:SALT and redirect protection applied. MLauba (talk) 12:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Left-arm orthodox spin

Could somebody please review the protection of the Left-arm orthodox spin article. YellowMonkey and myself got into an edit war over the inclusion of Mohammad Rafique, a discussion was started on the talk page to attempt and resolve the issue. YellowMonkey has been directed to the talk page on three occasions but has refused to participate, but two other users agree with me that Rafique should be included. The article was then protected by SpacemanSpiff following a request on his talkpage by YellowMonkey. It seems grossly unfair that YellowMonkey preferred version is protected when a talkpage discussion, which he refuses to participate in, shows more support for the opposing view. --88.111.62.119 (talk) 09:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is this not at Requests for Comment? This is a content dispute first. Not an ANI issue. SGGH ^ping! 11:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I have begun discussion on the talk page, and shall ask Yellowmonkey and Spiff to weigh in promptly. I believe this ANI thread should be closed as the situation will be in hand. It's overkill to bring it here in the first place IMO. SGGH ^ping! 11:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff performed a poor administrative action and I would like it to be reversed, that's why this thread was started here. It's not simply a content dispute it's a issue of admins working together to help themselves out of trouble, that's a serious matter which shouldn't be swept under the carpet. --88.111.62.119 (talk) 11:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you asked Spiff to review his action? SGGH ^ping! 11:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff has protected the article to stop edit warring on the article, and not to take sides with YellowMonkey as far as I can see. The current version is the one that existed before the dispute began, which is the one that is usually protected. The fact that YellowMonkey requested protection makes no difference. Protection of the page seems appropriate to me, but it may naturally be The Wrong Version ;) ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 11:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

And I suppose it was poor coincidence that SpacemanSpiff protected the article just minutes after YellowMonkey had reverted an edit which took place six hours previous. I wasn't born yesterday Chamal. --88.111.62.119 (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh... didn't you read my comment? I said that version was protected because it was the one that existed before the dispute, not because it was the "YellowMonkey preferred version" as you say. I would have done the same if I was the protecting admin, and if that wasn't the current version I would have reverted to it before protecting. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 14:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually in your previous comment you said the current version is the one that is usually protected, I was responding to as why the YellowMonkey preferred version just so happened to be the current version at the time the protection was placed. What version are you referring to as 'before the dispute' because the adding of Rafique by various users and it's removal by YellowMonkey has been going on for years. --88.111.62.119 (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What I meant by "current version is the one that existed before the dispute began" was that the current version was the same as the version that existed before the dispute. Sorry about any confusion that may have caused. By "before the dispute" I mean the version before the Rafique issue escalated (around February). Addition and removal of various bowlers has happened before that, of course. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 15:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to User:SGGH for informing me about this. This has been in a low-grade edit war for about 6-8 weeks and therefore I protected it (full-protection, so that it doesn't favor one party over the other). When I came to protect the article, that version was closest to the version before this dispute started, so I left it at that and posted on the talk page asking to arrive at a consensus on what should/shouldn't be included and noting that I'd unprotect earlier if that consensus was reached. —SpacemanSpiff 17:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:41.234.174.35

This user seems to be engaged in an edit war at Ashram; from the looks of it he's been blanking the article and replacing it with Arabic text. Since I'm getting the impression this user isn't fluent in English (and thus cannot understand the warnings presently on his talk page, let alone an AN/I notification), could someone fluent in Arabic please point him towards the Arabic WP? —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 08:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime, another admin has properly protected the article. — Satori Son 13:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Erm, Satori, I protted it before I came here. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 21:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat to sue me for slander in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eberhard Booe

Resolved

 – Legal threat withdrawn, user unblocked, AFD courtesy blanked. –xeno^talk 18:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

{{Resolved|Blocked, but leave to someone else to do next time.}}

---

User:Rvbooe gave me 24 hours warning, about 14 hours ago, that he was going to sue me for slander, etc. due to a comment I made in the course of the discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eberhard Booe. I've blocked him and given him the NLT template notification. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I assume it was this edit is the reason for the block. I agree with blocking under the circumstances but suggest you let another admin review then block/warn rather than acting youself. Gnangarra 13:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks fairly clear-cut and appropriate to me. Interestingly unique interpretation of defamation there, I must say... --Xdamr^talk 13:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree that it would've probably been best to let another admin do this, but I think the end result would've been the same. –xeno^talk 13:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree as well. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd been under the impression that under WP:NLT the block was the first thing; but if some other admin would like to revert mine and block it themselves, I certainly wouldn't object, just in the interest of procedural clarity and avoidance of any perception of bias. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's really necessary, noting that NLT isn't really something that's open to a lot of interpretation or bias. The legal threat he left you was clear and another admin would've blocked without delay. Next time though I would probably just say to post it at ANI. –xeno^talk 13:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

There was nothing to justify OrangeMike using his tools so urgently instead of leaving it to someone else. NLT, particularly in such clear threats, does warrant blocks first - but that doesn't mean admin guidelines are abandoned altogether. What we had is a block with a far greater chilling effect compared to the comment made by the editor. Obviously I will oppose lifting the block, and even if we got another admin to reimpose the block, it is useless in undoing any damage. But really, this level of involvement in blocking should not be happening - it's disappointing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC) (see also [166])

The result was inevitable so it doesn't matter who did it, he brought it here for review so transparency is preserved. No problem. Guy (Help!) 14:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The vocalist has a point, and I consider myself appropriately chastised. If I thought I was above criticism, I wouldn't be worthy of wielding the Mop-and-Bucket. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

And here is an excellent example of an administrator who is actually receptive to criticism. :) It's something that is so easily lost or forgotten after doing a lot of tasks on-wiki, but it certainly should remind other trusted users on how to respond to criticism. Wow. :) :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Rvbooe has withdrawn the legal threat, and I've unblocked him. He's asked for courtesy blanking on a portion of the AfD discussion, but somebody else should look at that issue, rather than having me do so. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I've {{Afd-privacy}}ed it (is that a verb?) --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The Trifecta: Obvious sock impersonates admin, makes legal threats

Wikiimedia Central (talk · contribs) is an obvious returning sock of indef blocked vandal Wikapedia Central (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). In addition to returning to harrass, he's also making legal threats about attorneys and telling other users he's suspended their editing privileges [167]. Thanks in advance for the swiftly applied banhammer. Dayewalker (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

(merging a duplicate request)

Wikiimedia Central (talk · contribs) (a sockpuppet) is busily engaged in an edit war oveer placing fake admin-like messages on a user page, and has an edit summary suggesting a legal threat. [168]. Their userpage also suggest they are claiming admin-like abilities to resolve issues. Can an admin take a look? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I propose WP:RBI here. The mode of operation is a bit different from the regular vandal, but he can still be recognized and banned easily. Both accounts are blocked, and if others arise they are easy to find and ban. Seeing his edit summaries ignoring him altogether will work best. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 17:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

And now he's back as The Common User Ombudsman (talk · contribs). Dayewalker (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I've also submitted a WP:RFPP on John Amos, which is a favorite target of his. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikiimedia Central has only been blocked because of their name, and not because of their behavior? Woogee (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the details in the block log, it is still indefinite. — Kralizec! (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh... look at their contributions. They claim to be operating on behalf of an "ombudsman" on their first edit. Open-and-shut case. Fran Rogers❇ 21:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What I'm looking at is the block template on their Talk page, which says This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because your username, Wikiimedia Central, does not meet our username policy. Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username. Woogee (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's true. But really, who cares. Block 'em, toss the key, and worry about other things. Tan | 39 22:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Leila Pahlavi has too few vandal edits to semi-protect, but not enough watchers

I've been single-handedly reverting IP vandalism on Leila Pahlavi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but I'm not as active an editor as I used to be. A whole bunch of completely different IPs have been vandalizing the page (or to be more technically accurate, making what appears to be politically motivated edits) to the page, hiding behind the edit summary "Restored page after vandalism". This has been going on for six months or more. Sometimes it lies untouched for weeks without activity, sometimes it's hours. It's never the same IP, but it's clearly the same person (identical edits with identical edit summary), so blocking the IPs can't happen; they often have no other editing history. I'm made multiple requests for long term semi-protect to no avail, because the activity level is "low". But if the editor oversight is even lower, and we have little to no constructive IP contributions, what recourse is there? —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 19:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a very long time. NW (Talk) 19:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikihounding by User:174.3.110.108 And Questionable unblock of same (AKA user:100110100)

IP 174.3.110.108 (talk · contribs) is engaging in deliberate wikihounding of myself. I first encountered this editor, when he was 174.3.98.236 (talk · contribs) and later as 174.3.99.176 (talk · contribs), when he made massive changes to Wikipedia:Tables (formerly Wikipedia:When to use tables), Wikipedia:Embedded list, Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, and Wikipedia:Lists without any discussion nor consensus. As he continued these edits, despite warnings from myself and others, he was reported here and was blocked for 3 hours. During this event, he also filed a false 3RR report that resulted in his being warned again. After his block was lifted, he was again admonished by several admins, but continued on and the report went stale. Administrator User:Father Goose apparently deciding to adopt the editor and helped him make the changes he wanted. He was reported here again on March 3rd by another IP, but no response was given to that report.

On March 10, he pretty much straight down the list of articles on my user page, and making random bad edits to Meerkat Manor[169], Tokyo Mew Mew[170], U-Drop Inn[171], and White Dog[172]. All of his edits were reverted and I requested that Father Goose intervene, as he had clearly decided to "nuture" this IP and had assigned himself as the IPs "advocate"[173]. While Father Goose agreed that the edits were not improvements, he also asserted there were in good faith and felt no action was needed[174]. Further discussion followed on both Father Goose's talk page and the IPs, including some back and forth between the IP and myself where I reiterated that I wished him to stop hounding me and bothering me, primarily through the Meerkat Manor talk page, despite FG also objecting to his change.[175] He continued to do so and Father Goose finally asked the IP to back off and again noted that the edits were not an improvement.[176]

The IP has continued to ignore Father Goose's notes and my own requests to leave him alone, quickly losing my temper with his continued aggrevating actions and Father Goose's seeming approval by his lack of action.[177] Father Goose even went back to U-Drop Inn,[178][179] and made similar edits as the IP, to which the IP responded to by giving him "getting [his] changes implemented".[180] The IP tried to call my reverts of his edits WP:OWN and began using that as a pipped link every time he used the phrase "your articles". He admitted that he'd specifically gone to my user page to "came to audit your articles" to see if they met his idea of what they should be, and then as they had no tables, he just made random changes to "improve" them. He clearly stated: "If you are wondering what my motivation for editing your 4 articles, it is because considering you were the only person who objected to the changes to wp:table, and then you did not explain your objections, considering that you made no contribution the current version of wp:table, I did not think you had invoked the changes to "your" articles." though none of those articles have even one table. These remarks were made after Father had told him to back off, and despite the IP's stating "I won't post any comments on any of your articles' talk pages" he continued to do so.

After I posted to Wikipedia talk:Ownership of articles suggesting the guideline be clarified to note what is not ownership, he followed me in his very first edit, after being offline, to opposed it.[181]. He had never edited that talk page before, nor WP:OWN itself, so it is clear he came behind me.[182] The IP went on to claim he'd done this before, editing Gossip Girl[183], however no edit was found with his IP range, unless he deliberately changed ranges. He also clearly recognizes that his behavior is disturbing and annoying, seeming to find it amusing and has indicate that he fully intends to continue doing so deliberately and claiming that any objection I make is displaying "ownership".[184][185]

Father Goose said he would speak to the IP[186], but nearly 24 hours, has not done so though he has been online. The IP's newest remarks have been to make his expression of his full intention to continue his harassment and random "auditing" of his articles. I am also concerned about the appropriateness of Father Goose's actions in this situation, after learning that the IP is actually 100110100 (talk · contribs)[187]. This user was blocked in 2007 for serious incivility, disruptive, and even making death threats. Apparently, he admitted at some point to Father Goose that he was this indef blocked user, and rather than reminding the IP that he was evading his ban, Father Goose decided to lift the block all together, stating "Assuming good faith; has displayed an imperfect but much more even-tempered manner as an IP since this account was blocked." Father Goose also seems very quick to jump to this IPs defense against any criticism[188] and after his earlier block as an IP, went on to do the IP's edits for him and explained why he could "get away" with[189].

It should also be noted that the IP is in an on-going edit war with User:Paul 012 at Wikipedia:Lists[190], and has been warned for doing various template changes without consensus (even being mistakenly blocked as a bot for how quickly he was doing certain changes. Also, as I was typing this, the IP filed a Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts against me.[191]

At this point, it seems prudent to have some outside administrative reviewing of both the IPs actions, and the quite unblock of what appears to have been a very disruptive editor who has been evading his block with IP socks for weeks, if not longer. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC); Modified 04:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This editor is continuing his actions, going on to deliberately make edits to other articles, despite the those same edits being rejected by both myself and Father Goose as being incorrect and not an improvement to any of the articles.[192][193][194][195], and two more done under his user account[196][197] I find this person's continued deliberate targeting extremely disturbing. Father Goose purportedly contacted him OFF wiki, but obviously it had no results only to prompt this editor to continue this sort of stuff. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I cannot defend 174's continued editing of Collectonian's pages at this point. I've counseled him against it, but he has persisted. Being his effective mentor, I am reluctant to block him myself, as it would compromise our ability to continue to deal with him diplomatically through me. But while I have been offering him advice and assistance, he is not under my aegis, and if another admin feels his actions call for a block or any other administrative action, I will not interfere.

I'll continue trying to suggest to him what actions he could be taking that would be more constructive.--Father Goose (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I know you tend to be a very AGFing editor/admin, but I am curious as to why you choose to unblock his named account, rather than enforcing his indef blocked, considering the history and circumstances (particular the death threat which, as far as I could see, he never retracted). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The broad principle here is that blocks are meant to be preventive, not punitive. His behavior is still not perfect (and his choosing to tangle with you in this manner deserves a rolled up wiki-newspaper to the nose), but I've seen him make positive contributions to the encyclopedia and his behavior has been far more communicative and cooperative than what caused him to get banned three years ago.

People are allowed to "come back" if they clean up their act. At the time that I unblocked him, his record as an IP was sufficiently clean that I felt we could afford to see how much he had reformed. Clearly we can't claim that he's a model citizen quite yet, and if he decides that hounding you is all that he wants to do on Wikipedia, then the cover should go back on the sarcophagus.

However, as pointed out by several people in the current Wikiquette alert ([198]), the intensity of your reaction here has not helped the issue. I'm not saying you should suffer a fool, but it makes it difficult for me to tell him to stop fighting with you when you're swinging back so hard. So far, this hasn't been going well for either of you.

I'd like to be able to stop this fight, but I'd need two calm people first.--Father Goose (talk) 05:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The fight would stop if he would stop the hounding. Why he decided to start it in the first place is beyond me. And I am calm(er) now than I was the first day. I have little patience for that sort of behavior, particularly when I have it coming at me from three sides at the moment, thanks to this guy, User:Bambifan101 finding yet another range to get past the 4-5 rangeblocks on him, and User:ItsLassieTime making socks and doing their darnedest to try to derail an FAC I have going on at the moment, including harassing a bunch of folks who supported or commented positively on it. And, quite honestly, your lack of response only made my frustration far worse, as you seemed to be condoning his behavior and at times I felt you were even encouraging it. I acknowledged in my original report that I had not been as clean-languaged as I could have been, but the issue was still on-going and as we have now both no doubt seen, he fully intends to keep it up. I don't think my being stressed and annoyed at his hounding and using more colorful language than I would normally would (which was far toned down from what I was thinking, believe me) should somehow excuse his behavior. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

And as an update, IP is continuing to push an issue at Talk:Meerkat Manor despite the notes above, it being rejected by multiple people, and folks in the Wikiquette alert that agreed he is acting inappropriate.[199] -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Outside Tangentially related opinion

Collectonian, his behavior could be called into question. However, I'm still not seeing behavior rising to the level of hounding. He has made changes, but they appear to be good faith changes done IAW policy. While I concur that WP:IAR definitely applies at [[200]] and "The" is appropriate unless someone can come up with a better header. I have 4 articles to which I contributed that became FAs (as you are probably well-aware), but others still add a lot to those articles and change things, as they have a right to do.

However, even if someone else finds his behavior to be hounding, this doesn't excuse your behavior, which has been atrocious: from claiming ownership over articles, to excessive profanity, to inappropriate demands, etc:

[201][202][203][204][205][206][207][208][209][210][211][212]

In short, I find your behavior to be worse and severely over-reacting. You should have simply brought your concerns here or to another board instead of reacting the way you did. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, that is your personal point view. As already pointed out in the Wikiquette alert, your are completely non-neutral in this discussion considering our disagreements over the A&M articles and my opposing one of your many failed RfAs. This is not the first time you have popped into a discussion that clearly showed inappropriate action by another editor to try to claim I was the one acting wrongly, despite no one agreeing with you. Again, whether or not I used profanity is irrelevant. I'm an adult and can use whatever language I choose. Further, it has already been noted above that this is NOT the first instance of this type of stuff. There is NOTHING inappropriate about telling someone hounding you to leave you alone, anymore than it would be wrong for me to tell you to get over the previous history and leave me alone. I walked away from almost every A&M article because of you. Be happy. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Your language and hostility are a problem (the IP's behavior notwithstanding) and is not only relevant, but central to the problems we're facing here. You indeed can choose any language you want, but on Wikipedia, communication should be civil; it currently is not. At least 4 other people agreed with me on the Wikiquette board that your reactions are out of line. Our "history" (which near as I can tell we haven't interacted for over a year) or your history with anyone else is irrelevant. You cannot justify bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

"You cannot justify bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior" - you mean like you are doing now to excuse away this editors edits? And of the people who agreed with you regarding my language, I notice you don't bother to mention that they also agreed with me that he IS wikihounding (and that the last you one yourself noted was lying and had not actually interacted with me, just decided to pop in and make a a negative remark because they disagreed with my replacing the tags on an article they had removed). Honesty is just as important as civility, and using profanity, in and of itself is not uncivil. My behavior here was appropriate, even if you disagree with my language in the discussions. And your view is not neutral (it is amusing you are lecturing me on my behavior when your four RfAs have failed, in part because of your own personality issues....but such is life, eh?)-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not excusing his behavior, though I've seen no specific diffs that you've provided with any problems. They seem like editorial concerns; ones that should be discussed on talk pages. One of your changes even goes against WP:HEADING, but I certainly concede that WP:IAR applies, no alternative really works, and you both discussed it on the talk page. Labeling a change vandalism when it is merely a difference of opinion is also uncivil ([213][214][215][216]). I don't see any diffs for the alleged tag removals. Profanity in discussions is not acceptable and explicitly mentioned in policy. Taunting me (or anyone else) is also uncivil.

If he's done something wrong, I'm just not seeing it in the diffs you've provided. I'm not excusing any behavior by saying his actions are justified because of yours. I'm saying I don't see that any inappropriate behavior exists at all." — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I do have to agree that some of Collectonian's reverts that are identified as "vandalism" are far cries from it. For example, the change that is undone by either [217] or [218], the addition of a pop culture section, is nowhere near vandalism - it is a good faith addition that is unsourced or unnecessary, but not vandalism; I'd still likely undo the change by under a AGF revert. Same with [219] a change that adds a bad EL (but not a copyvio EL). If these were repeat offenses (people pushing 3RR or a wise IP that's avoiding 3RR with slow edit warring), ok, vandalism starts to come into play, but not here. I would strongly recommend Collection to avoid the "revert (vandalism)" (which bypasses the edit summary entry) and instead use the other two revert tools that provide a quick edit summary so that it is clear why the reverts are being done. And this is not to question the need to revert - I think Collectonian is right that these aren't appropriate additions, but they are not vandalism. --MASEM (t) 00:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The first two are the same edit, made a bit of time apart, by the same person. Isn't that a repeat offense? I do consider the addition of unsourced, random content into a FA to be vandalism, however it others feel it is not, then I'm happy to start just using the regular RV for that sort of thing. I realize I tend to have a far harder view of vandalism than most others. However, I am curious. You do not feel the addition of spam is vandalism? That was not just a random site, but someone's personal "petition". To me, the last is a spam link, not any kind of legitimate link. That, to me, is vandalism, but again if it is not can you explain further to me what constitutes spam versus just a bad link? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the first two edits are not the same edit. They look similar but they are two different facets of pop culture. And because the IP addys are far apart, there's no evidence it is the same person (it could be, granted). I think the stance that "the addition of unsourced, random content into an FA is vandalism" is very much against AGF. (Yes, mind you, I'd love flagged revisions, which would deal with much of this, but...) All of this starts from AGF. If an editor (particularly an IP) makes a first-time edit that is not blatantly wrong but otherwise not appropriate, we need to take good faith that they may not be familiar with all policy and guideline - we can revert, just, we can't assume the person is vandalizing the article. Again, vandalism is deliberate; a new editor adding a bad (non-copy vio) EL is likely not trying to degrade the quality of the article deliberately, and that's why I wouldn't call any of those three examples vandalism. If the same IPs appeared later and make the same changes, then that becomes deliberate and thus vandalism. Again, the reverts in-of-themselves are not wrong, just the choice of using vandalsim rollback. That's why I suggest you should use AGF rollback to at least explain the edits - that will, in part, deal with the supposed attitude issue that BQZip is describing. --MASEM (t) 01:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense (and so agree on flagged revisions). I suspect it is not always evident, but I have actually been working on improving my method of dealing with reverts and on trying to do more AGFing, per some remarks left on my talk age. I do not always successfu, but I don't think anyone can expect one to change overnight? To confirm, these are more appropriate AGFing rollbacks, yes?[220][221][222][223][224][225][226]. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

They seem better to me. Again, my only caution here (which is in part what seems to have led to this case) is to avoid pressing the vandalism revert button too fast, as doing a revert with more of an explanation that "vandalism" is much more helpful to new editors and those reviewing such cases. --MASEM (t) 02:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

To the admins, I welcome any opinions, but Collectonian seems to have no desire/will to change her behavior. I recommend a 24 hour block (1st block for such a violation) for multiple violations of WP:CIVIL and an inability/unwillingness to alter such behavior which is explicitly in contradiction with the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. I also recommend a review of the IP's actions; while I don't see anything wrong, I'm willing to admit I could have missed something. The same goes for the unblocking admin. If I have done anything wrong, please let me know on my talk page or here and I will correct it (if it is something worthy of a block, please block me IAW WP:PG). — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

A 24 hour block nearly 2 days after the incident? Blocks are not punitative (supposedly), and it seems you are just trying to find some reason to get me blocked. What is your stake in this? Why are you so determined to get me blocked while continuing to see nothing wrong with the hounding on both a logged in account and multiple IPs (which at least four editors have agreed occurred, despite your own personal denial of events). Hounding and pointy edits are vandalism. Thank you for at least admitting you really haven't reviewed anything and are pretty much just coming here to make negative remarks because its me. Were this any other editor, I doubt you would be calling for a block. And, FYI, Father Goose, whose talk page the exchange occurred on, IS AN ADMIN. Had he felt my language was inappropriate or worthy of blocking, don't you think he would have left me a warning (which I have not received a single one for) and blocked me himself had I continued. You really are not adding any value to this discussion, but instead only causing a lot of noisy distractions from the real issues. As such, it seems unlikely any actual admin discussion will occur here because of this pointless back and forth on a non-issue. Despite what you may like, you cannot have me blocked just because you dislike me.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

1. Blocks are not punitive (and I wasn't suggesting otherwise), but are designed to change behavior. You have indicated that you not only have no desire to change your behavior, but that you believe it is acceptable. "Blocks sometimes are used as a deterrent, to discourage whatever behavior led to the block and encourage a productive editing environment." "A user may be blocked...when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. A block for disruption may be necessary in response to...persistent gross incivility."
2. Hounding and pointy edits are explicitly mentioned as things that are not vandalism: NOTVAND. These fall under disruptive editing.
3. For an admin to initiate a block in a situation he was involved would be inappropriate: "Administrators should not use their tools...in a content dispute where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist."
4. Plenty of users and admins have warned you over the past 2 days that your conduct was inappropriate. Complaining that "I didn't get a warning is disingenuous".
5. I am not asking for you to be blocked because I dislike you personally (which, in fact, I don't). I am asking for your to be blocked so your behavior will fall in line with our policies and guidelines on appropriate behavior.

— BQZip01 — ^talk 01:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Collectonian, the degree of unchivalry pointed out by BQZip01 with those vandal revert edits is not minor. Four edits, each one possibly worthy of a block in themself. It seems to me that despite conversation encouraging your calmness, you are far from editing in the calmest possible way. In doing your false vandal reverts it bring into question your ability to assume good faith and the objectivity of your comments here and elsewhere. I would prefer you are not blocked but what would you suggest instead? How is that you behaviour can be improved? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Please point out how I am not calmly editing now. Not two days ago, but now. Also, please note that in my initial report, and in replies to Father Goose above, I DID acknowledge that I lost my temper in my initial responses to this situation. I see no reason to block me now. It is not going to change my general nature, which is not evidenced by that response at the start of this (which is what all of those diffs are from). I am annoyed by BQZip01's responses in the etiquette report and here, but again do you see any evidence I have been uncivil in my responses or repeated the response I had to 100110100/the IP? Also, can you or BQZip01 point to any other time I have had such a response anywhere in my 5+ year editing history? Even when another User:ItsLassieTime sock tried, for the second time, to derail an FAC I have going on at the moment, I believe my revert was fully civil[227], I requested the page be protected, and made the appropriate reports. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Your response is one of challenge. It would be nice if it was one of co-operation. You will notice that when tables are turned your view is to propose a long block. Such blocks are not something I would agree with. Let's move forward and assume good faith. I have every reason to believe that in a spirit of co-operation and a helping hand from Father Goose that your issues with the IP can be resolved or at least not brought into flare up or 'fight' again. For now, I'm outta this conversation. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Suncreator, thank you for your kind words and assistance.

Collectonian, ask and ye shall receive: [228][229][230][231][232][233] In every edit summary there is profanity. This isn't an isolated incident. Moreover, the last one was for MQS, an editor in which you opined recently in his WP:RfA. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

One profane word in an editsummary, some of which you had to go back TWO years to find, is not the same. Thanks. And what does the RfA have to do with anything? I am allowed to oppose any RfA same as you (an RfA you yourself opposed). And if anyone is going to tell me that Bambifan101's socks don't provoke cussing, you'll also have to block several of the administrators, who have also used "profane" language in dealing with him. And let's see....you had to seriously hunt for those, to go back two years...out of 100,000 edits, thats all and the best you could do? A few minor edit summaries? *sigh* And I'm supposed to assume good faith that you aren't here with an agenda? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Collectonian, you try to paint a broad brush as this being a one-time incident, when in fact, it is something you seem prone to do. I just did a quick search on your edit summaries checking for a few choice words. Some were recent; others were further back. And of course I looked back into your past (you said to look in your "5+ years", so I did. To belittle me when it is shown that you are wrong and your behavior remains consistent (sparks of incivility throughout your Wikipedia career), is inappropriate as well).

To paraphrase:

Me: Your recent actions are problematic

You: I'm sorry man. I had a bad day.

Me: This has always been a problem

You: Aside from this, I have a clear 5+ year history

Me: Well, these diffs show you have problems both recent and in the past

You: OMG, you had to go back 2 YEARS?!?

Me: No, you said you had a clear past. You don't.

Ok, so you are discounting recent actions, actions in the past, denying there are any problems, and making excuses as "it was deserved". That basically excuses any/all inappropriate actions indefinitely. Do you take responsibility for any of your edits? If you just said "I'm sorry", taken it back/struck your comments, etc, this wouldn't be an issue.

In any case, I didn't have to search very hard to find them.

The only agenda I have here is to get you to stop being so hostile (The thing about the RfA was simply a note that the two were tangentially related, not implying any sinister action on your part. You, of course, are free to do as you wish at any RfA.). — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

YOU asked I be blocked for RECENT actions claiming I was consistently something or another. I said look at my five year history as a whole, not just pick and choose a few bits of extremely minor issues (which NO ONE took issue with at the time). Almost every editor here, including YOU have "sparks of incivility" through out their career, particularly when they have been here any length of time. If we are going to sit here and nitpick five years and claim that because I made a very minor remark two years ago, I should be blocked today, then this is an entirely ridiculous discussion, unless we are also going to block you, and I'd expect at least 50% of the Wikipedia registered user base. I NEVER claimed to have "clear" history, so do not make false paraphrases. I specifically asked that someone point a single instance LIKE this in my five years. None of those are even close to comparing, not in any way shape or form. If you can't tell the difference, that is your issues, not mine. And I've already noted multiple times in this thread that I agree my responses IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE were overly vitrolic, but you, again, continue to ignore them. This, and your continued harping on this and demanding what, I do not know, just seems like someone with an agenda or some other reason for being here other than any legitimate concern. As is, I'm very tired of this back and forth with you and it obviously is not going to get us anywhere. From this, you will not find any fault here in 100110100's edits and instead support and condone it. From that, I shall refrain from answering you again in this matter, as it is completely unproductive. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

And that is your choice. In the diffs you linked, I saw nothing other than editorial changes on format. If I am missing anything someone please post them because I clearly am missing something. I am willing to put forth a support for a block, but I need to see some concrete evidence.

You are absolutely correct that I have made inappropriate edits in the past. I've apologized for it, acknowledge it was poor behavior, and vow to do my best not to have that happen again.

By contrast, you attempt to excuse them "Everybody does it". Even if there are problems with his edits or my edits in the past, that doesn't excuse your behavior. You have clearly made hostile edits and make no apologies for it. You claim you've never made other such edits, but I've shown that assertion to be false. I agree your general edit history is clear, but that doesn't make these actions ok.

Lastly, I do not condone or support his actions, but they are not prohibited either. I find it inappropriate to chastise or vilify someone for behavior that WP has deemed acceptable. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that Collectonian should be blocked -- not over this incident, at any rate. 100110100's behavior was at least to some degree provocative, and while Collectonian's response has been disproportionate (in my opinion), that's still nowhere near a block.

I do agree however with the criticism leveled at her here and at the Wikiquette alert. She has a tendency to bare the claws early and often. But I'd much rather address that problem through peaceful means -- i.e., talking to her about it. I don't think I'm the right person to do that, as she no doubt sees me right now as the ally of one of her enemies. But if Collectonian found a way to be calmer and more willing to assume good faith in general, I've got to think she would find Wikipedia to be a much more amicable place than it has been toward her to date.--Father Goose (talk) 06:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Despite this issue of wikihounding, I haven't had any problem with finding Wikipedia an amicable place. Yes, with my lengthy history and visibility in the fictional areas, I've made enemies. So has any other active editor. Frankly, I don't care. I'm not here to make people like me or make friends. So long as it doesn't bring harm to the articles, its neither here nor there. I do, however, take issue with being harassed and wikihounded. I ask this of you, and my other critics. Had I been the one who had followed 100110100 and his IPs edits and just randomly began changing things around that did not improve the article at all (and in some cases were not even valid per the MoS), and I clearly was following him, not just happening to interact with him, would the response be the same? I doubt it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• 156 ANI incidents involving Collectonian as an interested party. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• That search you link to doesn't mean anything. It just means Collectonian has posted in or been mentioned in 156 ANI threads, not necessarily as an interested party. My name is found in 28 threads: [234], and this current thread is the first time to my knowledge that my behavior has been called into question (although given that I unblocked a user who is not without his faults, I accept the scrutiny).--Father Goose (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Well, okay, some of the threads within that search do contain complaints about Collectonian. But I think she's been adequately informed that she could be less sharp-elbowed, and given that no action will be taken against her as regards this incident, it'd probably be best to let the issue settle for now.--Father Goose (talk) 04:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• And that is supposed to mean what? I have filed numerous ANI cases, dealing with the Bambifan101 socks, ItsLassieTime socks, a stalking editor for over a year, usual vandalism reports, etc etc etc. You can't just search a name and claim "look at all these threads about them". It doesn't mean anything. Of those that might have complaints about me, a good number were from disruptive editors that, actually reading the threads in question, would show were eventually blocked themselves for being disruptive, rather than having any rebuke against myself or anyone else. I do find it interesting that you are chiming in here though, all things considered, such as your seeming continuing to watch my contribs yourself and randomly following me to welcome vandals[235] (without apparently bothing to note he had done the same multiple times before as various IPs). The Wikiette closing as WP:SOAP was quite right. Just wish someone would do the same here already. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• In our last discussion you suggested that if I thought you were infringing WP:BITE and WP:AGF I should "coddle the IPs directly" rather than bringing the matter to you. I've taken your advice. You left an incredibly harsh "this is your only warning" message on the guy's talk page, without even a welcome template to go with it. Maybe the guy deserved it, maybe he didn't, but it's not like you left any explanation that you thought he was a sockpuppet or evidence backing that up. So I took the time to explain to him exactly what rule he'd broken, why he shouldn't do it, and how he could make more constructive edits in future. You do a lot of these vandal reverts and most of them are good reverts; in a perfect world you'd take the time to amend your warning template to include this kind of basic politeness, but that doesn't seem likely and there's no particular onus on you to do so, so in the spirit of WP:SOFIXIT I did the community-building work myself. A little good faith would go a long way towards not being involved in 156 ANI threads. If you have further concerns feel free to pose them on my talk page so we don't choke up this largely unrelated thread. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Had you done the same to him, I would have assumed good faith with the initial four edits, and had you persisted, criticized you for it and asked you to discontinue. In other words, I believe my response would have been largely the same toward you as it has been toward him. Despite being his mentor, I haven't defended his behavior when it has been unambiguously problematic.

As for the "random non-improvements", I've found that about half of the time I see the sense in 1000110100's edits, and half of the time I don't. The primary reason I've been willing to be his advocate is that often his ideas are quite sound, although his ability to express them (or the specifics of his implementation) is poor. His change to the U-Drop Inn article, for instance, was an instance of poor implementation: "Movie fame" was a poor choice of headings, though "Movie notability" was even worse. That edit brought to my attention some other shortcomings with the section, and I made changes to the section and its heading that you seem to have mostly agreed with.

In the past you opposed his changes to WP:TABLES. It took me a while to understand what he was pitching there, but in the end I came to agree with him fully, and badly needed complete rewrite of that guideline was the result. He's not quite the vandal or bastard you make him out to be, although sometimes he doesn't make himself well understood, and other times he makes some outright bonehead moves -- this hounding case is an example, though I'm happy to see he's now taking a more constructive tack.

I'll do what I can to continue steering him away from unconstructive behavior and trying to help him with his positive contributions. He's probably going to pursue this quote box thing further, and he's entitled to, as long as it doesn't come in the form of a vendetta against you. I don't believe that's his sole aim here, although he did focus on your articles at first, and I won't claim that was an accident.--Father Goose (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't butt my nose in here, but after skimming through this and reading "I haven't had any problem with finding Wikipedia an amicable place." above, among other things that you've said here Collectonian, I've gotta tell you, I've gone out of my way to avoid running into you for months now. I won't go near the edit button on any article that is media related, for fear of instigating a conflict with you (and, to be fair, a couple of others in that area). Not that I advocate a block here, but I wanted to say that BQZip01 and SunCreator do have a point in their criticism.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Unblock review of user:100110100

Per above, I think it would be prudent for an admin to review the unblocking of this editor, who admittedly was violating his indef block under numerous IPs for at least several months. While he was unblocked by Father Goose, who stated "his record as an IP was sufficiently clean that I felt we could afford to see how much he had reformed" (fuller explanation above), it seems odd to me to say his record as an IP was clean when he was deliberately evading his indef block. He made no apparent attempt to request unblock under his user name, but choose to edit as a multiple IPs. This, to me, does not show a change in the sorts of behavior that resulted in his indef block, particularly compounded with his massive changes to Wikipedia guidelines without discussion, the wikihounding of myself (as detailed above), his ignoring numerous notes on his various IP talk pages about his mass changes to templates, and his continuing to make various edits that meet his personal preferences but directly conflict with the Wikipedia Manual of Style and consensus in the articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with you on the assessment of the problem/situation, but what exactly would that do? Apparently, we're dealing w/ somebody who could easily keep using multiple IPs. Re-blocking the account won't actually do much. No? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If the indef block is restored, any active IPs would also be blocked, and, if necessary, new ones would also be blocked for block evasion. Depending on whether he were to continue to evade the block as he did in this instance, a range block could also be implemented. They can have some success, though of course they can also be evaded (as we have some very very long term indef blocked folks who have some 400+ socks can show). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That's true. So, in that case, it would seem only fair to re-block for block-evasion, as is usually done. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There is plenty of precedent for unblocking someone on the basis of reformed behavior. This is for a very basic reason: blocks are meant to be preventive, not punitive. If the block-worthy behavior stops, the block itself should stop.

The indefinite block of 100110100 was appropriate at the time that it was imposed: he had made death threats following a long history of disruptive behavior. Although 100110100/ip174's behavior hasn't been exemplary during the time that I've known him (about two months), I have seen nothing approaching the level that warrants continued indefinite blocking. For the most part, he has been a constructive editor, willing to resolve his disputes through appropriate means.

This episode with Collectonian is regrettable; I personally would be willing to call it low-grade wikihounding, although the edits he has made (and Collectonian has reverted) are defensible if taken individually, even if one might disagree with them. At the same time, Collectonian's response has been so vituperative that it has most likely heightened the conflict.

At this time, 100110100/ip174 seems to have switched to a far more appropriate course of action, namely trying to establish a consensus for the removal of {{quote box}}es, which Collectonian has used in many of her articles. I do not believe this particular initiative is specifically targeted at Collectonian, as he has tangled with me over a similar issue in the past: Wikipedia_talk:Understanding_IAR#.7B.7Bquote.7D.7D.

Collectonian's behavior here has not been exemplary either. She almost immediately treated something that ought to have been a minor conflict as a scandalous personal assault, and her actions have served to intensify the conflict. I'd really rather not draw her ire by criticizing her, but frankly, her behavior regarding this fight has not helped to get this thing resolved.--Father Goose (talk) 05:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If its agreed he is going to remain unblocked, I think it should be mandatory that he identify himself. As it is, I have seen several discussions now where he replies as his IP and then as his username, without making it clear he is one and the same, giving an appearance of one agreeing with the other, which is not appropriate. Of course, neither was his canvassing as he has done in his attempt to get that quotation essay passed to a guideline so he can think claim justification on removing them from any article I've edited (I notice that he did NOT go through and remove them FROM all articles, nor propose the box for deletion...he only removed them from articles I happened to use them on). Talking like I'm not reading is more likely to draw my ire than simply stating what you think. *a lame attempt at humor* And sorry, but I do find wikihounding to be a personal assault, and I think it is frequently mishandled and overly ignored by this site's administration. Of course, that is neither here or there at this point. It seems clear to me now that no one really minds that he was wikihounding because they disliked my reaction to it. Whether it was "overboard" or not, considering it was not the first time he'd done it, is subjective. As he himself has admitted to seeking me out, I think my views are justified, even if I could have used less vitriolic language. It also seems clear that if he continues doing it, no one will really do anything to stop it, which of course gives him a positive reward for his behavior. I have, quite frankly, not seen that he has done any significant contributions to the encyclopedia. Other than his replacements of templates (despite being told to stop), and trying to change article style guides to match his own personal preferences of what an article should "look" like, his only real main space edits seem to be hounding myself and, as you've noted, occasionally just playing with stuff you've edited just to do it. Anyway, it seems there will be no result one way or another from this discussion. I don't think he is going to listen to you, or to anyone else when he has not, in fact, even bothered responding here. If someone decides they want to block me for my remarks, feel free. It isn't going to change anything, but I'm not stupid enough not to know that with 5 years and nearly 100,000 edits under my belt that I don't have enough enemies that would delight in it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something but using an IP to evade an indefinite block is per se bad faith editing. Avoiding trouble while doing so is socking, and cannot be considered good behavior. Engaging in arguably blockable behavior is even worse - whether the behavior would be blockable in isolation if done by a legitimate editor, the fact that a person who isn't supposed to be editing is doing so in a way that upsets some others only confirms that they shouldn't be editing. It's ongoing rule-breaking, and cannot be anything but intentionally so. We've been through this exact routine a number of times here. Father Goose is a well-seasoned admin, and must know all this - I wonder if there is some boundary pushing going on here. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm with User:Wikidemon here. This account should not have been unblocked while evading the indef block. I too tend to be and AGF'er but this is a bit much. Father Goose is commended for his desire to help but I think this was an error in judgment. If there are issues with User:AnmaFinotera then deal with them in a separate section. We need to decide if the binary user a problem and how to proceed from this point on. That should be the focus of this portion of the discussion. JodyB _talk 12:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

100110100 was blocked, not banned. Had he been banned by either the community or arbcom, I would have had no right to individually review his block and choose to lift it.

But the block was imposed three years ago, as a decision apparently made by a single admin, and I am well within my rights to review and lift it if I feel it is no longer needed. The behavior for which 100110100 was indefinitely blocked (which was appropriate at the time) appears to have long since ceased.

I know of many, many cases where a user "evaded a block" (or even an outright ban), reformed their behavior, and been accepted back into the community. Were they then immediately blocked again indefinitely for evading a block? If we had done that, we'd be acting like vindictive fools.

Block evasion is unacceptable in particular when it's done to keep doing the bad behavior that prompted the block. I wouldn't have bothered unblocking 100110100 if I had seen nothing but bad behavior from this user. I'm not saying his behavior has been perfect during the time I've known him, but for the most part he's been acting in good faith, communicating with other users to promote his ideas, and making changes that on the balance improve the encyclopedia. Do we ban users like that? No. Therefore, I lifted the indefinite block.

Wikipedia has a culture of offering second chances, when they are deserved. But this being ANI, everyone commenting here is only aware of 100110100's bad behavior -- his block log from a long time ago and the current conflict with User:AnmaFinotera, who has done everything she can to make the case here for getting rid of him.

If you want to evaluate whether 100110100 should be banned, evaluate all of his current behavior (not just Collectonian's depiction of it) and decide whether this is the kind of user who has no place on Wikipedia. I happen to believe he is imperfect but by no means the kind of person who deserves to be banned. He is a bit strong-willed at times (aren't we all?), but I've seen his willingness and ability to learn Wikipedia's ways, and his ability to apply himself to constructive activities when appropriately counseled.

It is for this reason that I unblocked him. He might deserve to be blocked for some future offense -- he might have even deserved a short-term block for this tangle with Collectonian, although for now he seems to have changed course. If the only reason you think he should be indefinitely blocked now is for the technical reason of evading an indefinite block imposed three years ago, then there's no sound basis for returning him to "banned" status. I gave him a careful and fair evaluation and all of you should too.--Father Goose (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Concur with FG's assessment. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I came here from Wikipedia_talk:Quotations where user:100110100 and what I am told is an IP sock of user:100110100, have signed statements in an RFC initiated by the IP sock. Using both accounts in a discussion which is also polling on whether a page should be promoted to a guideline is not acceptable. I will go with Father Goose's judgement on unblocking user:100110100, providing user:100110100 agrees only to use that account and does not edit using an IP address or any other user account. If (s)he does so by accident then she must agree to revert and redo it if it is on an article page (or similar where signatures are not user) or to re-sign a talk page comment with a user:100110100 signature. Failure to comply with this request should lead to an indefinite block until such time as user:100110100 agrees to abide by the request. If user:100110100 uses IP addresses, or any other user account, while blocked then user:100110100 should be banned. As the unblocking administrator I would prefer it if Father Goose put this restriction in place, but if (s)he does not object, but does not want to do it, I am willing to put such a constraint on user:100110100. -- PBS (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • That's a bit steep, considering 100110100 does not seem to be trying to sway discussion by using more than one account. He has agreed to not do that in principle: User_talk:100110100#Various_requests, although we must compel him to do it in practice. He has commented at Wikipedia_talk:Quotations#Proposal_to_promote_to_policy.2Fguideline via a dynamic IP (always in the 174.3.*.* range; not too hard to see the relation) and a single time as 100110100, with a comment that would be hard to construe as biasing the debate ("Note that an rfc had been filed in the past, with only one response.")
  • However, I agree that any interaction on a given page should be done using one IP range or account only, and that if he wants to edit as both an IP and a registered account, he should mention the account and the IP range on all user/IP pages he edits from. He does seem to be using the 100110100 account as a maintenance account, which is a legitimate use, so as long as he abides by the terms of Wikipedia:SOCK#NOTIFY, I believe he will be compliant with policy regarding switching between his account and an IP. I'll inform him to do so right now.--Father Goose (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

<--Why is it steep? user:100110100 is a user who had been in conflict and indefinitely blocked. You argue above the as user:100110100 had been editing responsibly with IP addresses they should be unblocked. Fair enough but now all their editing should be done with their user account. Although we do not insist that people edit with the same account it is considered good practice (with exceptions for bot accounts etc). As this user has a record of abusing accounts to get around blocks, it is the least that we can expect that they use their user account. This is a user who has been banned and is more than willing to mix it up on talk pages. The very least a potential antagonist should be entitled to is to know is the edit history (and block log) of the account ID they are dealing with. user:100110100 should not want to hide behind IP addresses and if user:100110100 does then user:100110100 should be prevented from doing so.

I still think you should make that a condition of the unblock, but if you do not I will impose it unless there is a consensus among other administrators that it should not be done. -- PBS (talk) 05:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to get all embroiled in this, but I've got to ask: but now all their editing should be done with their user account. Why? Is this sort of like a, "you've gotten in trouble once, so now you can't edit without my permission" sort of thing?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 06:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. It's so that an edit history is built up and other editors can see who they are dealing with. (If not there was no point in unblocking the account in the first place). -- PBS (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, OK, "good faith" restored here, but still... is there really a point in registering? I wouldn't ever edit as an IP (at least not knowingly), but from a philosophical view I don't see what the fuss is all about. Allowing IP edits might make maintenance "jobs" more difficult, and it may make some of the "jobs" that some administrators give themselves to police users more difficult, but how does that make the whole notion of IP editors a Bad Thing™?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 08:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to ask you (PBS) to re-read the second paragraph I posted in my response to you, above, and explain how it would not address your point (I have made the same point) that other editors should be entitled to know which person they are dealing with. Read my most recent post at User:100110100 if you don't understand the specifics.

Are there any principles involved beyond requiring that the user not "speak with two faces" in a given discussion, and that users be informed of what account (and non-accounts) he edits from? I see no evidence that he has used multiple accounts abusively -- although having been informed of WP:SOCK#NOTIFY, he should comply with it from now on. Or are you characterizing the "clean start" he has earned himself via IP editing to be an abuse? I hope not; that would be a pretty a dismal attitude.

I wish others could experience the interactions I've had with this user. I'd just like to say that I think he is deserving of more good faith than has been exhibited toward him by many users so far. He has his quirks and his missteps, and he needs to be informed now and again of what our policies are, but I still think he is an asset to the community and has not deserved the rush to judgment that many have displayed toward him here. He's still not quite a model Wikipedian, but whatever behavior got him indeffed years ago is not in evidence now.--Father Goose (talk) 09:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

FG you wrote "via a dynamic IP (always in the 174.3.*.* range; not too hard to see the relation)" Well maybe not for you, but how is an editor to tell if any particular edit was done by user:100110100 or if it was done by someone else sharing a dynamic IP address? I can not see how this can work in practices as there will have to be a bi-directional set of links for every dynamic page used. (so if I go to the talk page of an IP address user:100110100 is using I can follow it to his/her user account.

Do you really think that user:100110100 is going to keep a diary/log of change of IP address will user:100110100 place onto the talk page of every IP address he/she dynamically uses that user:100110100 is now using this IP address and how does user:100110100 know to add a log to that page that (s)he is no longer using that page (if user:100110100 does not access Wikipedia for a day, that address could have been used by other editors during that day). Not only does that information have to be written to the talk page of the IP address it also has to be logged centrally as well (WP:SOCK#NOTIFY). I can not see user:100110100 faithfully doing this every time (s)he uses a changed a dynamic IP address (until user:100110100 saves an edit does he/she even know what IP address (s)he is using?). Much better that (s)he simply use his/her user name, as not rational reason has been given why he/she should not, and the above complications shows why it is not practical to use dynamic addresses and keep to the stipulation in WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. -- PBS (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

One way it could work, even with dynamic IPs, is if 100110100 uses the method that Dinoguy1000 (an administrator) uses when he edits as an IP -- he mentions his primary account in every post he signs as an IP, and does keep a log of which IPs he has edited from. The reason why 100110100 edits -- actually, prefers to edit -- as an IP is on the principle that IPs should have equal rights as editors. This is a rational reason -- perhaps not one you agree with, but it is nonetheless a valid reason. It will undoubtedly be complicated to take the appropriate steps needed to identify himself consistently, which might ultimately convince him to just use his account full-time.

Having known this user for a while, I know that if on the other hand you try to force him to edit only through an account, he'll abandon the account and go back to IP editing full time. That is his right; you can't compel him to edit as a registered user if his IP editing behavior is not abusive.

He apparently hasn't been on in the last 24 hours, so I'll wait for him to respond to how he would like to address the "multiple account" problem, and we can proceed from there.--Father Goose (talk) 03:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

His changed IPs again. He is now editing as 174.3.98.20 (talk · contribs), and to continue commenting in the same discussion, for which he was rebuked by {user|Tony1}} as he is continuing to not identify himself. Also, I think its interesting to note that despite earlier AGFing that he started the discussion for unrelated reasons, during its current course, he changed the discussion to specifically try to exclude the use of quote boxes, tying directly back to his earlier attempt to remove them from all articles I have edited (despite their being found acceptable in FA and GA reviews, and being within Wikipedia guidelines).[236] -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Assuming it is the same person this edit was made at Revision as of 03:05, 18 March 2010 before you, Father Goose posted your comment here. I presume that you had no idea that 100110100 had edited Wikiepdia (and for all I know (s)he may have used other IP addresses before or since). There has been a stunning lack of engagement here or on the talk page by user:100110100. Do you still see this behaviour as acting in good faith? -- PBS (talk) 05:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

He's seen the message now and failed to respond, so I've blocked the 100110100 account until such time as he commits to a remedy. As far as I'm concerned, he still has the right to edit as a dynamic IP, since he has not done so abusively. He is not obliged to register an account, although per your concerns here, he may not edit as both an account and an IP without identifying each mutually.

As for the edits to WP:Quotations, he has the right to propose that quote boxes not be used in specific ways, and to ascertain if there is consensus for that position. Anyone else of course has the right to disagree with him.--Father Goose (talk) 05:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't follow that FG. You've blocked a user. If they use an IP address to edit, and I can ascertain the IP is equivalent to the blocked user, then I will block the IP. (block evasion, ACB, 3 days I'm thinking) Are you explicitly instructing to not reblock an editor you have blocked indefinitely? Franamax (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have in essence blocked the account, not the user, the reasons for which are specified here, in the block log, and on the user's talk page.

To summarize the situation:

• I believe the user's only blockable offense at this time is editing both as an IP and as a registered account.
• This is partly my fault, since I failed to realize that this would be considered a blockable offense, and failed to counsel the user to not do so before he got in trouble for it.
• I have seen no sign that the user was editing as both an IP and account in an abusive manner.
• It nonetheless causes problems for the reasons PBS laid out, so it must discontinue.
• The user was editing productively as an IP before I unblocked his account on the basis of having established a "clean start" as an IP.
• He continues to edit productively (not perfectly, but nothing worthy of a block at this time).
• He has at this time failed to acknowledge the recent revelation that he should not edit as both an IP and a registered user concurrently. Since my unblocking the account in essence created this situation which is a problem more on a technical level (don't have two faces) than a question of maliciousness, I feel blocking the account again will return us to the status quo of having a productive user who contributes exclusively as an IP. If he wants to switch to using the account full-time instead of his IP, he can simply request it be unblocked. I have noted this as a condition of his block.

Perhaps the way I am attempting to resolve this seems unorthodox, but it counteracts the behavior that is problematic without interrupting the behavior that is acceptable. Do you feel anything more needs to be done at this time?--Father Goose (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I would have insisted on using the account and not the IP addresses. You have now given a previously banned editor a cart blanch to use dynamic IP addresses and when someone like Tony1, not unreasonably, says please create an account, the dynamic IP address previously known as user:100110100 can say "but I am not allowed to, but I can edit using IP addresses". AFAICT over the last few days not a lot of good faith has been shown by user:100110100, so if a complaint is bought about an IP address in the range currently being used by the editor formally known as user:100110100, sorting it out is going to be a nightmare (was it the same person editing (it dynamic and presumably relocated to others)) each possible address would have to be assessed separately. I think you should do is contact the experienced editors over check user and ask for a second opinion from them as they will have more experience of situations like this. -- PBS (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not surprised that you would have insisted on his using the account. But I don't believe that we have the right to insist on that. His editing pattern is irregular in certain ways, but not specifically abusive. As long as he's editing constructively, he has the right to edit as an IP, even a dynamic one. We cannot take it upon ourselves to control his behavior in ways that go beyond what policy specifies, especially in the absence of any evidence of malice.

We may continue asking that he edit via a registered account, and he has the right to decline. I do not believe that, having created an account, he is now compelled to edit only via that account for the rest of time. He has displayed none of the behavior that got him indeffed a long time ago, and thus has earned himself a clean start. If he does finally decide to edit as a registered user, all he has to do is ask for an unblock of the 100110100 account. You are putting words in his mouth when you claim that he would say "I am not allowed to, but I can edit using IP addresses" -- the block of that account comes only with the stipulation that he must not edit as an IP and account concurrently, unless he identifies both mutually.

His editing pattern, IP range, and areas of interest are distinct (and overlap mine), so I expect I will continue to both see and recognize this user, and to help out other admins should he misbehave in the future. But again -- I have seen some missteps on his part, but not malice, so at this time I believe no further action needs to be taken, and no further restrictions need to be imposed.--Father Goose (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

(after e/c, mulling FG's latest, but this is what I was going to say) Generally per PBS. It's certainly an innovative approach and I can appreciate that you are trying to solve a tactical problem. My feeling though is that if someone has an account, we should be steering them to only and ever using that account. I've no problem with the "unbanning" part, admin willing to unblock is valid to undo a de facto ban and on your head be it. But this is a very garbled message about terms for unblocking. It's obviously the same user, why is their record not being collected in one set of ucontribs? Franamax (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a critical point I've failed to make clear here is that the user has expressed a preference for editing as an IP instead of as a registered user. Although it would be a convenience to us for him to edit only as a registered user, we cannot compel any editor in good standing to register, and by extension, I do not believe we can compel an editor in good standing to use an account even after it is registered. I originally unblocked the account in the hopes that he would return to editing via an account full-time, but instead he "straddled the fence", which in retrospect caused the problems PBS pointed out.

We can continue to petition him to edit as a registered user, but given that he is presently an editor in good standing, I believe there is no basis by which we can force him to do so. Realistically, if we tried to do so, he would rightfully ignore the compulsion and continue to edit as an IP, and then a series of blocks would follow on the basis of sock puppeting or block evasion or contempt of cop, when his present behavior as an IP has not warranted any blocking in the first place. If his behavior has been essentially benevolent, we should be trying to act benevolently toward him as well. It may seem paradoxical, but I believe reblocking his account and otherwise not restricting his editing is the most benevolent response we can offer him at this time.--Father Goose (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:OWN, 3RR/Disruptive editing

Special:Contributions/Dapi89 appears to be reverting all edits automatically in History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) and appears to try to assume the ownership of the article. I tried to add a couple of tags into the article where I though the text was either poorly written, or where the information was somewhat dubious and needed discussion, or when was unclear about which period the sentence referred to, and wikilink some related articles into the text.

When I looked at the history page, I found that this user was automatically reverting everything, not even a minute passed and obviously no serious consideration given to it. He even reverted changes of correcting small typos like a wikilink to "Naval avition" being changed to "naval aviation". I did not want to go on an edit war with him, knowing his history, so I didn't revert.

• First revert, on grounds of "sourced"
• Second revert, on grounds of "obvious"
• Third revert, on ground of "sourced"
• Fourth revert, though I really don't know what his problem this time...
• Fifth revert within 8 hours: "reverted all changes"

Moreover this editor seems to start to follow my edits in other articles. In the Battle of Britain article to which I added a some casualty numbers from the article's talk page, [and revert them there, too] on grounds that they "removed. No source. If you want the figures from terraine, ask.". The irony is overwhelming, as obviously both the figures were sourced to Terraine, which was discussed and was shockingly given by this very same editor on the talk page - an obvious case of bad faith reverting, though its in an other article, and technically no 3RR, it shows the pattern. At this point he seems to be reverting just for the sake of getting confrontational.

It looks very much like that he has wish to 'own' that article as well, but given the violent, disruptive and confrontational nature of this editor in the past (he was blocked several times for personal attacks and systematic harassment of me, which showed the same pattern, ie. following me on articles to revert my edits), and his similar attitude and methods in other articles and other editors (see: Battle of Kursk article for a similiar pattern of auto-reverting another editor), it seems to be a waste of time to try to talk sense into him. He knows the rules already, he was warned literally dozens of times, he was blocked for this exact same behaviour, he promised to change several times but he remains the same. He simply doesn't want to discuss anything seriously with anyone (very typical: Talk:Battle_of_Kursk#dubios_markings - I love this line: "Firstly, kill the attitude. Second, that's nonsense."), its much easier to revert everybody and dismiss them with one-liners. So, I just won't waste my time on a hopeless case - its been tried already. Kurfürst (talk) 09:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kurfürst. I'm sure you just missed the notification at the top of the page, but you are required to notify users involved in your ANI thread to tell them you have created it. I have left a message on Dapi89's talk for you. SGGH ^ping! 10:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There certainly appears to be issues with WP:OWN, editing "style", and attitude regarding Dapi89's editing of these articles. I would be interested in their response - or even if there is one. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I’m not dignifying this with a prolonged response, and I haven’t bothered to read the diatribe by Kurfurst. He has a habit of making these accusations about every editor who disagrees with him. Kurfurst is a long term tendentious editor who seems to follow me around wikipedia and cause me difficulty. I the past I have responded heavy hand idly, and it has got me into to trouble. If you a look at Kurfurst's history you will see what kind of editor he is. I have managed to work well with the overwhelming number of editors in the past, but this guy is agenda driven. He was blocked indefinitely once; unfortunately some bright spark gave him another chance. He hasn't learned.

As far as the articles are concerned (particularly the Luftwaffe page), one will notice he deletes without discussion and makes false accusations of forgery here. The Luftwaffe article is one I have worked to bring up to standard. But Kurfurst is trying to cause trouble, as usual. Inflicting his own perception of events and deleting sources whenever he pleases. I created a battle of Belgium article last year, which is now at GA. Kurfurst was a leading force for its deletion. This just another attempt to ruin the work I've put in.

The nonsense he is spouting about the battle of Kursk is an indication of Kurfursts intentions. The editor in question has been blocked repeatedly. He brings it up here as pathetic 'proof' of wrong doing. To me this is block shopping, which he does often. As to the battle of Britain page. Kurfurst has a long history there; the one everyone is always combating. He doesn't have the source. If he wants it in the article, all he has to do is remind/request it via my talk page like any normal person.

Is it any wonder I reverted him? Is it any wonder his reputation is appalling?

Perhaps the admin reviewing this would look at Kurfursts recent history: he has been accused of the same thing 9OWN and DISRPUTIVE, justifiably) and is now making the same (erroneous) accusations against me: here. He's disruptive, uncooperative and unpleasant. If anyone is being disruptive, it is Kurfurst.

That’s it from me. Dapi89 (talk ) 18:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You know, you could well be right. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm far from being Kurfürst's favourite admin; see these polemical rants about my conflict of interest, misuse of the admin tools, favouritism and abuse of power following me blocking him for disrupting a talk page for months on end. Also note that I unblocked Dapi back in July 2009 after he'd been blocked for becoming frustrated with Kurfürst and stepping over the mark. I've never had any cause to regret either unblocking Dapi or blocking Kurfürst. Kurfürst seems to leave a trail of annoyed and suspicious editors in his wake; frankly I think he needs to tone down his combative attitude before we start looking at his presence on Wikipedia from a cost/benefit perspective. EyeSerene^talk 11:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a note, this isn't Kurfürst's first time at ANI. See here, here, and here where he was complaining about Dapi before, and here and here where he was making almost the same argument about a different editor. He's been at the 3RR and other noticeboards for edit war issues numerous times (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). And he has been blocked 9 times already (one of them indefinite, later reduced to 1 month). To say he's a problematic editor is putting things lightly. -- Atama頭 17:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not pretty reading. I'm starting to wonder why I didn't indefblock the last time. I must have had a reason, but I'm struggling to imagine what it was. EyeSerene^talk 21:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems I am (and me in particular) going to have to put up with him indefinitely; disputing the articles I edit, challenging everything I write (regardless of being sourced), scouring the internet or Google book for anything that remotely contradicts my sources, and then trying to get me blocked for reverting his polemic distortions. No matter how I approach him, what I say (and I have tried to be sickening nice to Kurfurst) he is always the same. There is an entire platoons worth of editors that would rather not put up with him. After two years of incessant disruptive behaviour, enough is enough. Dapi89 (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Request to enable Abuse filter blocking

The wallflowers case is well.. almost as much as the DY71 case. Unfortunately, the amount of disruption is much, much higher. Therefore, I request that the AF be allowed to block. This would stop WF socks from getting more edits in if they succeed in getting past it. I know that this will likely snow oppose.. but I have to try..— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Two questions, does this person abuse their talk page/email once blocked, and of the 58 hits for the filter, how many are false positives?--Jac16888^Talk 04:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

They don't abuse their talk page because they abandon an account just after using it for less than five edits. As to the FPs, I'll get back to you on that. Need to switch computers.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I have done a cursory look through the filter. There were some false positives early on, this is to be expected as this was during a testing period. Since then, the only false positive I have seen is one that occurred on the 17th of February; while it was appropriate that the edit was blocked, this was not the target of the filter and it has since been completely overhauled and wouldn't match that edit anymore. I have very high confidence in this particular filter right now, though I admit I may be a bit biased in this belief. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If the filter is accurate to a high degree, then I would support allowing it to block, provided it doesn't remove talk page/email access. --Jac16888^Talk 05:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the filter could actually revoke talk page/email access if we wanted to. (That is, without making a filter that says "users can't edit talk pages", of course) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I support this configuration change, provided it is used with the utmost care and filters are double checked and triple checked, preferably with code reviews. Inappropriate automated blocking is the ultimate in WP:BITE. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Surely if the filter can block users it can remove talk and email, since the two are block options just like blocking account creation etc--Jac16888^Talk 05:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't be sure, given that that option has never been enabled; it's just my understanding. I could certainly be wrong; I'm basing my knowledge solely off of what's available at mw:Extension:AbuseFilter --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I support this configuration change with regard to edit filter 278. The last dozen hits cover several weeks of activity and show no false positives. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Nobody seems to have a problem with this, so how do we go about enabling blocking?--Jac16888^Talk 17:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe the appropriate venue is to open a bug report on bugzilla with the request and point it to this thread. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime, couldn't we ask User:Mr.Z-bot (an existing bot) to automatically file a report at AIV every time the filter in question gets tripped? That bot does a pretty decent job of patrolling the abuse filters and reporting users who either trigger certain filters or make several disruptive edit attempts within a short period of time. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I see a problem here... currently non-admins have access to the abuse filter. With blocking enabled, this is essentially giving them the block button without an RfA. Is there a configuration change at all that would alleviate these concerns? I've been in support of blocking for a while, but until this is clarified, I oppose this. (X! · talk)  · @226  ·  04:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is really an issue. For starters no single editor is responsible for a single filter, they are maintained and monitored by several editors, most of them admins, and they would be there to spot if a non admin with the edit filter right decided to go rouge, which is itself unlikely since of all users with the edit filter right, only 7 aren't admins, all trusted users.--Jac16888^Talk 15:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

To avoid any conflict of interest I would like to disclose that I am one of the non-admins being referred to in this thread, but I was going to say something along the lines of what User:Jac16888 said (but avoided it due to the possible COI); I fully trust all of the non-admins in the group to not abuse this ability and only act upon consensus. Even the slightest mishap should be responded to with revocation of that privilege, which any administrator can do. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This an example of Bureaucracy vs. common sense. Sole Soul (talk) 07:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Niteshift36 disruption at Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)

Would an admin please take a look at a potential problem over at Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)? This involves talk page disruption in the last week caused by editor User:Niteshift36. I suspect that some encouragement from an admin on that talk page might help move the discussions back towards improving the article and away from arguments about personal points of view. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• I expected this. User:SaltyBoatr and I disagree on the inclusion of a graphic in the article. The bulk of the discussion has been by 2 editors that think it should be included and 2 who do not think it should be included. At my suggestion, Saltyboatr started a RfC. However, after only a couple of hours, he took it upon himself to declare the matter settled and that consensus was reached because the first 2 people to comment agreed with him. I contend, and I believe quite correctly, that a RfC should be allowed to run for more than a couple of hours. Saltyboatr then took this matter a step further by all of the sudden declaring a POV issue with all 50 tables being used in the article. I stated that I thought his sudden complaint was WP:POINTy and disruptive. He takes that as a "personal attack". I am trying to discuss the issue and doing so in good faith. I don't believe my actions are disruptive, but I do feel his latest complaint is disruptive. Further, I would like to hear some other opinions on whether declaring a matter settled after a couple of hours sounds proper or if a RfC should be allowed to run a couple of days. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

RFCs should generally run for 30 days. This give time for a wide variety of editors to comment, not just the first few that agree with the filing party. Mjroots (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• And that is a big part of the disagreement. I didn't feel that a couple of hours (2 hours 46 minutes) was sufficient to call the matter closed and declare a consensus being reached. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Obviously too short a time for an RFC. The core of the content dispute seems to be whether the Brady chart is biased. But forgetting that, it looks like a potentially useful graphic. What's needed is a similar chart from the NRA as to their opinion on the matter. I would not be surprised if they show similar results. But it does depend on how they are defining "restrictive". The NRA might argue that the big block of green states are more restrictive than Brady says they are. But there's a good chance they would be ranked similarly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• I suggested that balance would be the answer. Unfortunately I can't find a reliable sourced one (not for lack of looking). The NRA and orgs on the other side of the issue tend to not do graphics like that, choosing instead concentrate on the actual laws, rather than characterizing the laws as more or less restrictive, good or bad or whatever. Likewise, if a similar graphich could be found from a neutral source, I doubt I'd have an objection. But trusting an activist organization to make these determinations is an issue. I've started raising specific objections to specific issues in how they arrived at the score and why the score is biased, but thus far, Saltybotr has refused to discuss the specific objections. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• I would be amazed if the gun lobby did not rank the states by their opinion on the relative restrictiveness of guns. And I would be at least somewhat surprised if the order of their rankings would differ significantly from the Brady organization. The fact that one organization thinks restrictions are good and another thinks they're bad doesn't mean they wouldn't both arrive at the same or similar conclusions as to the level of restrictiveness. As a gross example, I'm sure the NRA would rank Texas and the Great Plains areas as less restrictive, and New York and California as more restrictive, as Brady does. And surely some kind of graphic in that megillah would be useful to the reader. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Again, all the reliable sources I've checked really don't do it that way. They deal with the facts of the laws more than their opinion/assessment of the law. (BTW, a number of states in the great plains don't fare as well with the NRA as you might think. The south, however, generally does fare well.) Niteshift36 (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Nobody rates the states? That's surprising, since every other national organization and its mother rate the states for their particular thing. Maybe one problem is not being clear enough on what Brady regards as "restrictive". Even if some of the specific color groupings might be questionable, the visual is helpful in seeing where the trends are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• As I explained at lenght in one of my responses on the talk page, some of their criteria is, to me, questionable and agenda driven. The example I used is whether or not a state mandates so-called "childproof guns". Brady has lobbied numerous times for this legislation and 49 of 50 states have rejected it. 98% rejection sounds like a pretty strong plurality to me. Yet Brady considers the lack of that law a bad thing and penalizes states for it. With a 98% rejection rate, the penalty for not having that law starts to look fringe. This is part of their legislative agenda and to I feel that the penalty is a POV issue. It's not like 40 have it and the other 10 are being stubborn or too permissive, 98% of the legislatures haven't made it a law. Follow what I'm getting at? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• By any objective criterion I can think of, having a law mandating childproof guns would make such a state more restrictive than one that doesn't mandate it, whether you favor such a law or not. Thus 49 of 50 states he would rate as less restrictive on that issue. Hence that stat would have virtually no impact on his rankings. And surely the NRA would agree that those 49 states are less restrictive on that one point, even if they don't agree with his view on the legislation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• You're missing my point. The inclusion of the category is, in itself, POV pushing. This is something on the Brady legislative agenda, something they are pushing. It has been soundly rejected by virtually everyone. I would srgue that it is nearly a WP:FRINGE opinion. By comparison, 6-28% of people believe the moon landing was faked. If we consider 6% to be a fringe idea, why are we considering 2% "mainstream" enough that a state should be penalized for not doing it? The Brady Campaign uses their criteria to push their agenda, which is where my POV issue lies. We won't even get into the reason abot why 98% of states don't have the law (hint: It's an unreliable technology). As I said on the page, if some of this were included in the prose or integrated into the existing tables for each state, I'd have much less of an objection. But let's face it, graphics are eye catching (especially when placed at the top of the page) and that graphic represents an activist groups opinions without a similar graphic to balance it. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• And you're missing my point, which is that even if there's an agenda behind the rankings, the rankings themselves may well be on the mark. But they should be cross-referenced with rankings from the NRA, to get a clearer picture. Surely the NRA is likewise interested in removing restrictions. The fact those restrictions exist could result in the states being ranked similarly, regardless of whether someone thinks such restrictions are "good" or "bad". For comparison, during the 2008 campaign, Obama was ranked by rightists as among the "most liberal" of Senators. So if you don't like liberalism, you might see that as a bad thing, and if you do like liberalism, you might see it as a good thing. But neither of those viewpoints affects the observable fact that Obama was indeed one of the most liberal Senators, in terms of his voting record. In fact, when he was giving his speech the night he clinched the nomination, I said to myself that he was essentially walking through the "liberal agenda", point by point. So although the right comes at him with a biased viewpoint, their rankings of liberal-to-conservative can still be factually correct, as could the Brady rankings. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The sourcing of that article is heavily skewed[[237]]. WP:NPOV indicates that an article should reflect the neutrality balance seen in the reliable sourcing, yet that article does not. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is the link to the RFC? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:NPOVN#Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_.28by_state.29. He placed on NPOVN, but I consider it a RfC all the same. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Another sock of User:Roman888

Resolved

Hi there, further to the above thread on a sock of User:Roman888, could someone please block User:Gondo747 as another sockpuppet. He has restored the same copyright violations to three different articles. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Gone. This is quite a list growing now. That's two I've ducked. SGGH ^ping! 18:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your responses to this. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries. SGGH ^ping! 19:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

These socks are persistent and predictable. At some point, maybe an edit filter could be a proactive measure? -- Atama頭 20:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

88.108.11.162

IP address being used to vandalise talk pages and revert edits which were themselves done to revert apparent vandalism. Five such edits in the last two hours. Almost certainly a dynamic IP. Recommend block for 48 hours. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 20:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

They've not made any edits in the last hour and a half. Next time, please report them to WP:AIV so they can be dealt with quicker, and/or issue warnings to get them to stop. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks very much. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 22:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

IP Left a vague threat on User:FisherQueens talkpage

Resolved

 – Already blocked. Tan | 39 21:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

[238] not sure what this about but I would take it at least somewhat seriously. Ridernyc (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

and another one here [239] that one much more threatening. Ridernyc (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

86.179.113.40 (talk · contribs)

86.179.112.1 (talk · contribs)

86.176.57.119 (talk · contribs)

All appear to be related, IP hopping to harass admins or threaten. Acroterion _(talk) 22:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they appear to be editing from a /10, which is essentially unblockable for our purposes. Use semi-protection liberally, I suppose. NW (Talk) 23:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Since one of the IP's has actually out right said they want to murder the person, maybe we should consider more then just a block. Ridernyc (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Run-of-the-mill asshattery, nothing I haven't seen before. RBI. We can take it up with the ISP if it recurs. Acroterion _(talk) 00:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh I know it's asshatery, but it is asshatery that can get you in serious trouble. I guess it would be up to the editors if they want to do anything though. Ridernyc (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imperativism

Resolved

 – Articles deleted.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

A pretty elaborate hoax with a series of articles created by the same editor, my assumption is that this is the subject of the articles. They're now stooping to BLP violations by making claims that the subject is formerly engaged to a model, without providing reliable sources. I have issued a warning, but this is getting tetchy. Woogee (talk) 01:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the word you want is "hoax". http://www.google.com/search?q=michael+carrano+imperativism gives hits. He's an unreviewed author and multiple time unsuccessful third party candidate for Connecticut office, so probably not Wikipedia:Notable but he exists. --GRuban (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Probably best to just let this run its course, though all of the articles up for deletion should probably be bundled into one nomination. AniMate 02:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

They repeated the claim that he was engaged to the model, I've reverted again and left him a blp2 warning. The source for the claim is a link to the model's home page, but not to a page which specifically proves she was engaged to him. I've looked through the website, and can't find any proof for this claim. Woogee (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who nominated the article, and all I can say is that, while M.A.Carrano DOES have gHits, it doesn't mean he's notable. In fact, the gHits might be mostly false positives or mirrors. Strangecalypso's actions are probably just again one of those incidents about new users who don't understand Wikipedia's policies. This is an unfortunately too common instance, and it's not the first time I've encountered such a case. Thanks Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

As the articles were purely promotional in nature, I just deleted all three of them and closed the AfD. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Using talk page as forum & other vandalism/issues, user warned repeatedly

• Miss-simworld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) using talkpage as a forum at Talk:Arab Christians and Arabic-speaking Christians and cluttering up talk-page (also at Talk:Pan-Arabism#Question_to_Nableezy_on_his_continous_actions_on_the_Pan_Arabism_page). User warned repeatedly but refuses to comply. In addition this user also has issues with original research and pushing a point of view that is unattributable to reliable sources (issues could be found on 1st mentioned talk page but is spread to other articles). --Qvxz9173 (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This person is wikihounding me and trying to get me blocked very desperately due to their own biased agenda filled with hate and racism towards those who refuse a mere label. Here [240] [241] [242] [243] were he even included verbal abuse in an article. Yet he was not reported and it was I who had to delete this vandalism. He tried to prove I was a sock then failed, he then had the nerve to complain about civilty when he had abused an article with POV insults (as the edits clearly indicate), This person themself is a vandalist filled with hate and purely wants to supress information, they are angry because the title of the page Arab Christians got added the extra Arabic speaking Christians to suit those who do not use that label. In this [244] page he openly confesses he wanted and was dissapointed I didnt get blocked to prevent me from editing any articles and he was hoping for my blockage despite their not being a reasonable case.This has little to do with disruptiion for this person but more that they dont like whats being added and my explainations to his motivated edits that he cant refute. I am the one who should be making a complaint but unlike Q here I dont stalk or wikihound people I have better things to do with my time, than resort to these measures. ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 10:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

USB article has gay porn reference

Sorry if this is not the place to post this, but I just noticed that the USB article has a clearly improper reference to gay porn that has been there for a while. Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usb Specifically, in the device classes table is this line, which I think is completely wrong. BAh Interface Hipster Bullshit iPod , Gay porn storage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.25.142.152 (talk) 03:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. It's just normal vandalism, which was in place for 47 minutes. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Whenever I see one of those complaints, I wonder if the complainant is responsible. And IP addresses don't help; since through email or social networking, one vandal could ask another to post the complaint anywhere in the world. Just to make sure we've noticed and given him his proper attention, of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this so quickly. Responding to Wehwalt, I'm saddened to hear you think people would regularly do such a thing just for 'proper attention'. I regularly refer to Wikipedia for things but have never tried to edit anything. When I saw the issue with the USB article, the first thing I looked for was a 'report vandalism' link, which I couldn't find. I glanced at the history of the page, but couldn't make heads or tails of it, and thus did a general search for reporting vandalism, which led me here. Perhaps there is a 'normal' way you would respond to such a situation, but as a casual user I'm sure I represent a lot of people who would like a simple way to 'notify the experts' when we find something clearly out of place. If you're worried people will abuse such a thing so that they can post in a obscure corner of the site like here, perhaps you need to provide a mechanism to easily report issues in a 'private' manner. I'm sorry if this all is out of place for this page or somehow has been hashed out in other ways, but your comment doesn't help create a 'welcoming' environment.. quite the contrary, it will now make me think twice about reporting future issues I may run across. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.25.142.152 (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt's comment is misplaced, and I'm sorry for it. Thank you for pointing us to the vandalism, that's appreciated. We tend to encourage people to click the "edit this page" link and fix things themselves, but I appreciate this is not a practical suggestion for everyone, and well understand that unless you;re well familiar with the ways of wikipedia, getting things done and entering into communication with the community can be very difficult. You deserved a better reward than for someone to mull over the extraordinary things that bad IPs get up to. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt, this IP might also be the IP who edits under the 65.XX thing. That editor is quite productive here, and beats some of us in that respect. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not say any specific person had done that, including this editor. However, the phenomenon is hardly unknown. Please take all comments as an effort to improve the project. It's unusual for an editor's first two edits to be to AN/I--Wehwalt (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Remember that IP addresses are often dynamic, and what looks to you to be their "first two edits" might be their 2,000th and 2,001st edit to Wikipedia. With IPs it's problematic to prejudge. You might be dealing with a new editor, or someone with more experience than you. -- Atama頭 16:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Two more socks of User:Roman888

 Both blocked and tagged. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 06:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, could someone please block User:LoganStarr and User:Laskar34 as sockpuppets of prolific copyright violator and sockpuppeteer User:Roman888? These two accounts were created within 6 minutes of each other, and their only contributions have been to restore Roman888's copyright violations to articles recently purged in his CCI. I've given them both "warnings" but the evidence in my view is strong enough to apply WP:DUCK and block them indefinitely before more damage is done. This is his 6th and 7th socks in a few days. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for the quick response --Mkativerata (talk) 06:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Have you filed a sockpuppet investigation against this guy, because we're knocking these socks off at least twice daily. If his IP isn't too dynamic we can get a rangeblock and possibly pick up any sleeper socks he has. AniMate 06:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I'll file a case when I get the chance over the next 12 hours or so. I was hoping he'd get bored by now, but clearly not. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
      • I just have to note that in the time since the SPI was opened, he's launched another one (which I've blocked). It's too bad he couldn't put the time into learning to comply with copyright policy that he's spent in trying to thwart it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Another bad block

Resolved

 – Good block, and further comment is feeding RH&E's troll. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see [245]. Again, WP:BITE. 86.176.164.91 (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The user and user talk pages for Denise Fergus (talk · contribs) don't inspire me with confidence that this was legitimately the person claimed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I was about to say, the edits to the user/user talk pages are worrysome, but the edits to other pages were fine, even constructive. I see no problem with them and question why some were reverted. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed, suggest IP go read up on WP:REALNAME first before commenting further. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 11:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I support the block -- the username and contributions fit the recent editing pattern of User:The abominable Wiki troll. Email me if you want details. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• When a brand new editor with the name of a real person makes exactly ten edits, an inference might be drawn that this is not the person claimed, and an attempt is being made to acquire an autoconfirmed account. Even WP:AGF on that point, WP:REALNAME is clear. Rodhullandemu 15:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Then wouldn't Dave1185 above and you yourself fall under that? Because how do we know your name isn't Rod Hull or Rod Hulland and that you don't own an emu? That would all fall under WP:REALNAME. That person's name could very well be Denise Fergus. There are plenty of people who use their real names as their Wiki usernames and haven't been blocked. So, claiming WP:REALNAME isn't really a good reason. There needs to be more. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 15:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Their first edit was to an article mentioning Denise Fergus. It's definitely a REALNAME violation. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
      • And 86.176.164.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) "first" edit was to create an item here called "Another bad block"? What is the IP really trying to tell us??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
        • So Dave1185 can't edit anyone articles with the name Dave in them cause that would be a violation of the rule? Come on, that's just silly. Let's get a checkuser in here to be certain, otherwise we are just assuming and you know what happens when you assume. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 16:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Good block. The IP is also the long term abuse troll visible in Rod's (and others') talk page history. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Surprise, surprise.[246] Yes, good block. I take it the IP's don't get blocked due to too much broader impact? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Illegal use of wikipedia

Hi,
At the attention of the sysops : Biner Corporation & Associates - [247].
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.67.249.102 (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't know about "illegal use", but given that the primary sources don't exist, I've speedied it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Should we alert the Fish Police? --Smashville^talk 13:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sharky and George more like. SGGH ^ping! 19:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The two above comments may also be connected with Legal Sea Foods. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Mass replacement of Kosovo with Serbia

Can anyone have a look at this users contributions?. I noticed he is changing Kosovo with Serbia in a lot of articles. Even IF this is correct, it is done in quite an imprecise way which leaves the article's with both country names Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Gah. Indef'd. ⇦REDVERS⇨ Say NO to Commons bullying 14:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

schoolblock for 204.82.0.0./16 (New Brunswick Department of Education)

The whole address range 204.82.0.0./16, belonging to the New Brunswick Department of Education, appears to only contribute with vandalism. I could not find a single constructive edit within an overwhelming list of vandalism edits in this address range. Maybe a schoolblock would be appropriate? Nageh (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

How hard did you look for a constructive edit? [248]. I don't think a blanket rangeblock is necessary at this point. –xeno^talk 14:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright, you beat me. I did check more than a few edits, though. Anyway, I understand it's a problem blocking such a large address ranges. Cheers, Nageh (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Typically we would only rangeblock if it was being used for WP:LTA as we did with some UK schools at one point. –xeno^talk 15:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Mikhailov Kusserow archiving issues, again,

Mikhailov Kusserow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

This user was previously warned, and blocked, because they were archiving pages without consensus, and project pages which they were not members of. They have begun doing so again. Can someone please put a stop to this? I'll find the original thread tomorrow, I need to sleep right now. They have been notified of this thread. Also, if any doubt what I say here, simply check the history of their user talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something they archived 1 page 12 days ago, got reverted, and haven't done it since. Maybe just a reminder on their talk page would've been fine? –xeno^talk 13:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The last warning didn't work, why would this one?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What action do you propose we take, 12 days after the single problematic edit? –xeno^talk 19:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I realize this is contradictory to what I just said, but maybe a sterner warning? Further, something should be done about the archives the user made without consensus. I honestly don't know what else to do.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I left them another reminder, not quite a stern warning because they only made 1 edit 12 days ago. I vaguely recall cleaning up after them the last time. Let's see how this plays out, drop by my talk page if the problem persists. –xeno^talk 12:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Daedalus969, I received your message about archiving talk page. I do that because I think I'm a member of that WikiProject, so I think it's Ok! — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 03:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Questionable question on the ref desk

I'd like some other opinions on this question: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#choking. The username, combined with the subject of interest (including the videos he's watching), have me a little concerned. --Tango (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a troll to me. I checked his contributions and they're pretty much all to the Reference Desk asking oddball questions. He only has like 8-9 actual mainspace edits. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

eh, I went ahead and verbally spanked him, which is what the question needed. If it was a serious question, he'll get the point; if not, nothing to do about it anyway. --Ludwigs2 23:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I take that back. he may be persistent on this. I've {{hat}}ed the question twice now, but I suspect he'll reopen it. If he does, it will need administrator attention. I don't think we want a generic question about choking open on the desk - too much of a troll magnet. --Ludwigs2 23:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Blood and air chokes are legal manoeuvres in many sanctioned combat sports, including not just the UFC, but countless less famous circuits. There are factual questions there that we could answer. I haven't gone though his previous contributions (yet), but this thread in particular might have been better handled with a lighter touch. Matt Deres (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see anything that needs admin attention, and am surprised that any concern about the question was not referred to the RD talk page instead of AN/I. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

He unarchived the discussion and is continuing it. The vast majority of his previous contributions are questions along this same line. I find it troubling and questionable why someone needs so much information about fainting thresholds. Previous questions are about suicide [249], where to buy lab rats for experimentation purposes [250], some sort of question about why a frog is still alive [251], THIS edit which seems to be racist in nature [252], a racist attack on Japanese people [253], and many of his first edits were vandalistic in nature but contained false edit summaries implying he was actually reverting vandalism. I stand by my first impression, that this is a troll. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

My experience is that at the RD we answer questions put to us by trolls, racists, japanophobes, red-haired people and, well, pretty much everyone; and that we judge the question not the questioner. As to the subject matter of the question, I think we can make a good faith assumption that some people are interested in this sort of stuff. There's no hint of criminality in thr question. And as normal, the RD is doing a great job at providing exactly the sort of answers you;d hope for when faced with a question of this sort. And in sum, a legitimate question has been asked and good answers are being provided. now remind me why on earth this is taking up any space or time at AN/I. Or better, don't. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Tagishsimon is presenting his personal opinion of the matter. In general, questions are indeed assumed to be sincere, even when they're kind of off-the-wall and/or nearly-unintelligible, and usually at least some attempt is made to answer. But Tag's firm belief is to totally wear blinders, and I (and other editors) do not fully agree with that approach. As for this particular OP, those kinds of questions add up to a somewhat disturbing picture (it reminds me of some of the stuff Jeffrey Dahmer was said to be fascinated by when he was a kid). We don't have to check our brains and good sense at the door when addressing posts at the ref desks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, questions for professional advice or that look like opinion polls or argument-starters are often rejected, with comments as to why. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bugs, ignoring the OPs history of asking disturbing, racist and trollish questions and to vandalize articles while using false edit summaries is ridiculous. Bad behavior is bad behavior. If posting racist questions is considered acceptable at the RD, then maybe the RD needs to be overhauled. I also don't think the RD talk page is the correct venue for editors to bring up their good faith concerns with the behavior of another editor. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned about questions that promote acts which can produce physical harm. The problem, really, is that the way he asks the question makes it seem as though choking someone into unconsciousness is a normal (maybe even cool) thing to do, and I don't want some twelve year old reading it and trying it on his little brother with fatal effects. Troll or not, this particular line of discussion is dangerous, and it really ought to be removed. --Ludwigs2 02:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Bad behaviour is indeed bad behaviour, and we have sanctions for that. Those sanctions do not tend to include deciding that we're not going to answer a question which of itself is not bad beaviour. Meanwhile the RD does not tolerate racist questions and nor, Burpelson AFB, did I suggest that it did. Try and understand that when I talk about judging the question and not the questioner, I mean just that. Twisting my words is a very cheap shot. Bugs likes to speculate that he's sniffed out a budding Jeffrey Dahmer, and has a documented history of building such a mental picture of questionaers that he cannot bring himself to deal with their question, but must rather deal with his impression of the questioner. I don't think that's what we're here for. As for the promotional effect of this question: he OP is having seven shaes of shit knocked out of him by the respondants, and isn't looking like a poster boy for recreational throttling, by any means. I think it comes down to whether or not you think we should be discussing these boundary topics - throttling & buying stuff anonymously being the last two that have flared up like this - at all on the RD. My very strong view is that we should, just as our articles do not shy away from taboo topics. I have no blinkers on, Bugs; I'm very mindul of what I'm saying. And I'm sure that there are some questions we should not answer beyond those we already don't - medical & legal advice, homework (though it's late, I'm tired, and I cannot bring any to mind right now). But the questions currently causing concern do not fall into the do not answer category, for me, for the reasons I've set out. And, for the n'th time, this discussion, to the extent it is required at all, should be on RD talk and not here. There is no basis for admin intervention with respect to the question, the proper forum is RD talk. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

And Ludwigs2, there's little point in removing the question since your 12-year old has already read the chokehold article ... which is to say there's as much chance that he's read one as the other. So what are you saying? Should chokehold be deleted? Where do you draw the line? Why do you draw it in the RD and not in the article? --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read the chokehold article, but I assume the article isn't written as an exciting first-person narrative (with phrases like "even experts can't do it to me"). Got no problem with information; Do got a problem with incitement. if you see what I mean... --Ludwigs2 02:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I have raised concerns about this user before Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 68#67.246.254.35 but never really persued them. But for clarificaiton this user also edits under User:67.246.254.35 as evidence other then the similar interests and similar editing pattern (interest in UFC/MMA, removing stuff from articles saying no 'ref', blanking their talk page) they've also replied to questions from the other in a manner as if they're the OP, I presented some examples in the linked discussion and this continues, e.g. [254]. This user also had anothed accounted that was blocked User:Killspammers although the behaviour wasn't perhaps that excessive at the time and again as mentioned in the earlier discussion even the admin agrees perhaps the indefinite block was unnecessary. (In other words, block evasion doesn't really come in to it.)

My greatest concern with this user has been their tendency to remove stuff from articles which I presume they don't like, sometimes even with deceptive edit summaries (e.g. saying no ref when part of they were removing had a ref which they were also removing) and often with stuff which wasn't clearly untrue and may have even been true. They stopped this for a while although seem to have started somewhat again but perhaps being more selective in what they remove and haven't removed anything referenced that I noticed. In terms of their RD behaviour my first concern there has been their manner of asking, often coming across as demanding and answer and getting annoyed when they feel the answers aren't sufficient although again they may have dialed this down slightly.

Of the questions themselves, they are usually the fairly immature sort of stuff but I'm not sure if their trolling. For example this specific question is in line with their interest in UFC/MMA. They also have a tendency to ask what appear to be medical advice questions (they often deny it, but sometimes ask multiple questions on the same topic) and questions which appear to be issues relating to their life (e.g. one time they were asking a lot about how to deal with ants, it emerged at some stage they had a ant problem). IMHO this question is particularly illustrative of their mentality Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2010 January 14#what if my mom dies. Having said that, this user has also said other things about them [255] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brammers&diff=347191466&oldid=324120637 which conflict with what they said in that question although I wouldn't be surprised if the later details are lies intended as cover.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been keeping an eye on the IP user and his associated names for a while. A good proportion of my recent edits have something to do with them, whether it is asking for advice regarding his recent edits, mentioning him to a user who gave Thekiller35789 a final warning on page blanking, or trying to make contact with him on a couple of occasions (which I try as a first port of call), only to have him blank the page, except regarding his edit to the bleach article.

I agree with what Nil Einne has said — the user has removed other users' content, both to Ludwigs2's edit to the RD and, inexplicably, a harmless comment on a mainspace talk page. I would like to add that in articles, he seems to edit with a particularly hack-and-slash approach, often forgetting to close sentences he has deleted chunks of, little punctuation, and poor style. He sometimes describes his actions in the edit summary as something that would be perfectly acceptable, such as removing unsourced material — even though the material was hardly contentious to start with. On his work to the bleach article under the IP address, he then added unsourced text that said bleach is too concentrated to use neat and must be diluted, which is obviously untrue.

I've found it hard to decide whether the user is deliberately disrupting Wikipedia, whether they are trying to contribute but doing so in an unguided and unwittingly destructive way, or whether they are editing on impulse and do not appreciate WP and the contributions of what they are. In the RDs, the user seems be insistent, stubborn and ask questions that are inappropriate for the desk (some are simply non-questions, such as the question about the 1980s that was basically him pushing his point on others that the world was boring without the internet. When it was closed, he became quite hostile.

On a personal level, I believe that the user might have some form of social difficulties, given their manner with editors, their edits, the bizarre and unnerving questions they ask (seemingly oscillating between chemistry, ants and death). They don't seem to be willing to compromise with other editors and don't show an interest in abiding by WP policies. I waded in against User:Killspammers's indefinite block because I felt it was disproportionate and that the user could, with time and care, be welcomed into the WP community and learn how to be a positive contributor - something that might be beneficial for him as a person. However, I don't think this is going to be the case. Brammers (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Aside: I don't think anyone has subbed the ANI template notice onto Thekiller's talk page yet. Does this need to be done? Brammers (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• I guess people who frequent the Reference Desks can police themselves, but I cannot fathom why this person's questions (both the account and the IP) are not reverted on sight, and why they aren't banned from the Reference Desks. Answering question after question after question from the same bored person can't possibly be what the Reference Desk is for, can it? I suppose if people enjoy answering these, who am I to stop them, but it sure looks like disruption to me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

first off i find it a little disturbing that SOME of you are so obsessed with me and are spreading lies about me. for one thing i never made any racist remarks about Asians. if you bother to read what i posted. i said japs an abbreviation. like brits, or cheks. how is that racist. ridiculous. one of my best friends is Asian. second i have no affiliation with any other the other names you mentioned and that ip is not mine. and i dont live where you said i do and im not gunna tell you where i live some of you seem like stalkers. i dont understand because i am curious about some things you persecute me. leave me alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thekiller35789 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL. That IP is not yours? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

And, we know where he lives because we helped him locate the phone numbers for Social Services in his area in January. Nimur (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

no, you gave me the numbers for what you thought were my area. i never told you if you were correct. the fact that you are stalking me is disturbing and violates Wikipedia guidelines. i will change my ip today anyway because your stalking is creeping me out. leave me alone creeper. find something better to do with your time than stalking people on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thekiller35789 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been answering questions on the reference desk for nearly five years. I didn't even know you existed until you came there asking unusual questions. I happened to have answered some of your questions. If you prefer, I will make a point to avoid addressing any questions that come from you or appear to come from you. Nimur (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Please review my block

Resolved

 – A good block for vandalism. NW (Talk) 00:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/193.136.138.62. The one edit that started all this might have been legit, but see discussion and prior edits. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 16:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with the block as his last edit basically acknowledge that it would result in a block. I would also have no problem with having further discussion with him to educate him on the use of the talk page and possibly lifting the block.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Good block -- all of this IP's edits were disruptive, and he continued to vandalize the article from User:193.136.128.19, which I've also blocked. Both IPs belong to Universidade Tecnica de Lisboa. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Good block, I declined his unblock too, they clearly knew what they were doing would lead to a block, yet continued after warnings. They can make another unblock request which actually addresses the concerns... --Taelus (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Given the history of vandalism going back more than a month, and the clear stated intention to continue, I would say the length of block may be too little. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait--we're agreeing that this was a good block? An admin came here to gut-check a block and nobody threatened to take him to ArbCom?? OH NOEZ! Needz moar dramaz... GJC 03:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Western Pines

Troll [256] [257] and others. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 17:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Kinda seems like. But I was not aware that special authorization was needed for posting welcome templates??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The Welcome Wagon gets really pissed off if you take away their business. Those gift baskets just go to waste then and nobody likes that. HalfShadow 21:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Can he be blocked, or warned not to be annoying? :) ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 21:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I've left a talk page message advising him that no one needs "authoritah" to post welcome messages. SGGH ^ping! 22:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

He's still leaving me shite on my talkpage... [258] ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 07:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not so much "shite" but I do believe it is a message designed to rile you, the user knows very well he has made no edits to ANI and there are no threads I can find pertaining to you here. I've given him another warning regarding his disruptive behaviour. I think further messages like the first warnings he gave you could be constituted as disruptive editing. SGGH ^ping! 08:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Ummm - blocked as a  Confirmed sock of South Bay (talk · contribs). I'd been watching him for a few days, as there was a prior checkuser done and his name had come up. South Bay had a week block for previous socking and has now had a second block, this time for a month. Other admins feel free to amend accordingly, if a month is inappropriate here - Alison ^❤ 09:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

IPvandal 70.88.220.*

Someone seems to be having fun vandalizing at Aerodynamics and elsewhere:

• 70.88.220.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 70.88.220.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 70.88.220.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 70.88.220.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I don't have the tools so I haven't verified other addresses in this group, but I can imagine there's more. Can someone have a look? Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a gadget you can enable to check the rest of the range. –xeno^talk 22:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice gadget. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This could be that gadget. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

70.88.220.0/26 is the range. It checks out to Chelmsford Public Schools, Massachusetts. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Da-da-dadada Gadget Inspector, da-da-dadada-da-da... HalfShadow 01:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I can see that you are extremely bored tonight HalfShadow. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll be here all week; try the shrimp cocktail. HalfShadow 01:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

And don't forget to tip your waitress! You've been beautiful! Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that tool in combination with the enabled gadget is just what it takes. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 08:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't ya love ANI on the slow nights?--SKATER ^Speak. 03:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It gets better on weekends. The all time highs are probably the VP/T threads that start up when the database starts lagging. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Revert only wp:spa account User:Kushtrim123

The above mentioned account has been created on March 2 (he previously edited from this ip [[259]] according to his user page). His contribution is the definition of an spa account, consisting of reverts [[260]] with the typical edit summary 'rv vandalism', in articles suffering from edit wars. Apart for supporting revert wars in a limited variety of Albanian related articles, Kushtrim123 created major disruption especially on Vasil Bollano (a wp:blp) and Gjin Bua Shpata unsing wp:idontlikeit arguments [[261]][[262]]. Both pages were semi protected as result of this activity.

Kushtrim123 has been multiple times advised and warned, by several users, to follow the basic rules about dispute resolution but his reaction was to remove the msgs [[263]]. Recently he learned to fill reports, accusing me for 3rr vio but using wrong diffs as reverts [[264]].

I believe some restriction as per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia might be appropriate.Alexikoua (talk) 07:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

User:RHB100

RHB100 (talk · contribs) has been disruptive on Talk:Gravitational potential over a period of several weeks. He has been extremely rude towards User:Sławomir Biały: [265] [266] [267] [268]. I posted to WP:WQA [269] and informed RHB100 at 05:54, 13 March 2010 [270]. Rather than respond peaceably, he continued to insult other users: [271] [272] [273] [274] [275]. Sławomir Biały is a well-regarded WikiProject Mathematics regular, and his calm replies can be viewed in full at Talk:Gravitational potential.

Additionally, RHB100 ignores consensus and tries to force his text onto the page. Here are his attempts to get his preferred description of the potential and its expansion in terms of Legendre polynomials on the page: [276] [277] [278] [279] [280] [281]. While there are some structural differences, the text is mostly the same between these; it ignores the criticisms and corrections made by other users, both in other revisions of the article and on the talk page.

I cannot see RHB100's behavior changing in the near future. Therefore I ask that he be blocked. Ozob (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Update: I informed RHB100 of this discussion [282] but he has continued to post offensive comments [283]. Ozob (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The statement that I have ignored consensus is untrue. I wrote the original version on expansion into Legendre polynomials in its entirety. Certainly any consensus must involve me. Patrick added valuable contributions. Sławomir Biały then took it upon himself to destroy the vector diagram that I had created and ruin the article with some terrible writing. The changes Biały made were so terrible that it seems more likely to have been an attempt to deliberately degrade the quality of the Wikipedia. There are some people, including those who want to sell more books, who don't want the Wikipedia to be a very good source of information. Considering the terrible thing that had bee done to the Wikipedia, my reaction was rather mild. And their certainly is no consensus. RHB100 (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. The issue here is not the content of the article, nor on being on the right "side" of a content dispute. At issue, first and foremost, is the absolutely unacceptable way in which you have behaved (and continue to both here and at Talk:Gravitational potential). Perhaps Ozob's choice of the word "consensus" was less than ideal, although conforming to the specific manner in which it pertains to WP:CONSENSUS. However, edit-warring against several other editors to attempt to reinsert one's own preferred version of the text is generally considered to be disruptive, especially when at the very same time you come here to make a non-apology while continuing the same incivil rhetoric that landed us here in the first place. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal regarding User:RHB100

I would like to propose a sanction upon RHB100:

Findings

• (a) RHB100 has engaging in talk page incivlity on Talk:Gravitational potential, making personal attacks and inflammatory remarks.
• (b) RHB100 has referred to their own credentials.
• (e) In March 2010, a WQA report was filed against RHB100 in hopes of a peaceful resolution.
• (d) Despite the WQA report, RHB100 has continued the incivility.

Remedy

• (a) RHB100 (talk · contribs) is blocked for a week.
• (b) After the expiration of the block, RHB100 will be placed on civility parole for a period of one month.

Continuing incivility after a WQA report suggests that action is needed. I think this is sufficient (but I hope I'm not being too harsh). —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I don't suppose there is anything in policy to prevent it, but it seems rather odd to me that an editor who has just come off a six-month ban and is on an additional six-month probationary period is proposing sanctions on another user. Shouldn't that six-month probation be used to re-establish your bona fides as an editor by contributing to the encyclopedia, rather than involving yourself in administrative matters? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I have been meaning to suggest to Mythdon that they moderate their time spent at these noticeboards. –xeno^talk 01:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(Disclosure: I am an involved party to this incident.) What purpose would a one week block serve? RHB100's behavior is pretty far outside of what should be tolerated by the community under any circumstances, and an indefinite block is certainly warranted. The editor has not shown any sign of a willingness to abide by the rules that bind our community (or indeed those that would be considered remotely acceptable in any community of individuals). And until he shows some signs of contrition, there is absolutely no reason that he should be allowed to continue editing at this project. Sławomir Biały (talk) 06:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Editors can and do change their behaviour. Usually short block are given to give a person time to change and improve. If this does not occur than longer blocks may follow.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand that, and would not be averse to an unblock once he acknowledges that there are rules, that he was far outside the rules during his interactions with me, and agrees to follow them in the future. I believe that he has already been given a chance to do this (over the course of several weeks of discussion at Talk:Gravitational potential, through his invitation to participate in the discussion at WQA), and has continued to flout them. The kind of probationary measures that were suggested above would require the contributor to acknowledge the rules, to demonstrate a willingness to abide by them, and to want to change his behavior. Nothing stops him from agreeing to these things and then requesting an unblock, but this agreement is clearly a necessary condition for allowing the editor to continue to contribute to the project. (Indeed, all of us have implicitly agreed to abide by these rules.) But a fairly infrequent contributor such as this will likely not even feel a one week block, and so this would literally serve no purpose. Hence my question: why block at all if for such a short time? Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Well, something needs to be done, because the behaviour at the talk page in question is simply unacceptable. Eusebeus (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

What they don't tell you: RHB100 was the original author of the section in question

They tell you that I have exercised my right to change to change a poorly written section. But they don't tell you that I did the original research and the original writing of the section on expansion in terms of Legendre polynomials. After I did the original research, Sławomir Biały completely replaced my well written article with a poorly written article. I have attempted to get back to my original article, but Sławomir Biały has been very disruptive by continuously replacing my original work. He has removed my vector diagram which greatly added to the clarity of the article. I am a licensed professional engineer with advanced engineering degrees from both the University of Arkansas and UCLA. It appears that Sławomir Biały does not even have an engineering degree and his poor writing indicates that he is not qualified to rewrite my original work. RHB100 (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• WP:OWN, much? Guy (Help!) 00:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Response of RHB100

I have removed my offensive comments. I will look further to see if there are any that I have missed. I regret having made offensive comments. I was incensed over the fact that all my hard work and research had been destroyed.

Sławomir Biały has repeatedly destroyed my well written section. He has turned a well written section that I researched and wrote in its entirety into a poorly written section. He removed the block diagram which provided clarity. He appears to have the goal of making the Wikipedia confusing and difficult to understand. RHB100 (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

He has shown no respect for me. He destroyed my work without any form of consultation with me. RHB100 (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Some slight cosmetic changes had been made to earlier posts, but this post that you just made (accusing me of deliberate vandalism) is clearly not in the spirit of an amicable resolution. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

For everyone's reference, RHB100 changed his posts in these diffs: [284] [285] [286] [287].

He has also reverted the article once again to his preferred version, ignoring consensus on the talk page: [288]. Together with two diffs that I already referenced above, [289] and [290], he is a little shy of a WP:3RR violation, as these edits happened over a 44 hour period. Ozob (talk) 23:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus on the talk page. This statement that there is a consensus on the talk page is completely false. They have again reverted away form the article as it was originally written and researched to a non-consensus poorly written version. RHB100 (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a separate board for 3rr. Gerardw (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I intend to report him there if he violates it. But I hope that someone here blocks him before that happens. Ozob (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

RHB100 has made further personal attacks, some of which you can view above, and the diffs for which I am collecting here: [291] [292] (both at AN/I) [293] (at Talk:Gravitational potential). Will someone please block him? Ozob (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The behavior continues to continue [294]. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

And [295]. Ozob (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The community has thus far been very tolerant of RHB's personal attacks and disruption. But the disruption now continues with these posts: [296] and [297]. Also, he is now at 4rr at gravitational potential (and at least the first of these is an obviously downright WP:POINTy revert): 1, 2, 3, 4. Is someone planning to do something? Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

After being warned of the 3rr violation, the editor in question effectively reverted back by a sequence of smaller edits. I'm not saying that this in itself is blockable, but it does contribute to the overall pattern of disruptive behavior. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect ban of User:Iadrian yu

Resolved

 – Mixup corrected & user unblocked — Scientizzle 14:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems that User:Jpgordon has made a mistake banning User:Iadrian yu for AFD sockpuppetry. Apparently Iadrian is being confused with puppetmaster User:Iamsaa, see also his talk page for more details. As Jpgordon hasn't edited in over 30 minutes i assume he logged out; thus raising the issue here instead. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 16:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• AfD in question: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nusrullah Khan Noori. It does appear likely to be a mixup. — Scientizzle 16:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I boldly unblocked because this seems likely to be a mixup...If a checkuser wouldn't mind double-checking the situation to settle it for sure, that would be excellent. — Scientizzle 16:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Just a mixup. Sorry, all. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yorkshirian

Resolved

 – GWH's requested minimum 24 hours are up, and consensus is very clear, so there's no need to drag this out another day. I've never interacted with Yorkshirian in my life, so I think I count as an uninvolved admin. User:Yorkshirian is banned indefinitely. I will block the account and update WP:List of banned users accordingly. Give me a few minutes to figure out how to dot the i's and cross the t's; after that, if you see that I skipped something, let me know or just fix it yourself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

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

(Note on closure by an uninvolved admin - though this currently is approaching WP:SNOW thresholds, it is best practice for admins not to close user bans prematurely, in order to ensure that opinions are gathered from users currently offline. Per WP:BAN 24 hrs should be considered a minimum; I would prefer 48 hrs. Current rate of edits indicates little additional damage will accrue with longer discussions, this is a long term problem not an urgent incident. - Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC) )

• Yorkshirian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yorkshirian
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Yorkshirian
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive565#Yorkshirian

For the past several months, the long-term problems caused by Yorkshirian have continued. These are largely limited to the British National Party article, but not limited to that article. Problems include the adding of blatantly false information, adding of material that substantially misrepresents what sources say, the use of a source he has never seen (and in another case it's highly likely he completely made up a newspaper reference), edit warring, attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground to further an external conflict ("native Christians" versus "black settlers", "immigrants" and "asylum seekers", and also "far right" versus "communists" and "far left"), assumptions of bad faith, accusations of vandalism against other editors, and an attempted outing of another editor. To that list I could add the persistent removal of material critical of the BNP but I really don't want this to become an argument about whether he was right to remove certain content (as in some cases I may agree at least in part with some of his edits), so I'm just largely sticking with his addition of problematic content and his edit warring. To save burderning ANI with over 40K of evidence, details can be seen at User:One Night In Hackney/Evidence. It's difficult to pick specific examples from such a lengthy catalogue of disruptive edits but here's a few, but I recommend reading it in full:

• A claim he added that the British National Front reportedly became the third party at local level in some areas of the United Kingdom neglects to mention the fact that the source says this was actually misreported
• Adds text describing the participants in the 1981 Brixton riot as "black settlers", I cannot emphasise enough how racist (and factually incorrect) that text is.
• Adds claim that the British "state" introduced the Public Order Act 1986 which "limiting by law opinions people could state in regards to race in the United Kingdom", and that John Tyndall was subsequently prosecuted under it. Slight problem with that, John Tyndall was imprisoned in July 1986 and the act didn't receive Royal Assent until November 1986 or come into force until April 1987. He can't blame the source either, as it makes to mention of the Public Order Act.
• Adds an obscure reference to a local paper in Britain, a story from the Dewsbury Reporter in 1989 to be exact. Not obscure enough unfortunately, since I have access to the archive. Somehow he manages to get the publication date wrong, the name of the story wrong, and what the paper actually said is substantially different to what Yorkshirian claimed.
• Adds text saying that the "party saw a popularity growth in London and the urban southeast" sourced to a book that actually says "East London having become a promising area for the party".

I could go on and on with more examples but I suggest you just read the evidence page, the majority of edits where Yorkshirian adds content are problematic, the content added usually bears little resemblance to what the sources say. In my opinion this is one of the most disruptive types of editing going, as people assume good faith that when a source has been added with text that the text is accurately cited. As a result of this, the British National Party article in places resembles a work of fiction. This can't be excused as simply adding a reference and not changing existing text to match, as the overwhelming majority of the time it's text that Yorkshirian added in the first place. Most attempts to fix this are usually reverted by Yorkshirian, so he needs to be addressed before the article can be fixed. I don't believe there's any particular reason to believe that this abuse of references will only be limited to this article either, does anyone else? I'm sure there will be various comments about how good he works on other articles (although based on the evidence of widespread fraudulent referencing I've produced I'd suggest everything he's added needs to be properly checked), while that may mitigate his conduct on this article it certainly doesn't excuse it and it certainly doesn't justify allowing it to continue. Given his long track-record of disruption and him being supposedly on a final 'life' I believe it's time to close the door on Yorkshirian, if it doesn't happen here it's next stop ArbCom. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I've had to indefinitely protect both John Birch Society and British National Party, and nearly protected Catholic Church and Human rights, with Yorkshirian edit warring at all four. The 1RR condition that helped end his most recent permablock is clearly a distant memory. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is quite clear with this edit where Yorkshirian simply repeats his previous POV without regard for anything anyone has said. I can see those articles being protected forever while he persists. His tendency towards WP:OUTING people continues as well as his edits had to be oversighted at WP:NPOVN. As always, no response - much less apology - to Alison's oversighting or her reminder about harassment. More WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Wknight94 ^talk 14:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I expected that he would've been site-banned by now, so naturally I'm surprised he's still editing despite all the above problems. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

He can do good work and he backs off eventually but he has some really strange views that he imposes from time to time and has a habit of making silly accusations against other editors. The good work, when its good is worth putting up with some grief - this guy is a real eccentric. I would suggest a ban on reverts and a ban on any comments on other editors, to apply to all pages. --Snowded ^TALK 14:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is no incentive to stop when he will just sock through any ban, and then get a free pass when he promises to stop socking. The ban evasion was so rampant that people forgot about the behavior that got him banned in the first place - behavior that got him re-blocked a few months after that, and continues to this day. It's a bizarre system we have here. Wknight94 ^talk 14:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult. When he's good he's very good, and when he's bad he's very bad. My perception is that, having let him get away with a lot in the past, he is clearly now unable to change his underlying behaviour, and the bad Yorkshirian is now outweighing the good. So, I wouldn't object if he was taken off the scene. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose ban. I disagree, Ghmyrtle. Yorkshirian is a good contributor to many high-quality articles; there is already a dearth of editors who work on history-related articles and we cannot afford to lose another one. We have one particular editor at Wikipedia who is continually disrupting the project with his provocative, trollish edits-in particular to the Dave Snowden article; I marvel that he is not being discussed here in lieu of Yorkshirian.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Irvine just occupies time - he doesn't seem to cause much serious damage, he's just irritating (or amusing, depending on how tolerant you're feeling). But Yorkshirian actively and aggressively promotes a highly eccentric and extreme politicised POV on a lot of political and religious articles - so the net effect on WP of his actions, I think, is actually worse. I'm reluctant in a way to say that, as in the past I've supported his continued involvement. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support ban, and I'd like to see some fairly aggressive checkusering given his history of block evasion and sockpuppetteering. DuncanHill (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban and seconds DuncanHill's suggestion. --Joowwww (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban. I thought we'd already established that being "very good" is not an excuse for being "very bad". Ironholds (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban wikipedia is not for advocacy, and not for smearing other editors. Verbal chat 18:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban — by far the most serious accusation here is that of falsifying what sources are saying. That absolutely cannot be tolerated, or else the entire foundation of Wikipedia crumbles. *** Crotalus *** 18:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

How about adopting Snowded's suggestions?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Enough already. Guy (Help!) 18:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support - only last week did I have to deal with an oversight request in which Yorkshirian attempted to reveal the alleged RL name of another editor on the project. This happened at this discussion and the redactions are evident from the page history. This kind of behaviour is never acceptable and, in the light of all this other abuse, I have to support a ban here - Alison ^❤ 19:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I looked him up recently because of problems on Catholic Church, and was stunned to find Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Yorkshirian and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Yorkshirian. Not clear why he's still editing given that background. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban, I, too, came across the history because of edit warring at Catholic Church, and with that many socks, and continued socking after the indef blocks and arbcom one-year block, I was quite surprised to see the latest block removed. Editors who are here only to cause trouble take inordinate amounts of time from others, and should be shown the door firmly and quickly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban. Hackney has provided more than enough evidence to show this abuse is chronic, intentional, and not likely to stop. No measures would be effective short of forbidding him to add content. That, of course, would be absurd. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban - In case my comment above wasn't clear enough. Wknight94 ^talk 20:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Long-time problem editor, this is well overdue. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I have a very poor experience from working with this editor. Not of the scale described above but I have had a taste of it. Knowing that the behavior I have seen is only the tip of the iceberg, I too would not oppose a community ban. --RA (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as someone who have been on the receiving end of his bad side. Better a total bad on reverts then he is neutralised --Snowded ^TALK 21:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Never mind the reverts - did you see Hackney's evidence of misrepresenting sources? Wknight94 ^talk 21:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Dewsbury et al - I was involved in that one removing the material. A no revert policy would have worked there. Not sure how many others. His problems are when he edits articles that play to the worst side of his right wing nature, then he pushes the boundaries. Overall I would prefer to have him inside the tent with some control than as a sock farm. I'd also like him focused on all the obscure little history articles where he does a lot of good work. --Snowded ^TALK 21:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sockaphobia is not a great reason IMHO. Otherwise, let's unban everyone and pretend they're under control. Are you sure he's not doing the same in the obscure history articles? Or are they too obscure for anyone to notice? Wknight94 ^talk 21:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yorkshirian's edit warring is only part of the problem, and the smaller part at that, so a ban on reverts will not do. The main problem is the well-documented fabrication and misrepresentation of sources. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Yorkshirain and I are engaged in a dispute at talk:John Birch Society, so I won't use that as a basis for supporting the ban. However I checked some other articles that we've both edited and found this edit[298] to Denis Fahey. With some difficulty I obtained a copy of the cited journal article and I found that it does not support the text he added. This is further confirmation of Hackney's allegation that Yorkshirian has repeatedly misrepresented sources. Using a hard-to-get or expensive source makes it even worse as it's harder for other editors to check. Edits like this harm the integrity of the project. On top of the other issues concerning this user it is unacceptable behavior.   Will Beback  talk  21:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban Once an editor's edits cannot be trusted or relied upon, then they have no place here. Best to let him go.  Giano  22:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban Continually and deliberately misrepresenting sources should get you shown out the door post-haste. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban. I am not sure why he ever got another chance after all the socking. We have way too much patience with this type of editor. Hans Adler 23:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban. Two years or so ago when hearing the arbitration case I only reluctantly supported the restrictions on Yorkshirian, because he does go to source material and writes articles. But it becomes clearer and clearer that he is distorting the source material as well as editing disruptively. I don't see any way that he can work collaboratively. (I declare an interest as one of the sources so distorted) Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban per Alison. Durova⁴¹² 05:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban per most above. --John (talk) 06:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Enough is enough. Skinny87 (talk) 07:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support - reluctantly, but WP is not a game, or a debating forum. Sorry, Yorkshirian, you blew it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:43, 19 March 2010 (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.

Legal Threat regarding the Will Hanrahan article.

I received a message on my talk page by Willhanrahan regarding vandalism of the Will Hanrahan article. In this message he states that he reported a static IP user\vandal to the local police station for harrasment.

The article itself has been reverted and locked by JohnCD and the issue was raised on the BLP noticeboard. The user seems to be quite reasonable as evident by a message on JohnCD's talk page, yet the WP:NLT issue remains. Furthermore, the user is apparently requesting a temporal take-down of the article in question. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 11:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I would support deletion if the editor is the subject (after confirmation at OTRS), if we can't stop defamatory content being inserted into the bios of people then we should accept his request. We should report more defaming IP editors to the cops imo (no this is not a legal threat) Off2riorob (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I think perhaps the spirit of the NLT applies here. According to NLT, the rationale is that legal threats (a) quash neutral article development, (b) poison collegiality, (c) damage the reputation of the threatener. Given edits like this, [299], [300], I can see why he might be upset. This particular legal threat does not seem to be an issue under a or b, given that the contributor who vandalized the article is evidently not interested in either, and "c", well, his reputation could have been far more damaged by the article itself than reporting an IP for harassment. I would be inclined to just let your explanation of why legal threats are a bad thing stand and not take further action on it unless he repeats it. I can imagine he would be quite unhappy to find that written about himself and then to have it reappear every time he tried to remove it. Deletion of the article is not necessary; we have other tools (protection & blocking) to handle that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment My thought exactly. I deemed the explanation sufficient myself, but i thought it was better to report it here as well - if not for WP:NLT sake then for the sake of discussing this particular issue. As for the Willhanrahan (talk · contribs) claiming to be the article's subject - we have multiple confirmed claims, and we actually have a list of Wikipedia editors who are also the subject of an article. Similarly we have had previous legal threads regarding defamatory content in article's, which is exactly the reason why we should remain vigilant regarding BLP pages. As one of the most viewed - and perhaps even trusted - websites on the net defamatory content can have high impact on someone's life. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Why would someone with legal training go into a police station and report a so-called libel and/or harassment? Libel isn't a criminal offence and harassment via a wikipedia article would be laughed out of the nick. AGF aside, I very much doubt that Willhanrahan (talk · contribs) is actually the real deal. I wouldn't be surprised if it was the IP who is vandalising the article. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• That seems unlikely, given the edit history of the article. The first blanking was by 81.149.199.65, a static IP whose only prior edit was to correct a spelling error in that article over two years ago. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Harassment at least in the United Kingdom is not a laughable issue. The editor WillHanrahan has left a note on my talkpage commenting in a similar vein to MRGirl that he would prefer to avoid deletion and I have requested he take more care as regards legal comments and have suggested confirmation of his identity to OTRS. Off2riorob (talk)

• Although harassment itself isn't a laughable issue, the fact that a couple of comments on a wikipedia page could make a legal case for a prosecution or even for sending the boys in blue round is. Anyone with a legal background would know this. They would also know the way to go around hurdles like this, which would probably be accomplished with a couple of phone calls to the right people. Walking into a nick is not the way to go to actually get anything like this done. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Well, regardless of whether he is the individual or just somebody who objected to the content and thought the username might help him remove it, the material was inappropriate, and he does not seem to be the same person as the individual who added it. It's gone now, which is good, and I don't think the legal threat is a real issue at this point; Excirial has explained why legal threats are a problem. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• I think you would be surprised. Have a look at these Altavista search results and you can see quite a few convictions for Internet libel. Besides, Wikipedia is larger than just one country. For example, one particular country (Anyone who remembers which one?) has laws in place that forbid insulting the emperor, and bloggers have indeed been convicted and imprisoned for doing so. And for the record, we at least have 1 previous case where the user who blanked the page was confirmed trough OTRS. Yet the case i remember is 1-2 years ago, so you have to forgive me for not being able to link it. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any more action is required, though it will do no harm if a few more people watchlist the article in case the vandal returns. It seems to be an individual - all the edits were from Roboteyes (talk · contribs), who has no constructive edits and who I have indef-blocked, and from a single IP, 90.196.49.246 (talk · contribs), which I have no doubt is the same person but which we cannot be sure is static.

The only reason the user requested taking the article down is that a Google search at present shows a few lines of the vandalised version. Taking it down would not help that: is there anything we can do to accelerate Google's picking up the clean one?

What might be considered a legal threat (I'm joking here, sort of) is the user name of the new user Petercarterruck (talk · contribs) who intervened with two edits during the attempt to clean the article up. Peter Carter-Ruck was a famous libel lawyer in the UK, now deceased though his firm is still active. I gave this user a username warning, to which there has been no response, and I doubt if we shall hear from him again. JohnCD (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the Google cache has already been refreshed. Problem solved it seems. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 16:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Lloyd R. Woodson

This article got deleted after an AfD but has recently been re-added. It was G4 tagged which was removed by an editor other than the creator and I agree that it's probably not G4 eligible given the new coverage. However given the large size of the new article when it was created and some of the access dates for the references I fear that this is a copy and past from the old version. Could an admin take a look at the deleted version and if need be sort out the history. Dpmuk (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I AFDed the original article. If it isn't a copy and paste, it is an attempt to establish notability. The fact that the charges section is so large is a bit suspicious for me. I might AFD this again should nothing big pop up. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

List of charges is pretty much straight out of RS news coverage. Bachcell (talk)

Yeah, the fact that the references take up almost a third of the page's links is good enough for me. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with anyone else deciding to AfD it if they decide it should be(although I would contest a G4 speedy) and that's not an ANI issue. The reason I brought it here was because it looks like a lot of it may be cut and pasted from the original article and if so that breaks the CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence as it's not properly attributed, but I have no way of knowing as I can't see the deleted version. Dpmuk (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It was also re-created by the same person who wrote the original, so he might contest it on those grounds. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

What's this an article that was already in wikipedia can't be used for the exact same wikipedia page once it's been deleted? That's goofy isn't it?? What are the rules for "proper" citation, isn't it easier to just fix it, and if so, what is the real reason for wanting to delete the article again? It certainly does not look like NPOV good faith. The real reason it was deleted was to surpress a point of view, rather than the spirit of NPOV, which is airing all sides of an issue. Deletion of an event which got international coverage by WP:RS, and still rates national coverage a month after the original event, and still debating whether or not this meets a minimal standard of notability is violating the spirit of NPOV considering there are WP pages on every individual who was ever detained in the Gitmo Al Queda fighter camp with NO coverage in notable press. Bachcell (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Someone who know what they're doing (i.e. not me) needs to do a history merge of User:Bachcell/Lloyd R. Woodson and Lloyd R. Woodson. Bachcell should have moved the article back to article space, not copy-pasted it; that's a violation of our license. It makes it look like the article as recreated is his creation alone, and it isn't. No comment on whether this is significantly the same as the deleted article, it will be easier to tell once the histmerge has been done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

•  Done w/r/t the history merge. Tim Song (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. Hadn't realised this had been userfied other I'd have just posted at WP:SPLICE (indeed I was in the process of doing so when I realised you'd already done it). I'm happy for this to be marked resolved as I don't believe G4 related issues are an ANI issue - I only brought this here for the licensing concerns. Dpmuk (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim. For everyone's info, here's the diff between the deleted article and the restored article: [301], and here's the diff between the deleted article and the article as is right now, at the time of my writing: [302]. I think DRV would have been the better way to go. A G4 probably could have been justified when the article was first recreated; now that it's being expanded by others, I don't know that a G4 is valid anymore, but the way this was done leaves a bad taste in my mouth. However, I agree it's not an ANI issue anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Need help with articles (user issue)

Hi, a user named User:Cloudkeeper has recently started editing the Care Bears article and List of Care Bears. They have been signing their username after every edit they make, as if it was a discussion, and saying things like "The Following Are Not True Care Bears." I reverted the edits and sent them a message, but I would like it if someone could help keep an eye on those two articles, and the user's edits if possible, since if they continue to put their username after every edit that they make and another user is also watching the articles, then it is more likely that something will be done quicker then if only I was watching the articles. Queen cat (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I have given the user advice and a COI welcome tag (as they state they work(ed) for the Care Bears company(?)). If such edits continue when the user has had sufficient messages explaining it, then further action will be taken. Hopefully we will be able to avoid biting when the user takes this advice to heart. SGGH ^ping! 18:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Problems at Bhonsala Military School

Hi, there appears to be an ongoing issue at this article involving multiple editors. I am not involved - just stumbled across it while checking deadend pages. My apologies, but I don't have time to untangle the whole history and I haven't posted to any editor's page. Seems there's a whole hornets nest in some way connected to the former head teacher, Militant Hindu organisations etc etc

Very POV comments e.g. [303] [304] are being added. Then others are blanking the whole page (or replacing content with just 'BMS') see [305].

Could you take appropriate action?

I've reported here because the "edit warring" report seems to require a lot more detail that I have time to provide at present. If there is a better way for me to flag a similar issue next time, then please leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks

Cje (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the vandalism and indef'd User talk:Bmsnsk as a vandal-only account. Only edits are pushing extreme POV or blanking/vandalising various articles on closely related topics. SGGH ^ping! 18:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Second opinion about IP edits on Talk:Nudity in film

91.150.19.130 (talk · contribs) made an edit on Nudity in film stating that nudity "rocks. Only stupid Americans and youtube thinks its filthy!." I reverted the edit as vandalism and placed welcome and warning messages on their talk page. The editor has since several times ([306], [307], [308], [309]) made edits to the article's talk page where he attempts to engage in a general discussion about the topic (not improvement of the article) and where they repeatedly make references to "stupid Americans" and that "Nudity in films rock", "Someone please upload some hot naked babes now", "How do i upload pictures from great tits and ass movies" etc. I've reverted their talk page edits three times since yesterday as vandalism, leaving more templated warnings as well as this expanded explanation which was a response to a post to my talk page. I'm still hesitant to consider these talk page posts as anything other than vandalism because the posts continued even after I took care to explain a few things and offer my help. However, I wanted to get a second opinion on whether more AGF is due in this case and whether I might run afoul of 3RR if I keep reverting him. I will not revert the last post until I hear others' opinions.

P.S. Apologies if it sounds way too obvious and trivial.

Thanks! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

3-hour "hey, we're not kidding here" block imposed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Perceptive vandals, that makes a change :) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

hunh. until this day I had not realized that Wikipedia had a nudity portal. I'm not sure why that surprises me, actually, but... --Ludwigs2 02:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if Mr. "Nudity Rocks" has seen the jacuzzi scene in About Schmidt? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• It took awhile for my hysterical blindness to clear up after that scene. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• I would have to say that Nicholson's incredulous reaction probably echoed that of the audience. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That was disappointing; no mention anywhere of fortified wine! What kind of portal is that? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

AWB access - Mlpearc delinking articles

• Mlpearc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has started serially, massively delinking articles --> he is apparently starting with the letter A as he has delinked golfers on my watchlist -- Tommy Aaron, Adams, Ahern, Allem, and many other articles. This is serious enough, in my judgement, to warrant immediate administrator attention.--Hokeman (talk) 03:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

He was recently given access to AWB, and it may be that it deserves to be taken up at WP:AN/I, not here. Generally, the WP:AIV is for rapid response to petty vandalism and automated revision of the articles in question.  Mephistophelian (talk ● contributions) 04:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Moved here, from WP:AIV. -- Cirt (talk) 07:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a discussion about this happening at the talk page of the user doing the delinking, see User_talk:Mlpearc#Stop_delinking_golfer_bios_immediately (also a question was asked about it Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Need_Help). Mlpearc seems to be doing this in good faith and is open to discussing the issue. At this point I'm not sure we need admin intervention per say, rather people to weigh in at this editor's talk page as to best practices regarding wikilinks within articles. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok. -- Cirt (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This users use of AWB is absolutely shocking, his access should be revoked immediately. He shows no understanding for WP policies and guidelines, making edits which delink items in see also sections and navigational templates. A comment he made on his talk page "They way I see it is : One link per subject,per article, I might get flack from this but I make Judgment calls and this one. Period" shows that he is unwilling to change his view. I am not comfortable with this user having access to a tool which can quickly make so many wrong edits to articles. Jeni ^(talk) 10:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I left them a warning that if they continue in this manner, their AWB access will be revoked. –xeno^talk 14:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Message received and understood, My apologizes, won't happen again Mlpearc MESSAGE 15:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I want all involved to know that all and I mean ever single edit I made was in good faith. I misunderstood the overlinking.Mlpearc MESSAGE 16:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I am now *very* concerned about this users access to AWB as they appear to show no understanding of how the software works or what it can do, per the latest discussion on their talk page. I strongly feel that access should be removed immediatley until a time when the user can demonstrate competency in this area. (Note: I've unmarked this as resolved because of this) Jeni ^(talk) 22:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done User doesn't appear to understand how to use AWB, or Wikipedia. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Younus AlGohar & MFI Disputed articles

Banned user can quit socking with IP addresses...
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
These articles have most of WP:SPS references, this is to request all the administrators to look into this.--116.71.8.240 (talk) 09:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC) This is part of a long and complex edit war also involving the use of socks, SPI and previous AN/Is. If you need details, please let me know what info you require. Scientizzle (talk · contribs) and Jpgordon (talk · contribs) may perhaps add their input and bring clarity and focus to this issue. Esowteric+Talk 10:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC) You mean to say in this case we condoned WP:SPS.--116.71.11.217 (talk) 10:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC) These articles are totally biased I have spent hours to research and verify the claims on this article but the result is before you. All supplied links are biased. I found only three neutral references. Rest you can see and verify. You can make your points in a more appropriate and civilized way, rather than acting as if this is some FBI case regarding some terrorist plot. This is only action, you don't need to say 'take immediate action!' or 'wikipedia is biased'. You're sanding your own image and reliability if you do so. Your views can be put into perspective and can be considered, if only you stop taking these articles as if they were a 'life and death'-situation sort of thing. As I've learnt in my time on Wikipedia, 'inclusion and not exclusion' is the best policy. It makes the article as fair and as reliable as possible, and it should mention all angles of the story, as it has begun to do since the edit-wars have shortened. We aren't your enemies, so just consider working along with us, as we all tend to assume good-faith for fellow editors. You've clearly violated rules by sock-puppeting, hence have been blocked; now it would be better if you had shown some respect for fellow editors and shown some humbleness. --  Nasir | ناصر یونس  have a chat  20:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Links in question Biased links: http://www.kalkiavtar.net/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO584eefpjQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EllOThFusRo&feature=related http://www.younusalgohar.com/about.html http://www.riazaljannah.com/book/index.htm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yestbUQK8hs http://www.divine-signs.org/manifestation_of_human_images.html http://www.theawaitedone.com/messiah_herald/2009/dec/page09.htm http://www.theawaitedone.com/intro.htm http://ericavebury.blogspot.com/2009/09/mehdi-foundation-international.html http://goharshahi.net/ http://www.theawaitedone.com/messiah_herald/2008/dec/page05.htm http://www.theawaitedone.com/0908-the-Island-Interview.htm http://www.younusalgohar.com/mission.html http://www.goharshahi.plus.com/ http://hisholinessrariazgoharshahi.wordpress.com/2008/11/29/the-function-of-messiah-foundation-international/ http://www.theawaitedone.com/Universality-of-RA-Gohar-Shahi-teachings.htm http://rariazgoharshahi.blogspot.com/2008/11/do-you-await-messianic-personality.html http://www.theawaitedone.com/in-the-mirror-of-our-observation.htm http://www.riazaljannah.com/teachings/2008/dec/28_2/ http://www.goharshahi.biz/persecution/?p=4 http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4NbHm-uoC1I/STAnNNYFyKI/AAAAAAAAAJM/EOQxcCjuW_Q/s1600-h/Spritual-Path-and-Western-Spiritual-Concept.jpg http://www.goharshahi.biz/persecution/?p=3 http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_4NbHm-uoC1I/STAhD5vnvTI/AAAAAAAAAIs/S8oUf9DAih0/s1600-h/A-Peep-Into-Mfi.jpg http://www.divine-signs.org/01-Sarkar-Moon.html http://www.divine-signs.org/01-Sarkar-Sun.html http://www.divine-signs.org/01-Sarkar-Mars.html http://www.divine-signs.org/01-Sarkar-Nebula-Star.html http://www.theawaitedone.com/the-awaited-ones.htm http://www.theawaitedone.com/messiah_herald/2008/dec/page03.htm http://www.theawaitedone.com/correspondence/Islamic-Terrorism.html http://rariazgoharshahi.blogspot.com/2008/11/anjuman-sarfroshan-islam-opposes-mfi.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_Z1mWtgXsc&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj1pQoYBQzc&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/user/younusalgohar http://rariazgoharshahi.blogspot.com/ Unbiased links: http://www.island.lk/2008/09/07/news9.html http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk /news/4645892.Croydon_religious_leader_faces_life_in_Pakistani_jail_for_his_beliefs/ http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/49997ae7d.pdf This is wikipedia and I strongly recommend all administors of wikipedia to take immediate notice and action on these articles.--116.71.11.217 (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Yes I agree, as far as referencing goes, there is certainly "a case to answer". I have tagged both articles with "self-published|date=March 2010" templates. Esowteric+Talk 11:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Comment- Assuming this is in regards to the Messiah Foundation International article, There are a few more to add to the list of references that are not self published. http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,USDOS,,PAK,,3ae6a88b4,0.html http://www.indianexpress.com/news/hc-stays-deportation-of-67-pakistani-nationa/387834/ http://epaper.hindustantimes.com/blog/2008/11/67-pakistanis-in-tihar-who-dont-want-to.html http://nhrc.nic.in/disparchive.asp?fno=1454 http://nhrc.nic.in/disparchive.asp?fno=1435 http://www.telegraphindia.com/1091127/jsp/nation/story_11792499.jsp http://ericavebury.blogspot.com/search?q=mehdi+foundation http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_pakistani-prisoners-in-tihar-won-t-get-asylum-centre_1316993 http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/provinces/18-is-there-an-end-am-01 www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/7session/A-HRC-7-10-Add1.doc http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cities/delhi/pakistani_nationals_seek_asylum_burn_passports/articleshow/1947194.cms http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2005\12\28\story_28-12-2005_pg7_7 http://wwrn.org/articles/19879/?&place=pakistan&section=other-nrms http://www.pakistanpressfoundation.org/usermediafilesdetails.asp?uid=6008 http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/4645892.Croydon_religious_leader_faces_life_in_Pakistani_jail_for_his_beliefs/ http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_8-7-2004_pg7_43 http://www.zikr-e-ilahi.com/english/zikr-english.php http://www.island.lk/2008/09/07/news9.html Although even I agree more third party sources would be useful. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 11:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC) I think the administrators of wikipedia should an action agsinst the editors of these articles as they not only playing with wikipedia but they are using wikipedia for their ill-deeds & self-promotion.--116.71.8.155 (talk) 11:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Phase 1 of the operation was to end the months-long edit warring. While that was going on no progress could be made on the several articles involved. That involved blocking several sockpuppets. Now we have a little breathing space to work on the articles and address concerns on all sides. Esowteric+Talk 11:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC) I think the wikipedia and its administrator are a biased on this matter, that's why they have blocked one-sided users and attention of above mentioned disputed articles only given when asked?--116.71.17.41 (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC) With respect, IP-hopping block evasion and continued AfD vote-stacking is not the way to go if you would like puppetmaster Iamsaa (talk · contribs) to be unblocked. Esowteric+Talk 12:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Why only Iamsaa (talk · contribs) unblocked? I think all block users should be unblock either block the both parties.--116.71.11.102 (talk) 12:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC) ...you have got to be kidding me. I blocked these new IP socks of Iamsaa (talk · contribs). There is no possible way I am going to unblock that account. — Scientizzle 13:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Sgiaaero needs attention [copyvio]

Sgiaaero (talk · contribs) keeps uploading copyvio files to Commons then subsequently goes through all wikis to change valid free photos to his uploaded copyvios. Please see the history of Sabiha Gokcen International Airport as an example. Would need attention. After commonsdelinker removed his imaes he uploaded them again and put them back in the article. He has had several notifications at commons to stop uplaoding copyvio photos. --Timish ¤ Gül Bahçesi 15:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems like this is first a Commons issue. Do you know if it is being dealt with there? Using copyvio images here is not a good thing, to be sure, but the bigger issue is that he's uploading them at all. If we handle him here, that won't be addressed, I'm afraid. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Second opinion about IP edits on Talk:Nudity in film

91.150.19.130 (talk · contribs) made an edit on Nudity in film stating that nudity "rocks. Only stupid Americans and youtube thinks its filthy!." I reverted the edit as vandalism and placed welcome and warning messages on their talk page. The editor has since several times ([310], [311], [312], [313]) made edits to the article's talk page where he attempts to engage in a general discussion about the topic (not improvement of the article) and where they repeatedly make references to "stupid Americans" and that "Nudity in films rock", "Someone please upload some hot naked babes now", "How do i upload pictures from great tits and ass movies" etc. I've reverted their talk page edits three times since yesterday as vandalism, leaving more templated warnings as well as this expanded explanation which was a response to a post to my talk page. I'm still hesitant to consider these talk page posts as anything other than vandalism because the posts continued even after I took care to explain a few things and offer my help. However, I wanted to get a second opinion on whether more AGF is due in this case and whether I might run afoul of 3RR if I keep reverting him. I will not revert the last post until I hear others' opinions.

P.S. Apologies if it sounds way too obvious and trivial.

Thanks! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

3-hour "hey, we're not kidding here" block imposed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Perceptive vandals, that makes a change :) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

hunh. until this day I had not realized that Wikipedia had a nudity portal. I'm not sure why that surprises me, actually, but... --Ludwigs2 02:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if Mr. "Nudity Rocks" has seen the jacuzzi scene in About Schmidt? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• It took awhile for my hysterical blindness to clear up after that scene. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• I would have to say that Nicholson's incredulous reaction probably echoed that of the audience. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That was disappointing; no mention anywhere of fortified wine! What kind of portal is that? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

AWB access - Mlpearc delinking articles

• Mlpearc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has started serially, massively delinking articles --> he is apparently starting with the letter A as he has delinked golfers on my watchlist -- Tommy Aaron, Adams, Ahern, Allem, and many other articles. This is serious enough, in my judgement, to warrant immediate administrator attention.--Hokeman (talk) 03:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

He was recently given access to AWB, and it may be that it deserves to be taken up at WP:AN/I, not here. Generally, the WP:AIV is for rapid response to petty vandalism and automated revision of the articles in question.  Mephistophelian (talk ● contributions) 04:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Moved here, from WP:AIV. -- Cirt (talk) 07:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a discussion about this happening at the talk page of the user doing the delinking, see User_talk:Mlpearc#Stop_delinking_golfer_bios_immediately (also a question was asked about it Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Need_Help). Mlpearc seems to be doing this in good faith and is open to discussing the issue. At this point I'm not sure we need admin intervention per say, rather people to weigh in at this editor's talk page as to best practices regarding wikilinks within articles. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok. -- Cirt (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This users use of AWB is absolutely shocking, his access should be revoked immediately. He shows no understanding for WP policies and guidelines, making edits which delink items in see also sections and navigational templates. A comment he made on his talk page "They way I see it is : One link per subject,per article, I might get flack from this but I make Judgment calls and this one. Period" shows that he is unwilling to change his view. I am not comfortable with this user having access to a tool which can quickly make so many wrong edits to articles. Jeni ^(talk) 10:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I left them a warning that if they continue in this manner, their AWB access will be revoked. –xeno^talk 14:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Message received and understood, My apologizes, won't happen again Mlpearc MESSAGE 15:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I want all involved to know that all and I mean ever single edit I made was in good faith. I misunderstood the overlinking.Mlpearc MESSAGE 16:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I am now *very* concerned about this users access to AWB as they appear to show no understanding of how the software works or what it can do, per the latest discussion on their talk page. I strongly feel that access should be removed immediatley until a time when the user can demonstrate competency in this area. (Note: I've unmarked this as resolved because of this) Jeni ^(talk) 22:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done User doesn't appear to understand how to use AWB, or Wikipedia. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

IP 76.3.3.249 personal attacks

Resolved

 – Blocked Rodhullandemu 00:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

A string of personal attacks by an IP 76.3.3.249 who has decided I'm a Nazi and quit a few other things. Diffs here [314], [315], [316] and a few others but they seem to keep going. Can I get an admin to look into this? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

A little attention here please? They are still at it [317]. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You can add a post to WP:AIV, though I'd add a disclaimer stating that you're involved in the thread (so that the administrator reading it independently verifies before blocking). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I already reported the user to AIV.--SKATER ^Speak. 00:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

EC-ThanksUser:Skater and User:Rodhullandemu, was on last civil nerve with that person. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, try not to let the vandals get to you. They're just seeking attention most of the time...--SKATER ^Speak. 00:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL, usually dont, but that guy was on a roll. Kinda funny, as I was keeping track and reverting on about 4 pages he was vandalizing and just reverting him. He was reverting me, and started going so fast he started to revert himself and then re-revert himself when he realized it. They are so SMART like that. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, one editor calling another a Nazi. How original and non-cliched. If someone says that to you, you can always mock them with a comment like: "AM NFile:Nazi_Swastika.svgT, SEE!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for refactoring your comment, but this was causing a Nazi flag to show up in popups when you hover over ANI, and it was bothering someone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Nein gut. I fix! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hell, I'm a nazi. If the shadows are just right, you can nazi me at all. HalfShadow 01:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Or even the half-shadows. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I pre-emptively yanked the IPs ability to edit his talk page. I think we know what the unblock request will consist of, more or less. –MuZemike 01:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Younus AlGohar & MFI Disputed articles

Banned user can quit socking with IP addresses...
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
These articles have most of WP:SPS references, this is to request all the administrators to look into this.--116.71.8.240 (talk) 09:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC) This is part of a long and complex edit war also involving the use of socks, SPI and previous AN/Is. If you need details, please let me know what info you require. Scientizzle (talk · contribs) and Jpgordon (talk · contribs) may perhaps add their input and bring clarity and focus to this issue. Esowteric+Talk 10:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC) You mean to say in this case we condoned WP:SPS.--116.71.11.217 (talk) 10:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC) These articles are totally biased I have spent hours to research and verify the claims on this article but the result is before you. All supplied links are biased. I found only three neutral references. Rest you can see and verify. You can make your points in a more appropriate and civilized way, rather than acting as if this is some FBI case regarding some terrorist plot. This is only action, you don't need to say 'take immediate action!' or 'wikipedia is biased'. You're sanding your own image and reliability if you do so. Your views can be put into perspective and can be considered, if only you stop taking these articles as if they were a 'life and death'-situation sort of thing. As I've learnt in my time on Wikipedia, 'inclusion and not exclusion' is the best policy. It makes the article as fair and as reliable as possible, and it should mention all angles of the story, as it has begun to do since the edit-wars have shortened. We aren't your enemies, so just consider working along with us, as we all tend to assume good-faith for fellow editors. You've clearly violated rules by sock-puppeting, hence have been blocked; now it would be better if you had shown some respect for fellow editors and shown some humbleness. --  Nasir | ناصر یونس  have a chat  20:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Links in question Biased links: http://www.kalkiavtar.net/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO584eefpjQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EllOThFusRo&feature=related http://www.younusalgohar.com/about.html http://www.riazaljannah.com/book/index.htm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yestbUQK8hs http://www.divine-signs.org/manifestation_of_human_images.html http://www.theawaitedone.com/messiah_herald/2009/dec/page09.htm http://www.theawaitedone.com/intro.htm http://ericavebury.blogspot.com/2009/09/mehdi-foundation-international.html http://goharshahi.net/ http://www.theawaitedone.com/messiah_herald/2008/dec/page05.htm http://www.theawaitedone.com/0908-the-Island-Interview.htm http://www.younusalgohar.com/mission.html http://www.goharshahi.plus.com/ http://hisholinessrariazgoharshahi.wordpress.com/2008/11/29/the-function-of-messiah-foundation-international/ http://www.theawaitedone.com/Universality-of-RA-Gohar-Shahi-teachings.htm http://rariazgoharshahi.blogspot.com/2008/11/do-you-await-messianic-personality.html http://www.theawaitedone.com/in-the-mirror-of-our-observation.htm http://www.riazaljannah.com/teachings/2008/dec/28_2/ http://www.goharshahi.biz/persecution/?p=4 http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4NbHm-uoC1I/STAnNNYFyKI/AAAAAAAAAJM/EOQxcCjuW_Q/s1600-h/Spritual-Path-and-Western-Spiritual-Concept.jpg http://www.goharshahi.biz/persecution/?p=3 http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_4NbHm-uoC1I/STAhD5vnvTI/AAAAAAAAAIs/S8oUf9DAih0/s1600-h/A-Peep-Into-Mfi.jpg http://www.divine-signs.org/01-Sarkar-Moon.html http://www.divine-signs.org/01-Sarkar-Sun.html http://www.divine-signs.org/01-Sarkar-Mars.html http://www.divine-signs.org/01-Sarkar-Nebula-Star.html http://www.theawaitedone.com/the-awaited-ones.htm http://www.theawaitedone.com/messiah_herald/2008/dec/page03.htm http://www.theawaitedone.com/correspondence/Islamic-Terrorism.html http://rariazgoharshahi.blogspot.com/2008/11/anjuman-sarfroshan-islam-opposes-mfi.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_Z1mWtgXsc&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj1pQoYBQzc&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/user/younusalgohar http://rariazgoharshahi.blogspot.com/ Unbiased links: http://www.island.lk/2008/09/07/news9.html http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk /news/4645892.Croydon_religious_leader_faces_life_in_Pakistani_jail_for_his_beliefs/ http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/49997ae7d.pdf This is wikipedia and I strongly recommend all administors of wikipedia to take immediate notice and action on these articles.--116.71.11.217 (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Yes I agree, as far as referencing goes, there is certainly "a case to answer". I have tagged both articles with "self-published|date=March 2010" templates. Esowteric+Talk 11:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Comment- Assuming this is in regards to the Messiah Foundation International article, There are a few more to add to the list of references that are not self published. http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,USDOS,,PAK,,3ae6a88b4,0.html http://www.indianexpress.com/news/hc-stays-deportation-of-67-pakistani-nationa/387834/ http://epaper.hindustantimes.com/blog/2008/11/67-pakistanis-in-tihar-who-dont-want-to.html http://nhrc.nic.in/disparchive.asp?fno=1454 http://nhrc.nic.in/disparchive.asp?fno=1435 http://www.telegraphindia.com/1091127/jsp/nation/story_11792499.jsp http://ericavebury.blogspot.com/search?q=mehdi+foundation http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_pakistani-prisoners-in-tihar-won-t-get-asylum-centre_1316993 http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/provinces/18-is-there-an-end-am-01 www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/7session/A-HRC-7-10-Add1.doc http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cities/delhi/pakistani_nationals_seek_asylum_burn_passports/articleshow/1947194.cms http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2005\12\28\story_28-12-2005_pg7_7 http://wwrn.org/articles/19879/?&place=pakistan&section=other-nrms http://www.pakistanpressfoundation.org/usermediafilesdetails.asp?uid=6008 http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/4645892.Croydon_religious_leader_faces_life_in_Pakistani_jail_for_his_beliefs/ http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_8-7-2004_pg7_43 http://www.zikr-e-ilahi.com/english/zikr-english.php http://www.island.lk/2008/09/07/news9.html Although even I agree more third party sources would be useful. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 11:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC) I think the administrators of wikipedia should an action agsinst the editors of these articles as they not only playing with wikipedia but they are using wikipedia for their ill-deeds & self-promotion.--116.71.8.155 (talk) 11:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Phase 1 of the operation was to end the months-long edit warring. While that was going on no progress could be made on the several articles involved. That involved blocking several sockpuppets. Now we have a little breathing space to work on the articles and address concerns on all sides. Esowteric+Talk 11:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC) I think the wikipedia and its administrator are a biased on this matter, that's why they have blocked one-sided users and attention of above mentioned disputed articles only given when asked?--116.71.17.41 (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC) With respect, IP-hopping block evasion and continued AfD vote-stacking is not the way to go if you would like puppetmaster Iamsaa (talk · contribs) to be unblocked. Esowteric+Talk 12:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Why only Iamsaa (talk · contribs) unblocked? I think all block users should be unblock either block the both parties.--116.71.11.102 (talk) 12:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC) ...you have got to be kidding me. I blocked these new IP socks of Iamsaa (talk · contribs). There is no possible way I am going to unblock that account. — Scientizzle 13:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Sgiaaero needs attention [copyvio]

Sgiaaero (talk · contribs) keeps uploading copyvio files to Commons then subsequently goes through all wikis to change valid free photos to his uploaded copyvios. Please see the history of Sabiha Gokcen International Airport as an example. Would need attention. After commonsdelinker removed his imaes he uploaded them again and put them back in the article. He has had several notifications at commons to stop uplaoding copyvio photos. --Timish ¤ Gül Bahçesi 15:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems like this is first a Commons issue. Do you know if it is being dealt with there? Using copyvio images here is not a good thing, to be sure, but the bigger issue is that he's uploading them at all. If we handle him here, that won't be addressed, I'm afraid. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikiproject members voting

Resolved

 – An admin has sorted the situation now Jeni ^(talk) 22:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Following recent lengthy discussions at WT:ELG a straw poll has now been started, structured exactly like an enforceable vote ("Consensus to approve this revision is deemed to be at least 60% support, computed by individual vote counts.") and specifically telling people they are not allowed to make a comment on the vote. This entirely contravenes WP:NOTAVOTE and despite efforts to tell them this it is falling on deaf ears. The originator of the poll is admin Rschen7754 (talk · contribs) who really should know better in regards to Wikipedia policies.

WP:NOTAVOTE explicitly states "The purpose of a straw poll is to stimulate discussion and consensus. Editors should evaluate the explanations that the participants in a straw poll offer, and should see if those explanations help to develop their own opinions or suggest compromise. In this context, a few well reasoned opinions may affect a debate much more than several unexplained votes for a different course.". How is this possible if comments within the poll and in relation to the poll are actively being removed?

Upon raising this issue, I was told by Rschen7754 (talk · contribs) to "go complain about it somewhere". Seriously how is this guy still an admin? Jeni ^(talk) 22:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

(I'm not sure this is an administrator issue).

There are plenty of threads above the poll to discuss the issues. Adding comments in the voting section will just be distracting. Besides, I would also like to bring up that the above editor closed a straw poll that she did not agree with [318]. --Rschen7754 22:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I closed a straw poll what was started in exactly the same, invalid conditions. Jeni ^(talk) 22:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We should have a vote on that. Oh, wait. What admin action were you expecting here, exactly? Guy (Help!) 22:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Enforcement of Wikipedia guidelines, if that would have ment a block for Rschen's continued disruptive editing, then so be it, hopefully he'll end up understanding where he is going wrong, rather such drastic action being required. Jeni ^(talk) 22:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see anything problematic with Rschen's actions; right up until the point they attempt to enact "consensus". If they make that attempt, and try to railroad through whatever changes they allege are agreed, then there might be need for admin intervention. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The information about 60% determining consensus is nonsense and has nothing to do with WP:CONSENSUS, but again there's not really any disruption worth taking action for. Discussion seems to have moved on since then, others have commented that the poll was improper, and it is now collapsed so it seems resolved. -- Atama頭 22:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that another admin has come along and cleared things up, this is now resolved :) I'm still concerned at Rschen's apparant lack of knowledge into the appropriate procedures and guidelines, considering he's an admin, but I guess that's another discussion for another place on another day. Jeni ^(talk) 22:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe here? Just a thought. -- Atama頭 01:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Chinatown670

I like someone to look over the edit history of Chinatown670 (talk · contribs). He edits appear to be trolling at what he/she precise as censorship on Wikipedia in the form of WP:NOT, WP:V, and [[WP:]], He/she has twice posted a "manifesto" in article space railing against Wikipedia's inclusion policies and guidelines.[319][320]. —Farix (t | c) 22:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indef for "will fight until the usurpers and censorors of Wikipedia are defeated and their attempts at hegemonic censorship revealed for the thought control that it is" as Wikipedia is not a battleground. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I think he meant to say "usurperers", to be consistent. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

What happens here?

It appears that the subject of this photo File:Paul Nicholas Nottingham 27.02.2010.jpg doesn't like it (I can see his point) and is uploading what appears to be some publicity shot of himself instead. The original image doesn't have the correct copyright tag but I'm not sure about the second. What should happen here? Both images deleted? Wait for uploader to provide copyright info? raseaC^{talk to me} 23:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a note, he's not only uploaded another photo, but also seems intent on replacing the one he doesn't like. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:18, 19 Mar 2010 (UTC)

I'd say just wait 'til March 26. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

That's what I recommended to User:Beunic (who appears to be Paul Nicholas Nottingham). What happens if he continues to replace the image? Revert? raseaC^{talk to me} 23:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It could counted as an edit-war. No?Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, not doing too well at explaining myself here. I mean, is User:Beunic doing anything wrong by replacing the original image with his new image? Surely the correct course of action would be to upload the second image as a new file, not replace the original? If that is the case then I can explain that to him and if it persists point out that it's disruptive. raseaC^{talk to me} 23:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

He's already done so here: File:Paul New pic -Vincenzo Photography.jpg. He just still seems intent on replacing the other one, too. I'm not sure what the policy on people not liking their photos. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:35, 19 Mar 2010 (UTC)

That license is BS. He's not the author. raseaC^{talk to me} 23:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I replaced the article photo with this one, as it's better anyway, and has better copyright info. Hopefully this makes the "bad" photo's existence irrelevant, as it's no longer used anywhere. (post edit conflict) -- Maybe he's not the author, but while we deal with that question, the better photo can be in the article instead, I think. If it winds up getting deleted, we can always go back. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:41, 19 Mar 2010 (UTC)

I agree that is the better photo and think reverting back to the original will not be an option after the 26th anyway (it looks as if a bunch of the original uploader's images are on the way out). User:Beunic probably either own's the copyright or can get permission easy enough but I'm pretty sure the copyright info is incorrect now so it may be worth trying to sort that issue out now (however we go about doing that). raseaC^{talk to me} 23:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Being that the file name contains "Vincenzo Photography", I think it's safe to assume the subject paid for that firm to take headshots, which he now wants to release to the public domain. I don't know what the appropriate tag is for a case like this. Could someone who knows more about image copyright tags comment on this? Equazcion ^(talk) 00:05, 20 Mar 2010 (UTC)

As UK law is, copyright belongs to the photographer unless a contract between the photographer and subject specifies otherwise. This follows from the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Therefore, Paul Nicholas, however much he would wish to, cannot give a valid copyright release for a photograph taken by someone else in the absence of evidence that he owns the copyright of any particular image. If this is the case, he should contract WP:OTRS with appropriate evidence. However, all that is needed here is for him to ask someone to take a suitable photo themselves and upload it to Commons with an appropriate GFDL/CC-BY-3.0 licence. It's as simple as getting a mate to take some photos, picking the one you prefer, and uploading it. Publicity photos of living people rarely, if ever, satisfy WP:NFCC#1. End of. Rodhullandemu 00:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I've asked him if he could email me - I'd like to work with the user in question as I believe it could be Paul Nicholas, or someone closely related to him. He may be able to help the project out (i.e. with good quality images). Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Please let me know if this works out. I'm sure he's got some great photos of Jan Francis that the world would benefit from seeing. Rodhullandemu 00:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

User:NavalExpanse sockpuppet of User:Barneystimpleton?

Can an admin please see if NavalExpanse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) meets the criteria of being an obvious sockpuppet of Barneystimpleton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and block if appropriate? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh please. NavalExpanse (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Mmmm.... I'm just a birdie, too!  NavalExpanse (talk) 07:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Obvious sock is obvious. This rather pointy edit [321], paired with his reverts of Arthur Rubin's edits, certainly makes it seem as if he's here to just try and get under AR's skin. Dayewalker (talk) 07:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Not working, yet. <g> — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Make up your mind. Am I an obvious sockpuppet of Barneystimpleton or am I here to bother the entity known as Arthur Rubin? Or am I an alien from a nearby star system? NavalExpanse (talk) 08:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably both. Since I reverted BS more times than most, it makes a sort of <self-censored> sense for him to attack me after he's blocked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The two accounts are actually  Unlikely to be socks of each other - Alison ^❤ 04:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Claudine Barretto article

I need help for someone to look over the Claudine Barretto article and edit history, as user Claudinian (talk · contribs) have been repeatedly making disruptive edits and alterations on the article thus not meeting NPOV standards we are maintaining for the article. This user seems to be making fan edits loosely based on a fans POV and not on actual facts. Please advise on measures that needs to be taken. Wiki pseud (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

You can start by warning the user on their talk page. They may not be reading your edit summaries and may not therefore have seen your previous advice on NPOV. I have added a warning to User:Claudinian's talk page. I simply copied a similar warning from higher on their talk page, and substituted my signature. Please see WP:Template messages/User talk namespace for templates and how to escalate the warnings. I am not an administrator, but I hope this helps. --Diannaa ^TALK 06:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Vic Mackey

Resolved

 – Article semi-protected, one IP blocked. Dreadstar ☥ 05:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

This one's a little too complicated for AIV, but too simple for an SPI. On Vic Mackey, an editor insisted on adding a trivia section, and edit warred under several IDs over the last month. Xsyner (talk · contribs) was eventually tagged as the sockmaster, (although I think that account as actually one of the latter ones). IP 24.243.125.227 (talk · contribs), who was actually blocked for edit warring earlier, has returned to continue adding the trivia to the page, with no attempt at gaining consensus or explaining. I'm requesting either a block of the IP, or semi-protection of the page. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 05:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked for 30 days. Dreadstar ☥ 05:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

THanks, however, he's now returned as 216.66.59.47 (talk · contribs). He seems trivially determined, so to speak. Dayewalker (talk) 05:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Saw it, protected Vic Mackey page too. Dreadstar ☥ 05:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

User:NavalExpanse sockpuppet of User:Barneystimpleton?

Can an admin please see if NavalExpanse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) meets the criteria of being an obvious sockpuppet of Barneystimpleton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and block if appropriate? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh please. NavalExpanse (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Mmmm.... I'm just a birdie, too!  NavalExpanse (talk) 07:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Obvious sock is obvious. This rather pointy edit [322], paired with his reverts of Arthur Rubin's edits, certainly makes it seem as if he's here to just try and get under AR's skin. Dayewalker (talk) 07:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Not working, yet. <g> — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Make up your mind. Am I an obvious sockpuppet of Barneystimpleton or am I here to bother the entity known as Arthur Rubin? Or am I an alien from a nearby star system? NavalExpanse (talk) 08:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably both. Since I reverted BS more times than most, it makes a sort of <self-censored> sense for him to attack me after he's blocked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The two accounts are actually  Unlikely to be socks of each other - Alison ^❤ 04:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Claudine Barretto article

I need help for someone to look over the Claudine Barretto article and edit history, as user Claudinian (talk · contribs) have been repeatedly making disruptive edits and alterations on the article thus not meeting NPOV standards we are maintaining for the article. This user seems to be making fan edits loosely based on a fans POV and not on actual facts. Please advise on measures that needs to be taken. Wiki pseud (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

You can start by warning the user on their talk page. They may not be reading your edit summaries and may not therefore have seen your previous advice on NPOV. I have added a warning to User:Claudinian's talk page. I simply copied a similar warning from higher on their talk page, and substituted my signature. Please see WP:Template messages/User talk namespace for templates and how to escalate the warnings. I am not an administrator, but I hope this helps. --Diannaa ^TALK 06:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Vic Mackey

Resolved

 – Article semi-protected, one IP blocked. Dreadstar ☥ 05:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

This one's a little too complicated for AIV, but too simple for an SPI. On Vic Mackey, an editor insisted on adding a trivia section, and edit warred under several IDs over the last month. Xsyner (talk · contribs) was eventually tagged as the sockmaster, (although I think that account as actually one of the latter ones). IP 24.243.125.227 (talk · contribs), who was actually blocked for edit warring earlier, has returned to continue adding the trivia to the page, with no attempt at gaining consensus or explaining. I'm requesting either a block of the IP, or semi-protection of the page. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 05:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked for 30 days. Dreadstar ☥ 05:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

THanks, however, he's now returned as 216.66.59.47 (talk · contribs). He seems trivially determined, so to speak. Dayewalker (talk) 05:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Saw it, protected Vic Mackey page too. Dreadstar ☥ 05:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Falsification of sources by Granitethighs

Common name is an unsourced essay written and defended by Granitethighs. Today an IP removed a paragraph of what appears to be original research as "Unsourced, unsupported original research".[323] Shortly afterwards Granitethighs undid that removal with edit summary "Added citation", but no citation was added.[324] I undid the restoration[325] and issued Granitethighs a please explain.[326] Granitethighs then restored the paragraph for a second time, this time really adding a citation.[327] I tracked down the source cited, and found that it does not in any way support the paragraph. (source, second opinion)

The paragraph argues that the use of binomial (two-part) scientific names (e.g. Aloe vera) originated from the practise of using two-part Adjective Noun common names (e.g. Black Rat), which in turn probably arose from the practice of giving people Firstname Surname names. As far as I can tell it is 100% original research. The source to which it was cited argues that current scientific taxonomic practices are incapable of handling the 10-million species now recognised. Yes, they are that completely unrelated.

In my view, both the original edit, the edit summary of which falsely claimed to have added a citation, and the subsequent edit, which sourced the paragraph to an article that doesn't even remotely support it, were wilfully deceptive. This is a case of someone willing to do just about anything to protect his personal essay.

Granitethighs has blustered and argued and changed the subject and finally reasserted that the citation was perfectly appropriate. In the absence of any recognition of what is an extremely serious and highly unethical infraction, I am very much inclined to show him the door. However, since I am arguably involved here, I would like someone else to take over from here please.

Hesperian 07:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

(P.S. I will be offline for several hours now. Hesperian 07:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC))

This is a storm in a teapot, generated by an administrator who has lost the plot. Granitethighs is a highly competent editor, and is the primary author of articles such as Sustainability and the History of botany. For whatever reason, Hesperian attacked Granitethighs in a peremptory and particularly nasty way, crowding him into a corner and threatening him with a permanent block, as can be seen in the exchanges between their talk pages, here and here. He has given Granitethighs neither space nor time on this matter. It is the overbearing behaviour of Hesperian that should be the matter for scrutiny here. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Hesperian's accusations. The paragraph in question argues that the "folk" use of single names like "Homer" and binomials, like "Homer Simpson" closely resembles the scientific use of genus names like "Eucalyptus" and species names, like "Eucalyptus regnans". The paragraph did not contain any citation. I am in full agreement that a citation is needed for this assertion and complied with Hesperian's request to provide one, although there was a misunderstanding about when this was given. The citation given was, I believed then (and still do now) appropriate. However, it was not considered adequate by Hesperion who said I was "falsifying citations" and therefore I should be "blocked". I was truly amazed by this sudden accusation and an altercation followed after which I offered to provide whatever citations Hesperion required in whatever places he thought fit in order for the article to be acceptably encyclopaedic. Apparently this was not enough and this situation has resulted. I feel that this has been extremely badly handled. Not only do I disagree with Hyperion's judgment on this matter but I am still not aware of any transgression and, as an observing editor noted, this is tantamount to a sysop "bullying" an editor. I am a keen Wikipedian (see my record) and more than willing to abide by the "rules". I have shown willing to comply in any way with reasonable requests. As i have shown willingness to comply with Hyperions recommendations I think his actions in this matter are totally unreasonable, not directed at the article itself, but at me, and require formal discipline.Granitethighs 08:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There you have it folks, from the horse's mouth. Granitethighs maintains that it is appropriate to source a paragraph to an article that doesn't say anything remotely like what the paragraph says; viz, to falsify references. This makes him a greater threat to Wikipedia than any vandal.

This rhetoric about how the citation was "not considered adequate by Hesperian" is just ludicrous. It is not a question of adequacy. It is a question of veracity. A citation is an assertion that a source supports us. In this case, that assertion was a lie. The apparent purpose of the lie was to stave off challenges to Granitethighs' personal essay. Hesperian 10:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

<- This is just a routine content dispute isn't it ? Sean.hoyland - talk 08:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Fabricating sources is a routine content dispute now? That's funny, I thought it was a breach of our fundamental principles. Silly me. Hesperian 09:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, silly you. It is your fabrication of accusations that is the breach of fundamental principles. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

In what way is my accusation fabricated? It is a fact that Granitethighs sourced a paragraph to an article that doesn't say say anything even remotely like what the paragraph says. This is, by definition, citation falsification.

I've provided evidence. Now you provide evidence, or withdraw your foul false accusation. Hesperian 10:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There was no "falsification" or "fabrication" by Granitethighs. You asked him for a source. He supplied you with one which arguably doesn't meet the requirements. So maybe he needs to find another source. So what's the big deal. As Sean says, this is just a routine content dispute. I suggest you apologise to Granitethighs or hand in your mop. Admin tools are not for you to bludgeon content editors in this way. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no "arguably". The source isn't even remotely on topic. Fabricating a source to stave off an OR challenge to one of your pet articles is not a content dispute. That is a big deal, especially when the fabricator maintains that they have done nothing wrong. Hesperian 10:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Granitethighs and Epipelagic have employed the time-honoured trick of muddying the waters by flinging lots of mud. Ignore the rhetoric. Examine this series of diffs: [328][329][330][331][332]. Now ask yourself: Granitethighs having already tried to stave off removal with a false edit summary, is there any good faith explanation for Granitethighs' attempt to stave off removal with a false source? No, I didn't think so. Hesperian 10:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have reinstated the comment above by Hesperian, beginning with "In what way is my accusation...", and ending with "withdraw your foul false accusation". Hesperian removed the comment after I had replied to it, which seems to me an example of "muddying the waters". I think at this point it is for others to decide where the rhetoric is coming from and who is flinging the mud. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually I removed it after you "replied" by modifying your previous comment, which made my question look silly.[333] Rather than complain about your conduct in modifying a comment I had already replied to, I simply removed my own. And now you accuse me of doing what you did. Very classy.

By all means reinstate my comment (you say you have done so, but appear not to have). And while you're at it, split your comment again so that it is clear what I was responding to. Meanwhile, this is more mud. Now I have to repeat myself in order to get my comment some oxygen. Hesperian 11:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, what you did (before I hit save on the above) is fine. Hesperian 11:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Granitethighs and Epipelagic have employed the time-honoured trick of muddying the waters by flinging lots of mud. Ignore the rhetoric. Examine this series of diffs: [334][335][336][337][338]. Now ask yourself: Granitethighs having already tried to stave off removal with a false edit summary, is there any good faith explanation for Granitethighs' attempt to stave off removal with a false source? No, I didn't think so. Hesperian 10:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

No Hesperian. It's not good enough for you to just cherry pick and grandstand like that. Those diffs need to be read together with the wider context given on the talk page exchanges between Granitethighs and Hesperian, here and here. Anyone who reads through that stuff will see that things are not the way Hesperian is presenting them. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I've read through the exchanges. There appears to be some history between the users on this article so it was inappropriate for Hesperian to threaten to block granitethighs. Perhaps he would also have got a better response if he'd gone in a bit less heavy handed. However, in terms of the actual dispute, Hesperian seems to be totally in the right. That particular unsourced paragraph was added by granitethighs here. At that stage it was completely unsourced, and seems to have been left that way till today, when the IP removed it. The source that ended up being provided did not prove anything that was in the paragraph and looks like it was taken completely out of context. There are various causes for concern here:

• Unsourced material being added in the first place (though granitethighs was relatively new at that point and a long time has passed, but they haven't made any effort to source it in the intervening period despite editing the article quite a lot).
• Incorrect edit summary in saying they had added a source.
• Using a source which does not back up what the text says at all.
• Lack of acknowledgement of any of the above.

I do not think these sort of issues can be simply called a content dispute. Inappropriate use of sources is one of the worse problems on wikipedia as it is very difficult to pick up on. I do not know whether any admin action is necessary at this point, as the material in question has been removed and has so far not been reinstated, but it would be very helpful if granitethighs could acknowledge that these are serious errors, and that they won't be repeated. Quantpole (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking back over all this I think the following sentence from Hesperion gets closest to what this is all about: "Fabricating a source to stave off an OR challenge to one of your pet articles is not a content dispute." Several things need to be said. Firstly, I would like to think I am mature enough not to "own" articles I have been a major contributor to. OK the proof of the pudding needs testing here but I stand by this statement. Secondly I acknowledge that the article is dismally short of citations: I can rectify this but it wont be tomorrow and the tag encourages others to help. Thirdly I can provide alternative citations for the problematic paragraph if Hesperion does not like the current one (which he has removed anyway) so there should be no content or citation dispute anyway - "staving off an OR challenge" sounds rather dramatic to me- it was a reasonable request for a citation. Unfortunately the one I chose did not seem appropriate to Hesperion. Fourthly, the assertion that this is a fabrication (whatever that is) is simply his POV - other editors can see what was added to the paragraph and consider whether they themselves would treat it as fabrication. I really do welcome challenges to content, especially when they are discussed - how else do we improve articles? I am not so responsive to threats (i.e. you should be permanently blocked).Granitethighs 12:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify - the source supports the quote it was being used to reference. Whether or not the claim attached to the quote was correct (I very much lean towards no) is a different issue, and there seems to be a clear synthesis problem with its use. Similarly, the source doesn't support the paragraph as a whole, and I get mixed impressions from reading the comments - in some comments it seems that it is claimed to do so (as per above), while in others it is not. At any rate, the source wasn't falsified - at most it was used incorrectly. This is still a problem, but not the one originally suggested with this thread. - Bilby (talk) 12:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

No, Bilby. The entire paragraph was removed by the IP as unsourced OR. Granitethighs restored the entire paragraph with the false claim that he had cited it. I removed the entire paragraph again. Granitethighs restored the entire paragraph again, sourcing it to this article. It is not correct for you to say "the source supports the quote it was being used to reference"; the source was quite clearly being used to support the entire paragraph, not just the final eight words given in quotes.

On top of that, the quote is part of the deception. The source says 'scientific taxonomy is a Renaissance codification of folk taxonomic principles and therefore not able to handle 10 billion species.' (my paraphrase). Granitethighs turns that into 'science borrowed two-part names from common names, making scientific taxonomy a Renaissance codification of folk taxonomic principles. (my paraphrase) Hesperian 12:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a few issues mixed up in all this, but my only concern at the moment is to clarify whether the reference was falsified or whether it was just used incorrectly. I'm going for it being used incorrectly, but not falsified - there was a direct quote, immediately followed by a reference, and my reading was that the reference was for the quote, not the paragraph as a whole, in which case it is accurate. (If the quote wasn't in the reference, of course, I'd have a completely different view, but fortunately it's there). The question about whether or not the quote was correctly used is certainly an important issue - it's just that it is a different concern. - Bilby (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

<- Genuine fabrication of information and misrepresentation of sources happens everyday in many, many articles that cover issues with conflict based narrative wars. They are almost always resolved by the editors without resorting to this noticeboard. This Common name issue is trivial in comparison and could have been sorted out on the talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Those who think "genuine fabrication of information" is too trivial to bother administrators with are sadly mistaken. Hesperian 12:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I said 'This Common name issue is trivial in comparison and could have been sorted out on the talk page.' This is drama. Admins creating drama on this board when they get into trivial content disputes that they could sort out through reasoned discussion with a user wastes time and resources that could be allocated to deal with serious issues. There are several on this board right now. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have mapped it out on the talk page, to try and refocus. I'll read teh source article tomorrow myself. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that Hesperian's mate, Casliber, is capable of handling this matter the way it should have been handled from the beginning, and that this unfortunate matter can now be marked as resolved. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Two important and final points from me. Firstly, I take a pride in my referencing. Take a look at my recent efforts: History of botany, Herbal, Botanical gardens . A capital offence (my Wikipedia life is at stake here) always requires intent - a motive. Ask yourself what I have to gain by “falsifying” a reference. The article concerned is not about a person or political ideology it is about “Common names” I have no investment in this article other than that it be accurate and well written. The topic is my bread and butter: I can provide many references to the paragraph that has caused so much concern. I have nothing to gain by be deceptive or devious. If my citation is good it will stand and be ignored. If my citation is poor my editing credibility goes down. Why on earth should I deliberately apply a poor reference or try to falsify anything? My motive is not an irrelevant factor here. Hesperion by threatening to block me permanently treats what he regards as poor citation as some sort of devious and punishable behaviour. I leave you to make your own conclusions. The second point has been alluded to by other editors. Hesperion had options in dealing with what he regards as poor referencing. IMO he could either have deleted the paragraph and pointed out that in his opinion the citation was inadequate. Or, better and less confronting, simply state on the talk page that the referencing was in his opinion inadequate. If my action then was to resist or be awkward he had a case for discipline. My record is good, i respond to reasonable requests, Hesperion by threatening to permanently block me has hugely overreacted. Granitethighs 06:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is outrageous that, left to his own devices, Hesperion would have permanently blocked you. He owes you an apology, if he has the grace. Otherwise, he should hand in his mop. Administrators as threatening and high handed as this should not receive community support if they cannot reflect sensibly on their behaviour. Nor should content editors have to work in such an unsafe and fearful environment, wondering if some predator administrator is going to unjustly descend and savage them. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

There has been an exchange of views on the Common names talk page. I will NOT continue to be BULLIED - that is the only word that is appropriate.Granitethighs 09:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This is "bullying" apparently: "I think it is high time we saw some of these putative sources. Whatever of this article is not properly sourced in one week, I will delete. Hesperian 08:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)". That's right: I am generously giving him a week of grace—one week longer than I am obliged to—before I do the proper thing and purge this essay of original research. If that's bullying, then I'm proud to declare myself a card-carrying bully, in capital letters and all. Hesperian 14:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no interest or reason whatever for falsifying, deceiving, or fabricating anything in the article - which I am keen should be of the highest possible standard. Threatening a permanent block for POV poor referencing deserves censure from the WP community. Following this up with further threats is unambiguous harassment and bullying. My response to this is on the Common name talk page which is where all of this should have been properly and simply dealt with in the first place. Granitethighs 22:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Enough. The rest of us have a project to build. If you three want to have a private little battle, please do so somewhere else. Suggest we close. No admin action beyond what Casliber's doing is called for.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Faultering

Future Perfect at Sunrise contradicts himself, so he is unreliable and should be permanently desysopped and permanently banned. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LaGrandefr , related to IP 211.115.80.146

"Please do not evade your block through logged-out editing, as you did here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise&diff=347063583&oldid=347048562. If you want to appeal your block, you may post an {{unblock}} request here, but don't use IPs to edit anywhere else."

contradicts

revert of the same IP 211.115.80.146 , logged at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greek_language&action=historysubmit&diff=350866523&oldid=350864604 with "rv banned user Wikinger" reason.

Of course Wikinger and LaGrandefr are not the same person, so Future Perfect at Sunrise obviously faulters, and cannot be believed by anyone anymore.

Whole evidence is in this edit history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/211.115.80.146

79.191.237.235 (talk) 12:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Erm... "what?" comes to mind. From what I can see, FPaS moved an article you were involved in, so you hop IPs to avoid your block to raise an ANI thread about it. I believe you are the user blocked (otherwise why would you care? You only have three edits to your IP and they all relate to this). You failed to notify the user about the thread you have raised, and your request for the banning of FPaT is ludicrous. SGGH ^ping! 13:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Whack-a-mole

99.185.96.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be the latest in a long line of ban-evading socks at St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ayoonatola (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ditto, though stale. Guy (Help!) 11:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done Moles whacked - indef for the account, 31 hours for the IP. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 14:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The IP seems static, it has had more than one go at this article. Guy (Help!) 18:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Can someone have a look at Will Buckley (journalist)?

Im not sure what to say about this article. It was created 45 minutes ago, and somehow it has attracted over 50 revisions from a truckload of IP users already, Most of them violating BLP. Due to the sheer amount of IP's i could use some admin input on this one. Furthermore, the person that made the article is a completely new account; The first version of the article seems ok, though this edit makes me quite suspicious as to his intentions. By now i am not certain if i should SSP a bunch of IP's and the user, or if i should report them for vandalism. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Weirdness unparalleled. I've temporarily protected the article, at least until we can figure out what's going on. An article with the same title has previously been deleted (on 8 March 2010). I have to log off soon, so can somebody else take a deeper look into this? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 12:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

This message regarding this article was added to my talk page right before i posted the ANI topic: I have asked for semi protection. best just leave it until it is protected. It is being edited because of live radio program just finished Polargeo (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. See note for the admin who A7ed it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Should we tag it with {{Press}} on the talk page? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 14:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the details of its coverage...someone who knows enough to fill in the template would need to do it. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 14:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Done, with as much information as I have. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Persecution

Resolved

 – I do not see any persecution of the complainant, but I found that one of the files he uploaded was an unambiguous copy-right violation and deleted it. The complainant should definitely learn more about copy-right in general, and Russian one in particular. Her also should familiarize himself with WP:MOS and WP:N. No further action, in my opinion, is required. Ruslik_Zero 19:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the entire guidelines of english Wiki, so I leave it to administration to decide how my story suits for this noticeboard. And please excuse my grammar.

To the story. It's all began on March 9, 2010, when User:Crusio nominated for deletion four articles of my edition, and navigation template: * Chris Adams * Bernardo O'Reilly * Calvera * Django * Template:The Magnificent Seven

Then came User:EEMIV and nominated six more articles: In the high attention area * Hit Back * In the high attention area 2 * El Shaitan * * Phantom (russian song) * 30th

Before they nominated these articles for deletion, they did not even try to edit them, nor to discuss something, as well as there were no advices to me, nor a recommendations.

Faithfully, all those articles were visited by hundreds of users, since Dec 2009, and nobody try to delete them, nor to remove the images from there.

So, when I told them about my concerns about their good will and impartiality, they had responded me in such way:

• User talk:Crusio#Check it
• User talk:EEMIV#Russian sources
• User talk:Crusio#Warning
• User talk:EEMIV#Warning
• User talk:SerdechnyG#Your warning

Let me cite them:

... It's too bad that SerdechnyG's contributions are such low quality (sourcing, grammar, general lack of content, etc) because WP can use more coverage of all things Russian... --Crusio (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Really, I do appreciate your knowledge of Russia-related content; as Crusio points out above, Russia-related [and, really, most non-English] topics on English Wikipedia are weak. However, language issues aside, your misunderstanding of [English] Wikipedia policies, coupled by unflagging zeal, are [inadvertently] amusing. ... --EEMIV (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

My lack of grammar is a good reason to edit my mistakes as User:Aiken drum, User:Badger151, User:MuffledThud, User:Phil Bridger, User:Chris the speller, User:Plasticspork, User:Anthony Appleyard, User:Skomorokh, User:Woohookitty, User:RadioFan, User:Mild Bill Hiccup, User:Eeekster, User:Stpaulelective2010, User:Piratedan did (thank you all, gentlemen, I appreciate it). But maybe I wrong, and it's really a solid reason to delete all of these articles? These articles are not my property - they belongs to all wikipedians. Didn't they realize it?

Their deletion nominations it's only a half of the problem. Together with nominations they start another sabotage, such as images deleting (instead of editing them), they deleted a references which provided evidence of notability to articles, reverted my edits (edit warring) and did another things, trying to reconvince those users, who had removed their deletion templates (e.g. User talk:Phil Bridger#El Shaitan). The whole picture looks like a tangle of troublemaking actions, and no signs of even try to edit, or act constructively. Only destructive actions: delete, remove, undo, etc.

To be honest, I don't know entire "legislation" of English wiki, and I suppose nobody really know it all. But, as I suppose, my linguistic defects or lack of knowledge of English-wiki proceeding are not a reasons to start this deletion war.

And I have nothing against User:Crusio and User:EEMIV, but I have a strong doubts about their intentions towards me. The most incomprehensible to me was that one user can nominate innumerable quantity of another one articles. In Russian wiki, there is such rule: that one, who nominates more than one article, written by single user, is banned or at least his actions are being put under discussion of entire community of Wikipedians in the case if his nominations ensued a controversy. I see no controversy in threads, which they had opened. In their actions I see nothing against articles themselves, I see only prejudice towards me. I suppose, if there were no list of my contributions on my user-page, they would give absolutely no attention to them. It seems like a badgering and nothing else.

Please, make clear for me: Am I doomed to pass this ordeal, and what a kind of ordeal I faced? Is this a rite of passage for all newcomers, or this is a kind of procedure created especially for me. Before this mobbing, I've got a whole lot of ideas what should I write next, some to-do list, but now I have a strong doubts about my further presence in English wiki. So, please tell me, what should I do next: Pack my bag and say goodbye to English wiki or what? SerdechnyG (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No one is questioning your good-faith contributions, nor is anyone "persecuting" you. However, your article and image contributions are problematic under several policies, e.g. WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, WP:NFCC. You excised several discussions about these issues in the talk-page quotes you included. Please heed the advice I offered you to review several policies and guidelines about article creation and maintenance. And, FYI, in an effort to at least help out a bit, I have made several useful edits to some of the Magnificent Seven articles you created/heavily edited; Crusio has done likewise. Whether deliberate or innate, myopia about how editors respond to your contributions isn't particularly useful to anyone. --EEMIV (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• The links presented by SerdechnyG and his comments say it all, I have nothing to add. --Crusio (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Please note: this is Administrators noticeboard, and nobody ask your opinion yet. You've got an opportunity to write evetything on above mentioned talkpages, or retaliatory note instead. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 06:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This is indeed the 'admin' noticeboard, but if you are so perseptive as to to see that, perhaps you would note that the majority of edits here are not all by admins, but other users trying to help with the problems being discussed here. You don't have to be invited to comment, nor do you have to be an admin to comment. Anyone can comment, and these comments are not judged by the user level of who wrote them, but rather the arguments themselves. So instead of outright dismissing an argument because it was someone uninvited or a non-admin, why don't you heed their advice.

Lastly, wikipedia is everyone's business. Anyone can comment anywhere.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

WHAT ADVICE? SerdechnyG (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. And it clearly indicates their intentions. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted your refactoring of my talk page post. Do not insert your comments in my posts, only after my signature. As to their advice, it was quite clearly given to you by EMMIV.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean?? I didn't wrote nothing on your talk page! -- SerdechnyG (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Well, dear friends, you see. They're following me even here. Actually I had no doubts that they would do so. Picture is clear. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 06:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• You announced very clearly that you would post here, even though you failed to notify us both when you actually did (as is your obligation, as clearly marked at the top of this page). Both EEMIV and I have been around here for a while and we know WPs procedures reasonably well. "Following" you here is nothing out of the ordinary. Posting here without notifying the people concerned is discourteous at the very least. Please stop your baseless accusations and start getting familiar with en.wikis policies; things obviously are being done very differently here from ru.wiki and you cannot just try to impose your ideas of how the rules should be here. --Crusio (talk) 09:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Before advising me to "start getting familiar with en.wikis policies", You start it first: Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

SerdechnyG, That is just an essay, not a guideline or policy. It is by no means binding. See also Wikipedia:An unfinished house is a real problem andWikipedia:Don't hope the house will build itself. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 16:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad You confessed it. I hope You understand that this issue as well as the other rules (which I may or may not violating) does not overrule The Basics. And The Basics is:

- Anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity

- Newcomers are always to be welcomed

- You can edit this page right now (Jumbo says edit, not delete).

So who's right? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You're citing Jimbo Wales' personal principles. I'm glad to see that you're tying to make arguments based on fundamental principles. However, the page you are citing is similar to the Five Pillars, they are not our core policies. If you wish to make arguments based on a fundamental :policy, see WP:FIVE, for the Five Pillars. If you're wondering about the essays I cited, they are no more or less correct than Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built, they just explain the opinions of certain editors. I'd also like to point out that if you think that an article could be made to meet our standards for inclusion, you could create it in your userspace and work on it there. You can ask any admin to move any of your deleted articles into your userspace. Regards, RadManCF ☢ open frequency 23:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's forget about articles for a while (if, of course, they're not a vandalistic issues. I hope they're not). Let's discuss a behavior of two mentioned users. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 07:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Still, I want answers. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

In looking through the history here, I'm really not seeing any evidence of "persecution." You have, unfortunately, created a lot of articles for unnotable films that also use excessive non free images., as can be seen in the AfD discussions for those in which almost all are at a anonymous delete due to lack of notability. When an experienced editor notices a less experienced editor making the same error several times, it is very common to review their contribs to see if there are other instances that need to be dealt with. I'll also note that Crusio's remarks were not bad faith. They were actually commending your passion and desire to help expand coverage of Russian topics, while lamenting that you choose to focus on unnotable topics that cannot be sourced or brought up to Wikipedia standards. EEMIV also complemented you for the same reason, but again reminded you that this is the English Wikipedia, and that the articles you have made to not conform to its standards.

Their removal of the images is not only complying with Wikipedia policy, but the Wikimedia Foundation's mandate to keep non-free images uses in-line with policy. As far as I can see, they have been polite in their interactions with you and have tried to help you understand that this is NOT the Russian Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia probably has the most detailed and exacting policies and guidelines of any of the Wikipedias, in part due to its age, and in part due to its much larger and active user base. Even above, you have shown that you really do not have a good understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as you point to Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built which is an editor's personal essay that has pretty much no meaning at all.

Above you note that "In Russian wiki, there is such rule: that one, who nominates more than one article, written by single user, is banned or at least his actions are being put under discussion of entire community of Wikipedians in the case if his nominations ensued a controversy." - that is not the case here at all. We would have no users with such a rule, and quite honestly, it is a bad rule. There is nothing controversial in their nominating unnotable articles for deletion, even if they were primarily created by you. As for your question of what should you do? I would suggest really sitting down and learning Wikipedia's guidelines and policies (including the difference between them and an essay), and perhaps getting a mentor to help you negotiate the differences between your home Wiki and this one. You can find the core policies and guidelines here. I'd also recommend you cease trying to see that neither Crusio nor EEMIV were hounding you, which is a malicious following of another editor for the point of harassing and stalking, but a proper reaction to noting a slate of articles from the same editor that are primarily unnotable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Answered above. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

And please do not talk about mentorship. Who will be my mentor? You? If "no" it's all just a words. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll do it, if SerdechnyG is willing. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 23:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a particularly good person for being a mentor, but I do believe you may find it helpful, and as a Films project coordinator I am of course always willing to answer any questions you may have on determining the notability of films and on creating/improving film articles. Also, please keep in mind that yes, anyone can edit here, that does not mean that the edits will be kept and that articles created will not be deleted. This is why we have deletion processes. Yes, it can suck, especially when it seems clear you had the best of intentions in creating this articles, but sometimes it can be very difficult to show notability for foreign films (which for the English Wikipedia, would include Russian films). If you have not already done so, I'd encourage reading over WP:NF, which spells out the criteria under which a film is generally seen as likely to be notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Still, I see debates, but I see no answers. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The answers to the questions you pose at the end of your initial post are entirely up to you; no one is going to tell you to stay or pack your bags. Make up your own mind. Just be aware that if you continue to participate at English Wikipedia, you must abide by its policies. But, to answer your questions: *shrug* make up your own mind.

As for the questions midway through your initial post about whether the articles should/will be deleted, this isn't the forum; those discussions are happening at the AfD pages, as you know. --EEMIV (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

But aren't they obliged to obey this rules. Knowledge of rules and regulations gives you no supremacy over the others. I cited Jimbo to underline that they're supposed to help. What help did they given to me? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 07:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Look back at the five talk-page links you offered in your original post, and the entire array of suggestions about familiarizing yourself with basic policies -- couched, again, in an appreciation for a deep content knowledge most of us here lack. It's unfortunate, but ultimately an issue with you, that you react defensively and don't perceive some of these talk-page discussions as attempt to help. --EEMIV (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

When I'm looking back there, I see no help. Please do not use word basic. I had mentioned above what is basic. And it's better for you to familiarize yourself with it. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

As for the questions midway through your initial post about whether the articles should/will be deleted, this isn't the forum; those discussions are happening at the AfD pages, as you know. --EEMIV (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not discuss no articles. I discuss you, and your behavior at first. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 08:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You posed to questions in your original post about the fate of some articles. I just attempted to offer some guidance about where their fate is more appropriately discussed -- and you offer that kind of irritable/irritating response? Please take a deep breath, take some time simply to read the policies and to look at decent film and character articles (e.g. The_Hunt_for_Red_October_(film), Palpatine) for a sense of what we're moving toward with content (and a sense of what isn't appropriate). --EEMIV (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You'd better attempted it, when you nomitaded these articles for deletion, rather than now, after I posted this appeal. Not so much comments and advices you given, when you nominated these articles and images for deletion. And there were not so much comments and advices from your side, when you deleted chapters and references from articles. Now it looks like informational outburst. Please take a deep breath - ??? What should I respond on such advice? Belt up? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just don't understand the broken English. "Take a deep breath" (sorry for using an idiom you don't understand) means stop, read, and pay attention. --EEMIV (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Belt up means... never mind. It's too complicated to explain. Please be clear, using no idioms. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

A lot of "help" I had received from EEMIV with these files:

• Revision history of File:Praporshchik Volentir.jpg
• Revision history of File:Tarasov and Shwetz.jpg

I understand - it's all a struggle for Wikipedia copyright policy. But is it necessary to be so overzealous? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 14:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• This is starting to become annoying. User:SerdechnyG keeps editing against WP:MOS and rejects all advice. He acts as if he owns the articles that he has created. His limited grasp of English makes for a very difficult communication as he tends to misunderstand many comments and often interprets them as a kind of personal attack, even if they are not. I have offered advice on several occasions and extended an olive branch when he got upset about the fact that I PRODded some of his articles and took them to AfD after he deprodded them. I cleaned up some of the grammar/spelling of some of these articles (see histories of Chris Adams (character) and Calvera (Character)) and in the process removed the academic titles (as is customary) of some authors who had written books that were added by SerdechnyG to show notability for the articles. Again, SerdechnyG got very upset and reverted me three times on both articles. Could somebody please explain to this person that his behavior is not constructive and that I don't have anything against him, nor against the subjects on which he is writing, nor want to annoy him, but only am interested in improving this project? Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 10:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

User:SerdechnyG keeps editing against WP:MOS and rejects all advice

For example?? I received NO advices from you yet. All your rebukes could be directed inversely.

His limited grasp of English makes for a very difficult communication

It's difficult to communicate only with you and User:EEMIV. Nobody else said that it's very difficult. All other users simply corrected my grammatical mistakes and nobody told me that my knowledge of English is limited. And guess why? Because I allready know it without outside assistance. So, thank you, Captain Obvious, indeed.

the fact that I PRODded some of his articles and took them to AfD

It's no fact! I privatised them or what? Wikipedia is a Free Encyclopedia. THERE IS NO "MINE" OR "YOUR" ARTICLES.

Again, SerdechnyG got very upset

Don't worry about me. I'm not so upset as you may thinking. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Could somebody please explain to this person that his behavior is not constructive and that I don't have anything against him, nor want to annoy him, but only am interested in improving this project? Thanks! -- SerdechnyG (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think you and I have already delivered that message a few times; SerdechnyG either doesn't believe it or doesn't understand it. Hopefully mentorship with RadManCF will be useful. Regardless, this ANI thread is stale. --EEMIV (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That's right: a message. I hope, both of you understand the difference between advice and message. My mentor - is only my mentor. This mentorship is out of your competence, we will sort it out ourself. And last, this thread is stale because of your presence here. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Just perfect. Masks off. Now they have their own administrator: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Crusio, User:EEMIV reported by User:SerdechnyG (Result: No 3RR violation) -- SerdechnyG (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Doesn't it even occur to you that there was no 3RR violation?? At least not from EEMIV or me: you violated 3RR on two articles. --Crusio (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I did? Maybe it's you, who violated it? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Crusio, no one's getting through to this guy. Let his mentor take a whack at it; we, obviously, won't change his mind. Let's let SerdechnyG get the last word in on this thread, and then the magic bot can archive this long-stale conversation. --EEMIV (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Who decided, that it would be my last word? Don't worry, even if this magic bot archive this conversation, it will be easy to restore it. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• You're right. I always keep thinking that reason should triumph, but of course the world is not ideal... Let's spend our time on better undertakings. Happy editing! --Crusio (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever thought why it's not ideal? I suppose, not. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As you see, it's too much to discuss. I wouldn't describe everything, but only the main points. As for their "second" SarekOfVulcan. I can understand his anger, but let me answer him with John Wayne' words: "It's not me [who done it]! It's El Shaitan!"
As for User:Crusio following all of my actions in wiki, I can say that I was slow in informing him about starting this tread and another one, because I had some... let's call it premonition, that he need no my notifications, because he allready knows about it, by constanly watching my contributions-list. Considering his statements that "I don't have anything against him, nor against the subjects on which he is writing, nor want to annoy him, but only am interested in improving this project" it's all looks curious and maybe even suspicious. Some morbid attention towards my person, isn't it?
As for User:EEMIV. He got to the point that picture on my user page and even my avatar must be deleted. Well, actually I have a few pictures on the wall in my kitchen, and... Oh, boy! They're not copyrighted properly! They must be deleted! Happy deleting! -- SerdechnyG (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Collectonian above asked you to learn the policies & guidelines. That seems a bit unreasonable, as there are hundreds of them (I can't find the exact number). You're probably right in saying nobody knows them all. Perhaps someone would like to suggest the "important" ones. Peter jackson (talk) 11:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope it would be so.
But still, User:EEMIV shows not so good knowledge of the rules and policies, which he is trying to enforce. However, I think that knowledge of them all is unnecessary, more important is to follow the spirit of Wikipedia. Isn't it? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The "spirit" of Wikipedia is found in the policies and guidelines created through a consensus determined by the community. Unfortunately, competence matters here. Some people "can't get it" and even when all of their efforts are made in good faith, if their results are disruptive they don't belong. Knowing every piece of every policy and guideline isn't necessary, but coming to an understanding of major policies and guidelines is essential. Most especially, if someone points out that you are violating one of them, and explains why, and links it to you, and you ignore it, you're never going to function here. These are standards expected of everyone, and you asked if you are being singled out. I don't think so. You asked if you should pack your bags. If your reaction to every suggestion to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia is to throw stones, then yes, you should. -- Atama頭 16:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, indeed. But am I contesting or violating major policies and guidelines? If "Yes", please tell me about it, I must know all my misdeeds. And I carefully studying everything, what someone links me to, but what if someone who I had pointed out that they're violating some of basic principles or policies, ignores my message? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Convenience break

(out)SerdechnyG wrote the following on his talk page to another editor, in reference to a conversation taking place with EEMIV:

Солидный выбор, спасибо оценил. Но сей товарисч, который меня достаёт, найдёт ещё что-нибудь чтоб пристебаться. Так что для меня это вопрос чести и достоинства. Как говорил к-н Пронин в одном из мультиков: "Это мы еще посмотрим, кто кого уничтожит..."

I don't know Russian, but Babelfish translates it as:

Solid selection, thanks estimated. But this [tovarisch], which me [dostaet], [naydet] is still anything in order to [pristebatsya]. So that for me this is the point of honor and merit. As spoke some Pronin in one of [multikov]: " This we still will look, who whom will destroy… ".

which really doesn't sound at all friendly. I've asked S for a clarification, and suggested that it's rude to have side conversations on English Wikipedia in another language so that the editor referred to cannot read them.

All in all, besides the question of whether S has enough competency in English to edit articles here, his or her attitude seems very problematic, combatitive, defensive and not at all open to helpful advice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

User:GRuban gave a translation of SerdechnyG's comment, and while it appears to be somewhat sarcastic, that's about it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems like nobody even tries to read this tread from very beginning. Still no advices. Only suspicions. Is my talkpage so interesting? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

When many editors give you advice and you continue to state that nobody has, that starts to bring your competence to participate collaboratively here into question, and tends to lead toward community banning discussions. Is that really where you want this thread to end up? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this what you're calling advice:

Eventually, EEMIV realized that every time SerdechnyG said "As you wish", he actually meant... err, never mind, strike that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

-- SerdechnyG (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe SerdechnyG is actually looking for "advice", but really just wants someone to say that they're going to block or admonish EEMIV and Crusio in some way. Based on this discussion, I don't believe that's going to happen, so S would be best advised to stop not hearing what people are saying, and stop beating a dead horse. (S: That's an idiomatic English expression which means that you have taken your complaint as far as it will go, and you're not going to get the results you want, so it's time to stop and go on to doing something else. Failure to "walk away" will likely result in some action being taken against you.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Well B, why should you believe it? Actually I never stated that I am looking for "advice". -- SerdechnyG (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Your words and your behavior lead me to believe that -- since I cannot read your mind, I have no other way to judge your intentions. And if you don't want advice, then why did you write "Still no advices" just above? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Because there were really "Still no advices". Please don't misquote me. I didn't wrote that I don't want advice. Who is English native speaker - me or you? Please, do not descent to my limited grasp, otherwise I'll never reach fluent level of English to give respective respond. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Besides, this tread is still active, so "horse" seems to be not so dead as you may think. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I frankly don't have a clue what you mean, and I'm not really all that interested in working it out, so don't bother clarifying on my account -- but believe me, I can smell the carcass from here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

"Please don't misquote me". Means: Please, do not cite words which I did not write. And believe me, not only you can smell the carcass from here. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)