Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive571

User:Dewar210

Resolved

 – No admin action needed. Tim Song (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

My HG screen is indicating that this editor is blocked. How are they able to edit this, this, this, etc. Is HG giving me unreliable info? Thanks Tiderolls 03:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Those edits seem to have been made prior to the block. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Julian. Tiderolls 03:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) However, Dewar210 was not blocked until 3:45 UTC according to the block log, but Tide rolls' report was made at 3:42 UTC. Interesting... Tim Song (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

My HG indicated they were blocked on their first edit. Weird. Tiderolls 03:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you saw the "reported" icon and not the "blocked" icon (see here – no. 22 and 23). I think this may have been the case, since he was reported to AIV at 03:32. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 04:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That's possible, Chamal. The disruption has ceased which was my main concern. That and not getting in a 3RR situation. I'm gonna stop beating the dead horse and move along. Thanks to all that responded. Tiderolls 04:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

"The left thy"

Resolved

User blocked. Mjroots (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

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

This editor repeatedly created the page The left thy (or The Left Thy) which I believe is silly vandalism (WP:CSD#G3). Before the most recent recreation, the editor was warned with {{uw-create3}} and I'm a little confused about how to proceed. I asked the editor to not create the article again. Should I have left a final warning? Would you folks block for this? Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 05:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I've left the editor a final stern warning; a final warning from you would've been fine as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

If he/she/it continues after final warning, report user to WP:AIV, and request the page be salted... - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) New editors who just treat WP as a webhost or don't understand standards for inclusion ought not to be blocked unless they repeatedly ignore clear warnings or attempts at communication. This editor is making vanilla WP:NFT violations; I don't see any indication of malice or serious disruption. If the automated warnings aren't working out, try leaving a very clear personal message. If they persist after that, then there may be no other option than a short block.  Skomorokh, barbarian  05:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I hesitated to call this a vandalism-only account because of the previous edits. If not for those, this would not have been an issue. Thanks for the advice. Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 05:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I've salted both titles. Mjroots (talk) 09:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The page was recreated yet again, despite multiple warnings and lots of good advice. I've blocked indef, with a note as to how to appeal if necessary. I don't think this person is here to improve the encyclopedia. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Persistent posting of copyrighted lyrics to Tera hone laga hoon

Resolved

This article about a Bollywood song got posted last week. I'm not Bollywood expert so I don't know whether this song is sufficiently notable to warrant its own article. What is definitely not allowed, however, it posted the (presumably) copyrighted lyrics to a song without any explanation as to why this is permissible. The original poster ignored my talk page message and removed the copyvio tag without comment, and now a new user (very strong suspect sockpuppet) has done the same. How do we deal with people persistently removing copyvio tags? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

If it happens again, take it to WP:RFPP. Tan | 39 15:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Since it fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS anyway, I've redirected it to the film. Black Kite 19:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Three Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Urgent call for applications

The process to appoint the three non-arbitrator members of the Audit Subcommittee is underway. If you are suitably qualified, please see the election pages for the job specification and application arrangements. Applications close 22 October 2009.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 19:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Dingdong12

Dingdong12 (talk · contribs) seems to be a sock; brand new user whose first edit was to AFD Railfan in a most pointy fashion: "Pointless article which I imagine is read by no-one and is a waste of Wikipedia server space." Another user has suspected that this is a sock of someone; to quote, "New users don't just find AFD." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

To be pedantic, the first edit was to AFD Status Quo, and then moved on to Railfan. Now that those two AFDs have been speedy kept, editor is annoying User:Daedalus969 and calling him 'dad', presumably a shortening of 'Daed'. tedder (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi everyone: I just wanted to say what a pleasure it is to see the excellent work you all do. Thanks for your comments Tedder and Ten Pound Chisel. Can I get your thoughts on moving this section nearer to the top of the page - I think that most people might just skip this section otherwise? Anyway, let me know what you think.

Thanks

Dingdong12 (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, now you're just trolling. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked indef for such (although I am mildly interested in anyone advancing an argument for which of any of their contributions was not trolling). LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Dupledreux unblock request

Resolved

 – my mistake. Equazcion (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I received a lengthy distraught email from this user. He's been accused by User:The Four Deuces of being a sockpuppet of User:Introman, who was blocked for puppeteering. He was then blocked by User:MuZemike as a result of the accusation. A two-day-old unblock request sits on his talk page, along with a conversation with The Four Deuces.

The evidence seems a bit shakey, being based on a couple of Dupledreux's talk page comments that seemed to agree with the blocked sock's POV. Could someone please have a look at this? I'm not well-versed in checkuser procedures, but perhaps Dupledreux could be added to the sock investigation so we can confirm whether or not he really is a sock. Thanks. Equazcion (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The case is awaiting checkuser for RJII.[1] The Four Deuces (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I missed that, sorry. Thanks. Equazcion (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Verbal_(person) in translation

Resolved

 – Userfied Guy (Help!) 23:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Verbal_(person) is a new article that is being translated from the Japanese Wikipedia, created by User_talk:Sabeerkibria. Since the article is in Japanese, wouldn't it be more reasonable for the article to be written in the user's namespace and then moved to the main namespace? The majority of the article is still in Japanese. Thanks. Netalarmtalk 20:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

perhaps it would be a superior option to do it in user space, but there is no administrator action required after declining a speedy delete. It is an active translation, so no need to delete it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Editor on a vandalism spree

Resolved

 – Rickymonitor (talk · contribs) indef'd for harassment.

Can someone help? This editor keeps on deleting content and leaving nasty comments. See [2][3] and this uncivil comment. -- Rickymonitor (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look like vandalism to me. PS. That user is an administrator. Equazcion (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Given the username and this diff, I have some suspicions...... Tim Song (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef as abuse of alternate account (harassing another contributor - too familiar with WP policy and process not to have prior experience). Per Equazcion, I don't see any vandalism either of the target of the complaint. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, the user requested unblocking, which I declined. TNXMan 00:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Fteds

Somebody may want to initiate a checkuser request on this one with an eye towards blocking the underlying IP range. The creation of articles is consistent with several other vandalism-only accounts over the last week. Of particular note is the inclusion of how to create a new article info as the text with the vandalism being in the article name. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That IP range is too busy to make such a rangeblock feasible - while many of the editors on that range already have IP block exemptions, there's still several dozen that don't. Good suggestion, but unfortunately it's not practical in this case. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunate. I wondered if anybody else had noticed this trend. So the only solution is to wait for them to strike again and delete the pages as they appear? 98.248.33.198 (talk) 00:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Pointy, contentious editing by IP at List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates

64.252.139.2 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) made a semi-protected edit request to update the page with 2009 totals and claiming that the totals for 2008 were incorrect. Chzz (talk · contribs) serviced the request and asked for sources.[4] I assume that was because of the claim that the existing totals were wrong. The user launched into a lengthy argument of why sources weren't needed, which was answered by Thesevenseas (talk · contribs) who updated the totals but pointed out that the IP was mistaken.[5] The IP continued his lengthy proof, ignoring Debresser (talk · contribs) request for sources, until finally Thesevenseas determined the source of the IP's confusion and explained it to him.[6] (I didn't include links to the IP's 23 posts.) A few days later, as 64.252.124.238 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS), the IP started haranguing the other editors again and asking for edits on the now unprotected page. I serviced that SPER and let him know that the page was unprotected and suggested that he learn from the mistake and move on.[7]. He didn't take my advice and continued to abuse the other editors.[8]. Rrius (talk · contribs) chimed in[9] to no avail.[10] Finally, today, I left a last response, pointed out again that the article was unprotected and that the discussion was no longer about improving the article.[11]

All of that was preface. After my response today, the IP changed the article away from the correct 2009 totals,[12] which was quickly reverted and explained.[13] He again inserted what he knew to be incorrect,[14] then asked Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) to change it back.[15] Can we block this user to discourage repeat performances? Celestra (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

What a kerfuffle! In servicing the original request, Celestra, I asked for sources so that I would not have to add unsourced information to the article, and because from a bit of a Google, it was not clear how the IP had arrived at their stated totals. I didn't go back to the page, so this is the first I've seen of the dispute. I did not look at the 2008 figures, because that wasn't the request - if the request had been 'please remove this incorrectly sourced information', then I expect I would have done so; the request was to add info, therefore I needed to "say where I got it".  Chzz  ►  22:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Same difference; I felt your request for a source was reasonable for a different reason. When I service a request to remove something that doesn't match the source, I generally check the source before I remove it, but I also try to avoid second guessing the requester when it's well away from the reason the page was protected. In this case, the tone of the request would have made me double check the accuracy. Celestra (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Hammersoft

I am requesting the intervention of an administrator with regards to the behavior of User:Hammersoft. Lately his actions have been quite insulting, dismissive, and belligerent. I admire his passion for his point of view and respect it, however, it has become quite difficult to have a reasonable discussion with him with edits like these: [16][17][18][19] and has attempted to sanitize such antagonization [20]. He is also demanding that people do things that are not Wikipedia policy, such as mandating a written release of a copyright that does not exist and mandating that we contact every entity with an uncopyrightable logo to get a legal assessment of its copyright status (also on the UCLA logo too). While these are certainly possible ideas on how we could run Wikipedia, they are not policy and he has no reason to demand such actions. Furthermore, he pejoratively accuses me of wikilawyering when I answer his questions with regard to policy/guidelines: [21][22][23]

He is antagonizing other editors through sarcasm [24] (I can provide LOTS of other examples) and taunting them [25] (again, more examples upon request)

He also seems to pride himself on pissing off other users and then publicly displaying their reactions on his user page: User:Hammersoft.

I request up to a block of this user for prolonged incivility (clarification added) . — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me also be clear that I have a disagreement with him, but the only problem I request remediation for is this one. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Without getting into the rightness or wrongness of Hammersoft's arguments, the tone that he has used and removing other people's comments from the VP certainly seems to be extremely problematic. He's also made some odd comments about other matters too, which are probably not actionable on their own, but I think point to a pattern in the editing behaviour of this particular user. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC).

Lankiveil, my point exactly. I am not saying his basic points are right or wrong, but the tone is the problem. I would also like to point out/defend Hammersoft in that I do not believe he has deleted any comments on WP:VPP; IMHO he improperly moved them, but I have since corrected that. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur with that assessment.--Crossmr (talk) 09:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You want him to be blocked because he disagrees with you? And is usually right? Ooooo-kay.... 86.20.191.239 (talk) 11:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I stated the opposite. Whether he is right or wrong is irrelevant. This IP's behavior is consistent with User:TomPhan's sockpuppetry behavior. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I am deeply involved in the disputes between BQZip01 and Hammersoft, and in terms of those disputes (non-free image policy and the like) would be taking the same side as Hammersoft.

That said, Hammersoft has done some actions that aren't appropriate such as removing his own comments from the middle of a discussion, leaving a discussion thread that is very difficult to follow, and certainly attitude is not positive in these edits. But I've seen a lot worse before any admin action for incivility is taken. It needs to be understood that Hammersoft is a long-time committed upholder of WP's non-free content policy and is aggressive about making sure that it is kept (the reason BQZip became involved was Hammersoft removing what he felt was excessive non-free logo use on college sports pages that BQZip was involved with, and has been at least a 6-month discussion/debate between them. I can tell you that its obvious Hammersoft is getting frustrated by the perceived lack of respect that the non-free content policy gets and how those that attempt to uphold it are often treated poorly by editors that are affected by those actions; this exacerbation of one's good-faith intentions is likely the cause for Hammersoft's sarcasm and negative behavior in the above report.

No admin action is necessary, I believe, those a word of caution and possibly a temporary Wikibreak to calm tempers is certain within line. --MASEM (t) 12:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Clearly Hammersoft refuses to understand BQZip01's point. I am not sure where it started, but at VP(P) for example BQ explained his point ~35 times to him. This includes [26], [27] ,[28],[29], [30] these edits just to get everyone to agree on his format preference for the discussion. There is no reason for Hammersoft to be so stubborn, and if he is not going to submit to BQ's view, he should either keep quiet or at least not respond back in the way he does. BQZip01 clearly knows what he is doing and it is a shame that he is forced to bring these issues here. Hammersoft should be blocked, topic banned and be forced to avoid any articles or discussions that BQ is steering. Erector Euphonious (talk) 12:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

One thing has been acted on: the account calling itself "Erector Euphonious" is a sock, and has been indef'd and deleted. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 15:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Anybody who can come up with this sort of nonsense needs to step back and regain their perspective. Its proper time that he be called to some sort of account for his demeaning and non-constructive approach. Wiggy! (talk) 13:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see the issue with what appears to be a comment on what actually happens on Wikipedia. Care to explain? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, if anything, that section of his userpage would seem to be against the use of personal attacks. That's nonsense? kmccoy (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Read the thing. Its full of logical fallacies and is little more than excuse to avoid trying to remain part of a rational debate by conducting oneself in a civil and non-provocative manner. Picking a fight and then pointing back at your own little custom written "law" is hardly a sign of a well-intentioned editor acting in good faith. Being provoked to anger doesn't automatically negate any earlier valid points one might make. You can be right, angry and uncivil all at once. Its a state of being sort of thing (not necessarily a good one I'll grant you). That section of the user page is superficially against personal attacks and is just self-serving. Wiggy! (talk) 14:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, we must have different versions of English and/or logic instruction. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently so. But let's work an example. If I was a flatearther and despite your cogent arguments about the earth's true spherical character, badgered you to the point of your cursing me out, your incivility wouldn't suddenly flatten out the planet, which is what the first corollary of Hammersoft's Law would have. You're just dismissed because you've been driven to the breaking point. What kind of approach is that? This is guy just sitting around sharpening sticks to poke in your eye.

By the way, this discussion is moot in any case. Your suggestion that my grasp of English and logic is lacking is uncivil. I invoke the Law and thereby win this argument. Anything you've said to this point is meaningless. Enjoy your day.

Get it now? Wiggy! (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can't find anything to act on here. While Hammersoft isn't always the most civil editor (which makes having your own law about personal attacks ironic, at worst), I agree with Masem above. Tan | 39 15:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That is the point.That is why we have that policy right?--Crossmr (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• BQZip has taken it upon himself to be the final arbiter of all decisions fair use. Whenever people disagree with him he is quite willing to edit war to have his way. He refuses to acknowledge that we must confirm the copyright free nature of things or else consider them to be non-free. Even now, he continues to edit war at File:UCLA Bruins Logo.png to mark it as free [31] when he knows damn well that the discussion on this issue at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:UCLA_Bruins_Logo.png concluded with no consensus that it was free. He also feels it entirely inappropriate for us to contact copyright holders to verify that a particular work is free of copyright. I fail to understand why he is incapable of doing so. On multiple occasions I have provided him contact information to do so, and he routinely refuse to do this work. Over and over and over again his arguments in support of marking just about everything he wants as free have been refuted. Yet over and over and over again on new similar situations, he keeps dragging the same arguments up and insisting that if we don't refute him, our opposition is without basis. To say that he is Wikipedia:Wikilawyering is a gross understatement. I'm picking at the tip of the iceberg here. BQZ's behaviors have been absolutely against the spirit of the Wikipedia, full of edit warring, and more. I am far from being the only one who is fed up with his behavior. I give him kudos for one thing; he has done a lot of work to find free versions of school sports logos, indisputably free versions. But when there is a dispute that something is free, he is absolutely tenacious and refuses to acknowledge anything but his own answer as having any merit. A good piece of advice in this situation would be for me to ignore him and move away from things he edits. The problem is I'd have to give up on NFCC issues to move away from his edits, and I have evidence he is routinely following my edits so separation is impossible unless I just give up NFCC patrolling. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

  I'm going to HS's comments once and only once.

  1. I am not the final arbiter of anything.
  2. I agree that we must confirm that something is non-free, but I disagree with Hammersoft's beliefs as to what is required for confirmation. I've never said it was inappropriate to contact copyright holders. I've stated that it is inappropriate to demand that users contact trademark holders to determine whether an image is free of copyright. Most, if not all, of the people you'd contact are not lawyers and would have no idea about copyright law. It would also be a significant burden to contact the owner of every such image (currently 3,300+ images if an owner could even be found.
  3. The UCLA logo discussion was indeed inconclusive, however, a user pointed out that the institution in question considers it "script" and that seems pretty conclusive to me. Accordingly, I changed the status.
  4. Insinuating that I'm WP:WIKIHOUNDing you is absurd. Any time I've posted somewhere where you are, especially recently, it's because I posted there before or you diverted the discussion there.
  5. The last point to make is about wikilawyering, a pejorative and derisive term. It is the kind of behavior I am most concerned about. I've pointed out things in policy, guidelines, law, legal verdicts, etc. His sole response is, "that's wikilawyering" or "you're wrong" with no rationale. This kind of interaction isn't a discussion, but simply one side putting out reasoned comments and another offering nothing in return but contradiction and name-calling followed by a refusal to discuss.

  I've said it before and I'll say it again, this is not about our disagreement, but HS's behavior. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• After analyzing this case, my conclusion is there is no need to take any admin action against Hammersoft. I basically agree with what Masem pointed out above; like Tan, I can't find anything to act on here. AdjustShift (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

  So swearing, belittling those with whom you disagree, continuous sarcasm, insults, etc. are all acceptable behavior? — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

  Dear BQZip01, I basically agree with what Masem pointed out above; you have a right to disagree with me. I'm erasing "resolved" tag. Two admin, Tan and I, agree with Masem; other admins can analyze this case, and let's see what they will say. AdjustShift (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Civility issues are taken care of at WP:WQA - but you brought it here instead. Long-term pattern issues are dealt with via an WP:RFC/U. Nothing that Hammersoft has done is directly actionable, but warnings were likely required. As he has been advised of, and has commented in this thread, he is aware of the feelings of the community/administrators in this case, and will adjust accordingly. Again, nothing he has said is blockable by any stretch of the imagination. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• "...a word of caution and possibly a temporary Wikibreak to calm tempers is certain within line." is what Masem suggested and I see no reason that shouldn't be implemented. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

A Wikibreak is self-implemented; Masem - from what I can see - was not suggesting a block. Your calling for Hammersoft's head is getting tiresome here. If you have a civility issue you want to discuss in depth, take it to WP:WQA. There is nothing that can be done from an admin incident standpoint. Tan | 39 17:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a block. I'm not "calling for Hammersoft's head here". A simple warning from an admin with respect to this discussion is fine. If you feel it is appropriate, I would be happy to take this to WP:WQA and repeat it, but I think that is an unnecessary duplication in this case.

To quote "I request a block of this user for prolonged incivility". Looks to me you were asking for a block. Garion96 (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. I have hopefully clarified this as that was the max I was looking for; I'm open to other solutions. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and you're right, in retrospect, WP:WQA probably would have been more appropriate in this case. I had some doubts that it would have been the correct forum and just defaulted to here instead. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I apologize then; I misunderstood your intentions above. Tan | 39 18:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Hammersoft could certainly stand to be a bit more polite, but as noted, he happens to be correct, and has been engaged in a debate with BQZ for some time now. BQZ's interpretation of policy is incorrect, and essentially relies on being lazy and hoping the world doesn't take notice. We have some pretty annoying policies around here, BQZ, but that doesn't mean we can just ignore them, or ignore someone who is rightly trying to enforce those policies. I think most of us wish we could do things your way, but the reasons for which we can't are sound and must be respected. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

  "Hammersoft could certainly stand to be a bit more polite..." is all I heard from this and is the only thing I'm trying to address. I'll be happy to discuss the other issues you brought up elsewhere. My talk page is open. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You would do well to hear more of it. Your misinterpreations are at the root of Hammersoft's frustration, not the other way around. More to the point, none of the difs you cite really make me flinch when read in context. He could be nicer, but I see no reason why he has to be nicer given your persistence in being wrong. Either follow the policies, or take an active role in exploring whether you can reform those policies you find tedious, but don't waste everyone's time raising calling the Wikiquette Police if someone starts to lose their composure with your behavior. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a tempest in a teapot. Hammersoft has some sharp sarcasm, but hardly seems that serious. That, coupled with his frankly correct interpretation of most of the issues, makes it seem like we could just call this closed and get back to something productive. HyperCapitalist (talk) 04:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

CONTENT REMOVED by — BQZip01 — ^talk (taunting of an indef blocked sockpuppeteer)

Ouch, DRIVEBY, that sounds like a threat of some sort. With 3 whole contributions, shall we do an WP:SPI?? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Already blocked. Nothing to see here... Wknight94 ^talk 19:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Latham & Watkins

Lots of POV-pushing going on at this article, which is a lightning rod for some reason. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 00:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved viewpoint: A quick look at the history of this article reveals that User:Masslayoffs is repeatedly and persistently inserting a link to a blog site about a person who was laid off. This may be reason to suspect personal agenda pushing. Further, Masslayoffs is a WP:SPA, apparently created to insert this layoff blog link. The situation is, at the least, somewhat peculiar. Appropriate encouragement to avoid POV-pushing may be appropriate. —Finn Casey * * * 02:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This is also not a new problem. This ended up on my watch list sometime last summer, for similar reasons. But there's been so much activity there I'm not sure how to weed it. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 05:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I had previously brought this up in late August [32] and the link says there was an edit war going on there in May. So somebody's persistent. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 05:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

JDC808's image uploads

After coming across JDC808 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and a handful of image uploads that were either high resolution non-free images or untagged non-free images (none of which were necessary for the articles he added them to), I notified him of the issues with the images and that they would probably be deleted.

Then I came across the fact that nearly every single image he has uploaded that he has uploaded as non-free has no non-free image tag on it. There were maybe only four images that have proper licensing, and those were added after JDC808 had uploaded them and someone else saw that they had a proper use on Wikipedia and added the tag.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This is true. See JDC808's uploads. Ryulong is correct, only about four of the images JDC808 has uploaded have valid lic tags. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Well where in the world do I put the "proper licensing tag". I mean, when I upload the image, I try to put all the information that is being asked for and apparently, that's not enough information needed. So what else do I do? JDC808 (talk) 03:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

There should be a drop down menu below the "Summary" portion of the Upload page labelled "Licensing" (seen here) that you choose the proper licensing information for.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've figured this out somewhat. This is still a bit new to me, so I may not get it right every time. I've added the licensing tag for images that I was able to. Some, like a picture of a building, I wasn't sure which tag to use. JDC808 (talk) 04:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you cannot find a proper tag, the image will be deleted.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Resolved

Topic has been moved to the venue Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)—Strange things happening with a template. If you have any clue to what could be happening, please help there.... Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 03:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, uh, if anybodies out there, I do believe that the "De Leonism" template has been tampered with. You press the view or discussion letter and it brings you to Template:DeLeonismterrorists. And you can't seem to get to the edit or discussion pages of the real template. --Dudeman5685 (talk) 02:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Just checked it and it seems fine...can you be more specific (and maybe provide some examples) about what is going on? Template:DeLeonism Frmatt (talk) 02:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's weird.... I can't seem to make heads or tails of what's going on. Maybe WP:Village Pump (technical) would be useful to consult too. To Frmatt, The links for (v) and (d) on the bottom of the template go somewhere completely different (that doesn't exist) with "terrorism" in the title.

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....")'' 02:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha now, I'm still learning Templates...is there any way to edit that? Frmatt (talk) 02:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Just checked the (e) link, and it too goes somewhere with "terrorism" in the title...lets send this over to the village pump! Frmatt (talk) 02:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

{{Sidebar with dividers}} got vandalized, so any template that transcluded it had the same issue. I fixed it, but articles that still show the vandalism might need to be purged. Meanwhile, can someone please semiprotect {{Sidebar with dividers}}? It is a big fucking target that ought to be protected already. Thanks. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Semi-Protection request has been put in...hopefully will happen shortly. Frmatt (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Done by Tedder. TNXMan 04:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism at User talk:12.42.5.195 by 216.246.164.118 (talk)

This IP address keeps removing content from User talk:12.42.5.195. I have already given him 3 warnings, but I am not willing to revert again and get blocked temporarily for an edit war, so I am bringing it here. He keeps removing content saying that it's illegal data, but there is no illegal data in there. Like I told him, those templates are supposed to be placed on there for public computers, such as schools and libraries. The same person isn't always editing from said IP address. He keeps accusing me of vandalism. Well, while I was typing this, it looks like User:5 albert square has gotten into the situation, so that makes me feel a little better, but I need some comments on what should be done. Thanks. - Zhang He (talk) 04:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Sent to WP:AIV for vandalism after level 4 warning. Frmatt (talk) 04:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Also informed the ip of this thread. Frmatt (talk) 04:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Fact tags in infoboxes

Tonight, I discovered that if a {{fact}} or {{citation needed}} tag is used in an infobox for a parameter that uses {{formatnum}}, the category produced by the date parameter for some reason automatically parses a comma in the year. For whatever reason Category:Articles with unsourced statements from October 2,009 and Category:Articles with unsourced statements from July 2,008 were showing up. It might be worth it to see if there are similar categories showing up.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandal

Resolved

 – user blocked. –Katerenka (talk) 07:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Already reported at AIV, but would somebody please deal with this quick User:12345 ya99....

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....")'' 05:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

PS He's not actually blocked: he just put those on his userpage and continues to vandalize because people look at it and think he's blocked.

I've left a note for him on his talk page that he's not blocked. It appears he's experimenting with the templates. However, he has made a series of vandalistic edits to WP:AIV. I'll drop him a note hoping he'll shape up. Basket of Puppies 05:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I warned him here after his edit on AIV --NotedGrant Talk 05:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Why are you guys bothering with this warning stuff? It's a blatant vandalism-only account. Just block it already. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 06:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Admin Cirt blocked the account --NotedGrant Talk 06:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

IP warning needed

warn this IP [33]. I don´t want to argue at 5 am.--Die4Dixie (talk) 08:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You could surely just drop them a template? ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 08:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean like [34]these?--Die4Dixie (talk) 09:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

OK; then, you can list him to be blocked at WP:AIV. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 09:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Template removal & incivility...

Unresolved

Restored from archive... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Again... still unresolved, silly Miszabot... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Back on September 20, 2009, Chao19 (talk · contribs) was blocked for removing article maintenence templates and incivility. He was removing {{fact}}, {{refimprove}}, and {{Unreferenced}} templates from assorted Creed articles... he was given fair warning, and his only replies the the warnings were that no references were needed and I was an asshole for restoring the templates. After the block, that user was inactive for a while, although there were one or two IPs (67.167.33.47 (talk · contribs) and possible others) that continued the pattern, even going so far as to continue the incivility on my user talk page (this and the following half dozen revisions)... within a minute of the IP's last comment, Chao19 had logged in, and replied to his own IP comment (Chao19's first edit since the block)... Since that edit, the IP has not made any further edits, and Chao19 has continued the incivility[35] and removal of maintenence templates without reason... I filed a report at AIV, and was going to file a report at SSP, but was told it would be better brought to ANI...

It is obvious that the IP is a sock of Chao19, and it is also obvious that Chao19's original block did nothing to change his editing habits... his counter-productive editing and harassment of other users has become more than an average bother to me, and I would like someone else to look into this... - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes this behavior is pretty bad. Comments like "Why do you expect everything to be referenced? Jesus.." leave me with doubt that this person has the willingness to comply with Wikipedia's most basic editing rules. If this was a new editor I would suggest that a person have a talk with them about the necessity of verifiability but seeing that they've been an active editor for over 9 months with over 600 edits I'd consider any ignorance of rules at this point to be willful. -- Atama頭 19:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

For the last month I have tried to explain this to him, and have been met with nothing but stubborness and incivility every step of the way... I just sat down to find his latest revelation, "And from what ive seen over the year and a half ive been on here, your the only once who truly gives a flying fuck about the unreferenced stuff."... Anyone that takes a look at my conversation with him so far, will see that this guy obviously does not care about Wikipedia's policies, and plans to continue doing what he wants with no regard for them. Add to that the incivility, and you've got the makings of someone who (while not a blatent vandal) will do nothing but cause harm to the project in the end... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Although, I am still looking forward to my Worst Admin Ever award... LOL - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll get started on an excremental barnstar for you. :) -- Atama頭 19:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sa-weet... that'll be number three in as many years... - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Back to the original comment, the editor in question has now begun vandalizing my user page, and continues the incivility on my talk page... Someone with tools please do something about this... - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Adolphus79. That last comment was completely out of line.--Crossmr (talk) 01:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur. A block per WP:NPA would seem to be in order if this happens again. --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

His being blocked a month ago for it, and coming back to continue harassing me isn't enough? Or the contsant and blatent template vandalism, which also continued after the last block? I can guarantee that the harassment and template removal will continue, it's not a matter of if... - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of talk page

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

• Riverpa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (assumed to be male, not actually sure)

Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy is the site of a long-simmering, sometimes boiling edit war that's brushing the WP:3RR line but hasn't yet crossed over. It's currently and primarily a dispute between myself and one other editor. The issues are being gradually resolved and I'm not bringing them up here. What I am irked about is the misuse of the article talk page. I left a note on Riverpa's talk page, followed by another note and 3rr warning (we're both on our 3rd, next edit should go to WP:3RRN). Riverpa then noted on talk:Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy his issues with my recent edits but also pasted a copy of my 3RR warning with a statement that I not address him on his talk page. I posted a comment on his talk page my reasons for my edits, the notes on his talk page and how the use of article talk pages was inappropriate. Riverpa then deleted my comments from his talk page (which is his right) but subsequently posted the deleted comments on talk:BHRT. On talk:BHRT I replied to the "don't use my talk page" comment, hid the initial posting and my reply, and deleted the reposting of my message on his talk page as tangential to the page. I then informed Riverpa that removing my comments essentially means he has read them and should act accordingly. That's (as far as I can tell and barring any errors) the guts of it. I am not seeking input on any content issues, all I want is a comment on the use of article talk pages - they shouldn't be used to propagate a personal dispute and no editor can demand to only be addressed on article talk pages (for one thing it's inappropriate when the issue is editorial behaviour, for another thing it hijacks the page away from its initial purpose). I think my actions were correct and as a new editor Riverpa doesn't appreciate the different purposes and practices for the different types of pages. Mostly I don't want my postings on his talk page being reposted on an article talk page unnecessarily. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I would beg to differ that the problems are being gradually resolved. WLU has persisted in this long-simmering dispute with a series of editors previous to me, who have basically given up in the face of his tenditious editing. He has escalated his pettifoggery against me as I attempt to bring some semblance of NPOV to the article, and I prefer that his WP:wikilawyering be visible to everyone who has to deal with him. He makes accusations without concrete citations. The issue is content, WLU's ownership of the article, and his repeated contention that he is more experienced in WP, and therefore knows best. Riverpa (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem to know an amazing amount about wikipedia for not even being here a month. So what do you know about this "series of editors previous"? Auntie E. 17:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

There were a variety of more involved editors previously:

• QuizzicalBee (talk · contribs)
• Nraden (talk · contribs)
• Hillinpa (talk · contribs); I could change the timing and name but the editing problems between Riverpa and Hillinpa would essentially be the same
• SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) was here for a while but declined to become involved in the recent conflicts (but when she did comment, her comments were in line with my own)

I don't know if there's socking and I have urged Riverpa repeatedly to review talk page history (because the same ground is being re-run repeatedly) so I read that comment as innocuous and reasonable. There's lots of sources, they're reasonably convergent, but it's the interpreting that's mucking up the actual editing.

But I see this as tangential - mostly I don't want user talk page posts moved back to article talk pages, and I don't want to get into a friggin' edit war over something so stupid. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

There were also a couple of very minor edits by Ndaren (talk · contribs), notable for similarity in name to an editor with a conflict of interest, for focusing on BHRT, and for making corrections to talk page comments by Hillinpa (talk · contribs) [36][37][38]. Debv (talk) 06:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Auntie E - I will repeat my entire comment that appears on WLU's Talk page, as I replied to him previously when he implied that I was a sock puppet and made much the same comments: ""We" includes the other 3 or more editors who weighed in previously on the discussion (which you referred me to who share much the same opinion as my own (SandyGeorgia, Hillenpa, and QuizzicalBee, as well as unsigned IP). I don't believe that any of us are espousing any particular POV (...well maybe not all...), but all of us seem to think that there are two valid definitions of the term BHRT, one of which you believe in wholeheartedly, the other which the rest of us seem to believe is older, and less inflammatory, and should be a significant part of this article, while you wish to ignore it.

I have never had a Wikipedia account before. I just know how to read instructions and distill information: a good quality in an editor, yes?

I have read most of the preceding discussion in Talk. Yes, this has been discussed before, and the consensus view seems to be more in line with my view, which is why I am mystified as to why you cannot see that this is not an attempt to slant the POV, we are trying to disambiguate the marketing scheme definition and the pharmaceutical definition of this term.

I would appreciate it if you would refrain from the personal comments and accusations. You have so far accused me of touting WP:the truth, of violating copyright, of WP:original research, and violating WP:reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riverpa (talk • contribs) 17:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)". -end quote-

WLU has repeatedly (3 or 4 times now) removed text that I have added to the Talk page that indicates that I consider this conflict to be related to content. I was under the impression that editors should not remove content from Talk pages, ever, unless it was clear vandalism or libel.

Sorry to be so able to read for content and utilize that content: I can see that WLU comes to radically different conclusions than I do when reviewing the same sources.Riverpa (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

So just to be 100% clear, Hillinpa is not a former account of yours? Because there are 4 reasons to suspect that they are:

1. Similarity of name.
2. Similarity of edits; Hillinpa almost exclusively edited Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy, which you've also edited.
3. Hillinpa's last edit was on September 18, your earliest was September 28, which looks like a switch from one account to another.
4. You show a lot of knowledge for someone who has only been around a month, as was said before, but if you were Hillinpa previously then you would have over 6 months experience.

I only ask this for your benefit so that nobody can later say "Aha, gotcha!" if a Checkuser confirms it or someone else does somehow. Hillinpa seems to have a clean history so if you are the same person, I don't see why you'd hide the fact. If you are the same person you haven't broken any rules to my knowledge, but it would be better to acknowledge it. Anyway, not meaning to badger you or doubt your word, if you say you're a different person then it must just be an odd coincidence. -- Atama頭 22:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This is an odd coincidence only. I repeat (though I should not have to), this is the first time I have been on WP, first account, if I wanted to create a sock puppet name I certainly would not have created one with any similarity to a previous one. Riverpa (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you'd be surprised - we have some tremendously brilliant socks (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Great! So I am either a brilliant sock puppet or I'm being maligned by the accusations. I cannot prove a negative. Please, do whatever investigations that you do, and you will find out whatever - but it will not indicate that I am a sock puppet. I simply look at the situation as indicating that there is one POV dominating this topic, and it will not budge, even resorting to unfounded accusations in order to keep other POV's away. Riverpa (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I consider this tangential - Riverpa may be a sock. I've contemplated the idea myself. But if a sock, he would be an oddly pointless sock - there has been no !vote stacking, Hillinpa was never blocked or even warned, multiple accounts haven't been used to run around 3RR, etc. So I'm not really interested in this question. All I really want is confirmation that this is not a proper way to use an article talk page. If socking comes up, I'll pursue that appropriately but all I really am interested in here is a "stop posting and re-posting tangents on the talk page", or "shut the eff up WLU, that's a totally appropriate use of an article talk page. Content disputes, socking, neither require intervention in my mind. Talk page shenanigans do. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's an interesting question if socks are being used to circumvent WP:COI. See my comment above, but to elaborate: Nraden is the husband of one of the most notable purveyors of BHRT, T. S. Wiley, and arguably has a conflict of interest with the subject of BHRT in general. Ndaren (similar spelling, different account) is a barely used account that's mostly made BHRT-related edits including corrections to talk page comments by Hillinpa, in one case minutes after they were posted, and without offering an explanation. There's clearly reason to wonder whether Hillinpa and Riverpa might be the same person. If it were to turn out that all these accounts are used by a person with COI, it certainly wouldn't be pointless. Debv (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I see absolutely no reason to suspect socking, certainly no abuse that resulted in system gaming. I believe I've asked Nraden about both accounts, the less used one he forgot the password for. Neil has acknowledged his COI and edited only through intermediary (generally me) and talk pages - appropriate for a COI. Even if they are all the same account, they're not being used abusively - there's no 3RR issues circumvented through tag-teaming. Hillinpa has not been blocked. Sometimes weird coincidences do happen, and until there's evidence of abuse I see no reason to pursue this. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Harrassment/disruption from User:Off2riorob

Following a disagreement concerning article categorisation (see [39]) where he proceeded to remove a categorisation without consensus, this user began to message me on my talk page, making accusations of meat-puppetry. Dismissing him simply as antagonistic, I told him that if he felt that was the case then he can go ahead and file a report, but warned him about edit-warring. I then asked him to stop contacting me, but he persisted in doing so, even after I warned him that I would report him for harrassment. Normally, I would tend to ignore a user who behaves in this way in the hopes that they will go and find something better to do with their time, but looking into his edit history, there is a large amount of previous violations. He has apparently been blocked at least 7 times this year alone for disruptive editing and general incivility towards other users ([40],[41],[42],[43]). The most recent case was concluded less than 3 weeks ago and at present he is the subject of a 1RR per day limitation because of his disruptive tendencies. This guy obviously just won't learn, and here he is again making a nuisance out of himself. Obviously its all just a bit of a giggle to him, but given his history and blatant contempt for other editors and Wikipedia rules, his account needs to be blocked for a lengthier period to send a clear message that his behaviour is unacceptable. Kookoo Star (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Kookoo Star, do you think you can provide some diffs of what you feel is harassment on Off's part? You've provided a detailed history, but we'll need to see what the current issues are. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 01:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Puppies. It's all on my talk page as the user kept messaging me with baseless accusations and threats when I asked him to stop doing so (there's only that conversation there at present and its pretty self-explanatory). He made 15 edits/diffs to the page in less than an hour which became quite annoying. Like I said above, had it been almost anybody else I would have just left it, but this guy has a history of disruptive and antisocial behaviour. Do you want me to list all the diffs or just the ones he made after I told him to stop messaging me? Kookoo Star (talk) 02:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not involved in the issues, and have, in fact, never interacted with either of these editors. I have no reason to doubt the good intentions of all editors involved. However, when I checked the link to User talk:Kookoo Star, I was rather disappointed at the lack of genial atmosphere there. User:Off2riorob appears to have disregarded WP:AGF as well as basic civility standards. The accusations by Off2riorob are very odd and lack tact, even if they were true. Encouragement to act in a more becoming manner would be appropriate. Best wishes to all! —Finn Casey * * * 02:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Look in the history of the talk page. User:Off2riorob screwed around with the ordering of his comments after he started posting them just to make Kookoo Star look foolish.

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....")'' 02:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

PS Here's the diff.

It appears that there may have been some inquiries of sock or meatpuppetry from Off2riorob. While this is not necessarily wrong to inquire, there seems to have been some forgetfulness of WP:AGF on behalf of the same. Off2riorob, please remember to assume good faith. If there is a significant concern of puppetry then I highly suggest you file it with the appropriate folks. Basket of Puppies 04:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

And if he's going to file a report he should just get on and do so, rather than baiting an editor who has asked him to stop posting on their talk page. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

CSD-G7

I nominated an article for deletion here. I just found that the album was deleted in AFD here. Does this meet CSD-G7? Joe Chill (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone has nominated it for G4 which it would meet as it hasn't substantially addressed the original reasons for deletion. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It was originally deleted in April 2009, but a second nomination after it was overturned at DRV closed with no consensus in May 2009. G7 is for "Author requests deletion", so I don't see how this would apply here. G4 could have applied if not for the DRV and second AFD. This isn't really an incident, either - WP:AN would be a more appropriate forum, I would have thought. I have removed the G4. The AFD should give the correct outcome here.--Michig (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I meant G4. I'm not the one that added the tag. Joe Chill (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I did. And it's gone Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 15:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

My mistake - latest previous AFD here.--Michig (talk) 15:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Death threat

It's vandalism, but 76.191.148.171 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has just done this: [44] on the article for Cyd Zeigler, Jr.. I'm under the impression that all death threats have to be reported; please let me know if this is correct, and if this is the right place. Thanks. --NellieBly (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I should add that I don't think it's serious but on the other hand I'm not qualified to decide which death threats are serious. --NellieBly (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP address. Thanks for reporting. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Edward McMillan-Scott, Michał Kamiński and the Observer

I was reading the papers this morning over breakfast with my wife, and read the article in today's Observer.

Given the article in today's Observer: [45], might I suggest that an admin looks into the following accounts:

Special:Contributions/John_of_Gaunt23

Special:Contributions/Xerxes23

Special:Contributions/EPP_fanatic

Special:Contributions/Yorkshire_Bumblebee

Special:Contributions/Saer1957

All of whom seem to solely edit McMillan-Scott's page, in a similar manner to Special:Contributions/Strasburg who is named in the article. They also seem to show evidence of some POV pushing, and may all be the same account. I was talking to my wife about this and she said it was important to let you know. Thank you for your time, Mr Hands. Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 12:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting that. I have raised a report at WP:COI/N quoting the original Observer article. Stephen! ^Coming... 14:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The edits of User:Strasburg, User:194.60.38.198 (which comes from the British Parliament) and User:136.173.162.144 (which comes from the European Parliament) should be looked at, as well. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

A sockpuppetry case has been opened here but it's waiting for clerk review. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I noticed 136.173.162.144 (talk · contribs) wasn't listed in that investigation. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Galassi

Galassi (talk · contribs) is behaving irritatingly immature on Talk:Cantonist. See comments like "That goes for you as well."[46] and "Ehrlich's success being irritating to someone."[47] And his unfounded reverts, as explained in that talk discussion. To the reverts I have replied, and in all cases he has had to conceed to my arguments. To the childish remarks quoted above I have not found fit to reply. But somebody should have a talk with him.

And then there are his insulting remarks. Like when he supposed I hadn't read the source he quoted.[48] (in edit summary) And his reminder to me that a rabbi should have scruples.[49] Or when he was accusing me of deliberately misusing a template.[50] And he is also stalking me, insolently mixing in my request to a friend-editor for a second opinion.[51] Debresser (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

All the above copied from Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Decided to come here after this insolent edit. How dare he mix into my personal talk with a friend-editor? With the veiled claim of doing things secretly. And that after he was warned not to mix in,[52] and after he was reminded to start applying Wikipedia:Assume good faith.[53] Debresser (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I've chimed in on his talk page, but characterizing his edit as "insolent" isn't helpful. Also, "how dare he mix into my personal talk" doesn't really apply. If he was concerned about WP:CANVASSing, then it's not improper to chime in -- though he could have done it much more politely. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all, thank you.

It may not be helpfull, but can not think of a more correct description.

How could he have thought I was canvassing when I wrote to only one editor and asked for his advise in neutral terms after notifying that I was going to ask for advise. Very hard to believe.

Notice that he disagrees with you.[54] Debresser (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Add: accusing me of canvassing,[55] after I had stated explicitely that I had asked for a second opinion.[56] and [57]

• These are both good, experienced editors. They both should know better. I suggest they just drop the dispute and move on, avoiding each other if necessary.   Will Beback  talk  19:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment you made to me, but I beg to differ as to your opinion about User:Galassi. He has made some childish edits here, at best. And according to recent discussions on his talkpage that is definitely a pattern with him. Debresser (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Note also that he has not participated in the discussion here, and has discarded the posts made by SarekOfVulcan on his talkpage. Definitely not trying to cooperate in Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Sukkah

Resolved

Revived from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive570#Sukkah

Some IP user is adding the text {{for|the board game|chess}} to the article sukkah, about a certain Jewish custom. Today/yesterday he has done so as few times already. He has done so in the past as well, operating from the same range of IP adresses. I don't know what to ask for: semiprotection, a block of his current IP, of a range of IP's. So I throw it into the group. Preferably do not refer me to other venues, but take the relevant action yourself. Debresser (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

At the moment I posted this, I wasn't aware that the user had replied to the inquiry on his talkpage. I noticed this only when I came there to inform him of this discussion. I hope we will be able to convince him of his error. Sorry for bothering. Debresser (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

today

He is back again as User talk:88.78.2.178. I have reverted him, even more than 3 times as unambiguous vandalism. Debresser (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Debresser, there is no way that is unambiguous vandalism. It's a content dispute. I have semi-protected the page, because it is clear the IP is being reverted by more than one editor, but I'd suggest if you're going to revert six times in future you're probably likely to find yourself on the wrong end of a block. Indeed, I was tempted to do so this time. You should be reporting to WP:AN3 rather than violating 3RR. Black Kite 18:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I think that it is unambiguous vandalism. Revert-warring drivel across multiple IPs, as many times of this, and refusing to engage in discussion about it, is clearly in the worst of faith. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 18:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Well if it is vandalism, report it to AIV then. If it's an IP spamming, report it to RFPP. There's no reason for 6RR for something so trivial. Black Kite 18:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Was there a reason for the IP to 6RR for something so trivial and, in their case, rubbish? I think that as Debresser acted in the best of faith, and the best interests of Wikipedia, unlike the anon, his/her conduct was fine. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 18:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The semiprotection was a good idea, that is for sure. Please notice that his edit has been labeled vandalism before (e.g. [58]). Apart from that, and purely theoretically, I'd say that after several editors have pointed out that another editor is wrong, and have explained why he is wrong, then his continuing to make a certain edit becomes vandalism. Would you care to share your opinion about that? Debresser (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I would point to WP:NOTVAND - "Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable — you may wish to see the dispute resolution pages to get help. Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such." Black Kite 18:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Duely noted for future reference. Debresser (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea for somebody, preferably User:Black Kite, to leave a message on User talk:88.78.2.178. Debresser (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It might not be my place to say this, but it seems BlackKite assumes the absolute worst in people. The three revert rule has a specific exclusion for reverting vandalism, and trust me on this, chess and sukkahs have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Personal attack redacted I wouldn't worry too much Debresser.   Nezzadar ☎   19:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not worried at all. I was rather favorably impressed with his swift and serious action in this matter. Debresser (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I would note that I have asked User:Nezzadar on his talk page to either back up or strike this unfounded assertion. If he does not do so, I will remove it myself per WP:NPA. I will not be accused of partiality in my admin dealings. Black Kite 20:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps now that the subject of this section is resolved, it would be wiser to close this discussion? Debresser (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Black Kite 22:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Dbowiepic.jpg and African-American 'members'

Is it just me, or is File:Dbowiepic.jpg vandalism? Uploaded and inserted by a user with no other edits. I'll quote a recent OTRS ticket (2009101810030603) on the picture:

“ Specifically, in the area of David's center there is what might innocently be a part of his belt hanging. However, upon magnification, the appendage appears to be possibly a male organ Photoshopped onto his person. The area that meets the belt buckle is transparent, suggesting the possibility of it being cut and pasted. And the bottom of the appendage looks different than a typical belt tip and more like a something pornographic. In either case, I would suggest that the photo gives the appearance of being vandalized even if, by some miracle, it is not. ”

The man who wrote in is a photographer by trade who has offered to provide us with a new photo - and a rather good one at that - if we want one. As it stands, the current photo is clearly inappropriate, even if it is just his belt. Not being well-versed with commons, could someone 'do the needful' and alert the authorities there? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: Metadata indicated it has been shopped. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd go ahead and accept the new image and replace it on the article. –xeno^talk 19:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Metadata only indicate that it has been used in Adobe Photoshop. This could have been for simple colour correction, etc...but having looked at the picture, I'd agree with User:xeno and lets get the new photo into the article. Frmatt (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Dbowiepic.jpg –xeno^talk 19:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Matt57 crossing several lines in smear campaign against CAIR

A few days ago a new editor showed up at Council on American-Islamic Relations and inserted highly POV fringe material into the entry. I brought the matter up at the WP:FTN because I was myself quickly nearing 3RR. Soon after other editors showed up to assist in the matter, User:Matt57 made an appearance on the talk page to announce that everyone should "get ready for adding stuff" from this same fringe source. Ever since then he has engaged in tendentious and disruptive editing. Problems include:

1. [59], [60], [61], [62] - edit warring over the inclusion of undue POV material in the lead
2. [63] - making veiled and possibly threatening insinuations in an edit summary
3. [64] - making false accusations about my religious identity which even if true is inappropriate, while also incorrectly claiming that his version is the "established" version of the entry
4. [65] - deleting talk page comments with the same inappropriate commentary on the supposed religious identity of the IP who posted them
5. [66] - taunting me with the same insinuation about my identity while expressing ownership issues with the article (since he "told" me not to delete something already)

The POV Matt57 is pushing is that of FrontPage Magazine, WorldNetDaily, and a variety of other anti-Muslim fringe sources. I understand that people have different perspectives on various current topics but fighting for one's POV should not include this type of uncivil behavior and disruptive editing practices. Matt57 has been around for years and clearly understands policy, guideline and convention here at Wikipedia. We should have zero tolerance for this type of behavior from our regulars.PelleSmith (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking back, this user was blocked several times in 2006 and 2007 for this same behavior. He's skated on the margins since then, based on the number of noticeboard complaints. I'm blocking this user for one month, with a warning that any further behavior along these lines will mean indef. Blueboy96 19:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a mix of reasonable and unreasonable edits. For example, I have trouble seeing how an image of a check from an allegedly terrorist organization should be in the article. FrontPage is probably more reliable than WorldNetDaily but not by much. I'd feel much better not using either as source unless their claims have been covered elsewhere. Even then, they should be used with explicit attribution. Given the past problematic behavior a block isn't unreasonable. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Asking before I block

I almost blocked an account based on these contributions, but I thought I should get a second opinion first. Thoughts? TNXMan 20:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added a {{test3}} warning. One more edit like this, and it's blocking time. -- The Anome (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocking immediately would've been fine. –xeno^talk 20:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Go right ahead and block; I'll not disagree with that. -- The Anome (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, they kept right on going, so they get sent to the corner. TNXMan 20:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Dreamdesignernow and List of Mensans

The user Dreamdesignernow (talk · contribs) keeps adding the same NN to List of Mensans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with WP:LINKSPAM to the subject's site, like this … they have been warned, but have added the same name 3 times in spite of a warning about WP:3RR. Happy Editing! — 141.156.161.245 (talk · contribs) _{21:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)}

I'm not sure whether the warnings on the talk page are 100% clear to this user, so I left a clearly stated final warning and added the article in question to my watchlist- I'll be happy to block if she continues. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thnx … for an alleged member of Mensa, they're not very bright … re-test? :-) — 141.156.161.245 (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

GA reviews

Hello, not sure if I'm in the right place, however please review the edits of User:Mayor of Gotham City. It appears that this user passed several WP:GA articles without being properly reviewed. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I undid Alamogordo, New Mexico as that was was clearly inappropriate given that another review was already working on it. The others should probably be undone as well, given that teh claims to have reviewed 5 articles in 13 minutes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done, all reviews undone. Can I have an admin's help in deleting Talk:Hong Kong/GA1, Talk:Buildings of Nuffield College, Oxford/GA1, Talk:The Apartment (Seinfeld)/GA1 and Talk:James T. Kirk/GA1? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet accusations

Resolved

 – Nothing for admins to do here, and the discussion is just going in circles. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

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

---

I have been accused of a sockpuppet but no case has been filed and I consider this a slur on my wiki-name. I have never been blocked or involved in sockpuppetry and I am concerned with how this will impact on my reputation. If no case is filed, can I remove it or ask for it to be removed?

What I also find disturbing about this is the editor who has added the report names two other editors who they say it could be - surely, editors cannot accuse multiple editors of being a sockpuppet and hope that one sticks? It looks like they wish to run a fish-tripping on multiple editors.

In addition, they deleted a reply of mine to that page where I noted that I had received an email about this matter to make it look like it was something I was trying to hide rather than someone I noted myself. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed it. You're BOTH (you and Benjiboi) admonished to put up or shut up regarding sockpuppet accusations and WP:BITEing. I totally agree that its likely that user is not a new user, but you have no basis for who they could possibly be a sock of. If they are a new user, you both bit them in an attempt to bully the other. If you can establish who they might be, you're free to bring a CU request but until then neither of you should reinstate those sock notices. Syrthiss (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - I hold my hand up on that - and will offer my apologies to the user about that - my anger at the false accusation got the better of me and I should have known better. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's clear this is - yet another - attempt at WP:Baiting me and it's unfortunate that Cameron Scott invests sooo much energy in following me around. I guess I should be honoured they are obsessed with me. -- Banjeboi 14:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I don't particularly like having my good name thrown around by User:Benjiboi in all this as well. - Schrandit (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record both you and Cameron Scott have continued to heap piles of bad faith on me and this claimed concern about your wiki-reputations rings quite hollow, actually. If you didn't support banned editors using anon socks, blanketing articles with {{COI}} and {{fact}} tags with apparently no interest but in deleting material you apparently don't approve and, possibly most chilling - defending attackers and murderers as unjustly accused of hate crimes against LGBT people - none of this would likely be going on. Instead, bolstered by Wikipedia Review you nip at my heels and throw muck at my work until you hope something sticks. Essentially you're playing the worst sort of game and playing the community for fools. If you don't approve/like/condone LGBT people and culture than work on some of the other three million articles. If you don't care for another editor? Then avoid them, don't continually target articles they work on when you obviously have little to no interest in them. In short, move on. Your actions are disruptive and are counter to building good content. You work will make or break your reputations. -- Banjeboi 14:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This really isn't the place for more of the same vague accusations of bad faith that you have made previously and started this section. If you have a problem with my edits, I invite you to start a RFC and I'll be happy to stand on my record.Other well respected editors in the LGBT project have stated previously that they are happy with my edits and therefore I feel there is no case to answer. Otherwise I have no further comment to make here (as it only seems to encourage you in your accusations) unless invited to do so by an administrator or anyone else who is seeking answers. Otherwise I consider this matter resolved. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if that was too vague for you. Leave me alone, stop harassing me, stop accusing me of COI editing, stop trying to out me or whoever you think I am, stop WP:Wikihounding me. Hope that is more clear and we can all more on from here. -- Banjeboi 15:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Benji, your edits have shown time and time again violations of policies and guidelines. Anyone has every right to scrutinize them, and hiding behind the flag of homophobia is against common decency and WP:AGF. Please strike your accusations, apologize to the user and move on. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of vague accusations. If you have some tangible concern of my "time and time again violations of policies and guidelines" please present them in a proper forum so some non-biased eyes might see what merit your concerns hold. I'm hardly hiding behind anything, homophobia exists on Wikipedia but most editors are willing to act civilly towards one another despite their beliefs. We don't suspend our civility in order to make a point or enforce some other policy. There is never a reason to harass other editors. -- Banjeboi 05:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who knows Benjiboi's real name will see that this is an obvious attempt to annoy or harass him. While this shouldn't give Benjiboi license to accuse others of sockpuppetry, perhaps the account should be blocked. On the other hand, if Benjiboi was more open about his connections to the subjects that he edits, I suspect that the editors he accuses of being obsessed with him would find other things to do. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Impressive sleuthing DC, that does put many a suspicion to rest. - Schrandit (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It had already been raised in this discussion, where the putative conflict of interest was relevant. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• No comment on the other matters at play, but I have blocked the account indefinitely for harassment. –xeno^talk 17:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• My connection was answered here. And even if it hadn't been answered there is never an excuse to harass other editors here. No matter someone's background they need to act civilly toward others or find another website to express their ideas. -- Banjeboi 05:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

So let's see if I understand this:

• At least as early as January 2008, Benjiboi is asked (during the first AfD for the now deleted bio of DJ Pusspuss) about his connection to DJ Pusspuss and Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P.
• In early September, the COI questions noted in the first AfD were brought up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P.
• For the past two months, at this ANI thread, this WP:COIN thread, and a couple of AfDs, Benjiboi has steadfastly denied any conflict of interest in DJ Pusspuss, Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P., Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, etc, etc
• Now that a diff from 2006 is produced in which Benjiboi states that he is "the archivist for the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, Inc. in San Francisco" with the same email used by DJ Pusspuss, Sister Kitty Catalyst, and the freelance journalist who shell not be named, Benjiboi states that the diff "was made by someone else" using his account.

It seems odd that after so much fuss, Benjiboi didn't earlier offer that "someone else" had used their account. And if "someone else" was responsible for the 2006 diff, it can only be assumed that the same "someone else" went back in May 2007 to remove only the email address from that comment.

I am fully aware of WP:OUTING and I understand that editors may not wish to have their WP usernames connected to their real life identities, but at some point the presumption of good faith is overwhelmed by the evidence to the contrary. Benjiboi claims that because he edits LGBT articles he is at risk of becoming a victim of a hate crime. Since all of the personas in this mess (Sister Kitty, DJ Pusspuss, unnamed freelance journalist) are openly gay LGBT activists and "homo-propagandists" (their term, not mine), it is hard to see how this can be rationalized. Rather than simply avoid editing the articles where the "someone else" who used Benjiboi's account would have a conflict of interest, Benjiboi has edit warred and blustered about being harassed by accusations of COI. This has become a low-level but constant distraction and has now blossomed into actual harassment of Benjiboi by anon IPs and abusively named accounts.

Ignoring the problem hasn't made it go away. Can we find some constructive way to deal with this issue, please? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, despite - yet another - rehashing of this alleged problem you have shown a connection likely exists, it has been acknowledged. That is different than an actual problem, as has been pointed out out repeatedly. Yet you choose to dredge it all up again to publicly flog. Luckily we don't reward bad behaviour even if perpetrated by anon vandals bolstered by Wikipedia Review. The COIN thread, where apparently COI problems are reported, is rather explicit that our civility policies should not be swept aside in order to conduct witch-hunts. If you have any evidence of actual COI editing problems you can make your case there rather than enabling incivility of a handful of editors, some already shown to be socks of banned editors. I'll repeat my same admonishment - Delicious carbuncle please leave me alone. -- Banjeboi 03:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean this in a snarky way, but I can't parse your first sentence. Can you please rephrase that? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It was confusing to me too but in context with the rest of the comment, I believe that Benjiboi is saying that yes, there's a COI and it is acknowledged, but a COI in and of itself is not a problem unless it's paired with disruptive editing. Which is true. I'm sure that you have a belief that there is disruptive editing otherwise I doubt you'd be pursuing this in multiple places, but that's the point that Benjiboi is disputing. -- Atama頭 19:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

there's a COI and it is acknowledged, Where? --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Benjiboi just did. I think that the COI is undeniable with the diff you provided. So Benjiboi basically said, "Yes there's a COI but so what? It hasn't caused a problem." Saying that the COI "has been acknowledged" is an acknowledgment, isn't it? If this COI is acknowledged after a long denial, of course, that in itself may be a cause for concern. -- Atama頭 15:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

If Benjiboi is finally acknowledging a COI, that would be a welcome and refreshing change. My reason for bringing this up again here is that it seems to be at the root of this latest ANI report and Benjiboi's current disputes with other editors. I hope that Benjiboi does not cease his diligent work with LGBT subjects, but if he could stop editing the small number of articles where he does have a conflict, it would probably make the drama go away entirely. I'm not asking for a ban of any kind, just a voluntary action for the sake of peace. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle, you and a few other editors are self-appointed hall monitors creating drama where there is none. Similar to your treatment of David Shankbone, your stated concern seems somewhat reasonable. But with any discernment reads as you wish to compel others to disclose, by inducements or relief from harassment, a compiled list of various articles they do or may have a COI on. We don't operate like that. Every article doesn't carry with it an alert tag "Warning: the following editors are compromised here" nor does every editor come with a list of articles and subjects where they are or are not allowed. Instead we look at content and behaviours. So no, I don't believe "the drama go away entirely" at all as before this I have been stalked and harassed by anons and quite a few since banned editors. And no, it wasn't for COI issues but a variety of LGBT-related subjects where I primarily work. I don't care if it's the same person or a small group working in a collaboration. I don't even care why someone is harassing me just as I wouldn't care why any other editor was being harassed. We don't allow it no matter what point someone is trying to make. If have have any actual COI problems - that is where a real or perceived COI is manifesting in COI editing please start a thread at COIN and make your case there. A connection was shown a COI problem was not. Feel free to get in the last word if you must. -- Banjeboi 03:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Benjiboi's assessment. In my case, the same person--User:Delicious carbuncle--that was raising a fuss was the same person saying that 'all this will go away if you do what I think you should do' despite everyone on the board telling DC, to the point of exasperation, that he was unable to show any problems. It's similar to how the mafia operates; they create problems that you must then bend to their will to have solved. He targets people who have completely stuck within policy simply because he doesn't like them or feels they should do what he thinks they should do. Instead, he maligns the people (including Benjiboi and Peteforsyth) who pointed this out to him. He nominates a very notable foreign film for deletion (Ping Pong Playa) as "unremarkable", templates User:Ynotswim, upsetting him, all because he Googled the wrong phrase. I spend five second Googling the correct phrase, and when he closes the AfD says "I'm sure someone will be along in 6 or 7 months to add references". He created a situation, was in the wrong, and doesn't do anything to actually improve the article nor apologize to Ynotswim. Over on Outlaw motorcycle club he tells User:Dbratland that his word is no good (despite that user providing in good faith six sources to back himself up, with links DC could easily check for himself). Here he is going at Benjiboi. Only on ass-backward Wikipedia can I undertake routine linkspam removal and have it presented by Carbuncle on Wikipedia Review as an attempt to "strongarm the competition", have him enter a delicate discussion with personal attacks, and then have nobody do anything about it on this board except for Manning Bartlett to characterize it as a "misunderstanding" despite all evidence to the contrary. And people wonder why content contributors get fed up? All of this just in the law few weeks. -->David Shankbone 12:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

David, to be so brutally and publicly attacked by one Wikipedia's most renowned editors is especially painful to me because I though that our problems had been resolved. I had hoped that your appearance on several articles I was editing was a sign that you thought we could work constructively together. Unfortunately User:Ynotswim is a serial copyright violator, but nonetheless I am sorry if they are upset. My initial impulse was to ask for Ping Pong Playa to be CSD'd for copyright violation, but I went the AfD route to allow for discussion. I closed the AfD when you showed me my mistake. As I said in closing it, I made a mistake when searching for evidence of notability. You'll find many more mistakes if you search through my contribution history. Let me apologise again for the misunderstanding that lead to your recent ANI thread about me. Since you obviously feel that I am a destructive influence here, perhaps you should start another thread instead of further clouding the already murky discussion here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi, I don't mean to minimize the harassment you and other editors receive for your work on LGBT subjects, but in relation to a very specific set of articles I honestly do believe that the current situation will be resolved by a voluntary pledge not to edit articles where you have a conflict of interest. We can ask the editors who have in the past tagged those articles as COI if they agree. There is no witch hunt or intimidation intended here since your connection has already been shown. After literally years of denial, you have finally admitted what has been obvious for a long time. It is therefore understandable that some editors may not let go easily. I am proposing a way forward with this persistently disruptive pattern. Are you willing to try it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle, just stop. There was no years of denial as much as never revealing who I was, and I explained why. Every one of those COI tags has been removed insisting - as we have pointed out here and every other time - that you show actual problems instead of inventing a narrative bolstered by various Wikipedia Review socks, six - by my count - have been blocked so far. The way forward is for you to drop it, you've wikihounded and I simply am not going to take your word on behalf of a group of disruptive vandals that now they will act like adults. It's unfortunate you don't see the problems your causing by re-opening closed issues and attempts to air "concern" publicly. If all the editors involved simply focused on the content and not the contributor - per policy, none of this would have been a drama to begin with. Walk away and know that your mission here is done. In the future if you think someone is COI editing take it to COIN and show a problem exists not a connection. And avoid even the appearance of outing people - it remains a form of harassment. -- Banjeboi 16:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I have already described the problem - there is a low-level but long term disruptive edit war going on at a number of articles with which other editors perceive that you have a conflict of interest. I am not speaking on behalf of anyone. I am suggesting we ask editors such as User:Cameron Scott and other editors in good standing here who have been in conflict with you on this issue whether they would accept my proposed solution. Since your identity is already known (because of your own edits) there is no "outing" going on here. I realise that this is probably a touchy subject for you, but please consider my proposal seriously, rather than simply assuming that I am trying to harass you. Wouldn't this reduce the amount of friction for you? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle, I don't know how to make this more clear - you are the source of friction here. Everyone else seems to have moved on to actually build articles. You have described a connection, based on who you think I must be even though that was confirmed to be untrue. The edit-warring was by those looking to add {{COI}} tags on numerous articles - all of which have been removed as described above. Thus you are the only one still WP:Beating a dead horse. Move on. Show actual COI exiting persists and perhaps do so at COIN following the guidelines there. -- Banjeboi 18:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi, I find it hard to keep track of where we are in this conversation. User:Atama interpreted your earlier statement as confirmation of your connection to DJ Pusspuss/Sister Kitty Catalyst. I expressed my doubts, but you seemed to confirm it when you said "A connection was shown a COI problem was not". Are you now retracting that admission? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Showing someone might or likely has a connection is not in and of itself a problem. I'm admitting that you are the only problem in this thread. Accusations have been leveled against me but they ring quite hollow. Please get off proving anyone's identity at all, ever. It's simply disruptive. No actual problem has been shown to exist despite multiple requests here and elsewhere. Otherwise this seems like you just stirring drama and disrupting to make a WP:point. Delicious carbuncle, this is your invitation to drop it and move on. You have expressed your concern and whoever needed to see it likely has and is not as passionate about targeting editors as you seem to be. Drop it, move on and please be more careful about these methods in the future. -- Banjeboi 03:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi, I'm not accusing you of anything other than equivocating. There is no question that you have a connection to the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence since you have divulged that information yourself. I have offered a possible way forward with this situation that one of the participants has tacitly agreed to on my talk page. I don't know who the other parties in this dispute are, but if they also agree, will you? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That diff was already brought up and answered. The way forward in this situation is for you to cease and desist. You are simply badgering and harassing with no actual COI editing problems. Your attempts to continually out, shame an offer your way forward are a sham. Leave me alone and find something constructive that actually benefits Wikipedia besides harassing other editors. -- Banjeboi 10:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you got your response, but hey we can rewrite the COI guidelines, 'simply refuse to discuss your COI and if pushed cite the Benjiboi precedent'. The fact that one of the sources that they add is from the his organisation's website and for all we know, they write it to support their need for a source - no problem, it's all good. Reliable sources? pfff independent sources? what you talking about? --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Huh? how is a film company my organization? Please find something better to do. -- Banjeboi 18:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that Cameron Scott is referring to the information added in that diff giving the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence website as the reference. As a member of that organisation and the current or former archivist, presumably you have influence over the content of the website. This is precisely why the issue is unlikely to go away. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

As that diff shows I added a ref to an independent film. The other refs were already there. And, again, please stop assuming who I am and what any of my connections might be. If you have an actual content problem that needs to be addressed then talk only about that. -- Banjeboi 10:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Meta discussion

Cameron Scott and Delicious Carbuncle. Maybe I am missing the point here, but:

1. Lets say that Benjiboi is not involved in writing the articles, or not even in the organisation. In that case, there is no COI, and that edit is OK
2. Lets say, that someone writes a good, reliable document in the organisation, and Benjiboi has a COI with that organisation and uses it as a reference. How is that not just a WP:IAR to actually improve the document. And does it actually advance Benjiboi's position?
3. Lets say that Benjoboi is writing a good document in an organisation he works for, and then cites his own work. Does Wikipedia advance, yes, does he advance himself, yes/maybe. It may be frowned upon, but you do not have any actual proof, and even if you did, it is not a reason to revert or to tell Benjiboi not to do it. He was actually improving the encyclopedia.

So unless there is scenario '4' (where either Benjiboi is writing unreliable sources in order to be able to use them here to advance his position and Wikipedia is not getting better), there is no issue here. You are close to assuming bad faith on Benjiboi and baiting him into answers, and Wikipedia does not seem to get better by it. Wikipedia has many editors with a conflict of interest of which we don't even have the slightest idea that they have it, here we seem to have someone who may be involved in a part of the organisation, who may be influential in the content of the website of the organisation, but unless you now come up with clearly bad edits that is by far not enough to discuss this. Move on. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This thread was started because Benjiboi accused three editors of sockpuppetry. This is just the latest skirmish in a battle that has been going on for some time. I find it more and more perplexing that after repeatedly posting the link wherein Benjiboi details his involvement with the Sisters of Perpetual etc, we are still discussing this in terms of hypothetical scenarios. Dirk, you have taken one edit to serve as the example of the COI concerns here. This does not show the larger pattern. Benjiboi created not one but two autobiographies as DJ Pusspuss and Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P.. He voted to keep in at least one of the AfDs. He has inserted pictures of himself into those articles and others. Just days ago, he was the only editor arguing to keep an image that others felt was unnecessary. I do not see these as signs that the interests of WP are being served, or that the encyclopedia is being improved. Benjiboi is a valuable contributor to LGBT articles, but in the specific cases where he has a COI, I think there will continue to be conflicts until the situation is dealt with in some manner. I have proposed a negotiated solution which Benjiboi evidently does not wish to accept. (I say evidently because he has never directly addressed the question.) Note that I'm not even directly involved in this dispute, I'm just tired of it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It is fine with me that the COI is real, but that does not have to be a problem, thát is what I meant. We have many disclosed and undisclosed COI editors here, and they all can join in in discussions. To me there is no bad thing in that Benjiboi with a conflict of interest or without a conflict of interest defends articles and comments in AfD's on articles they started. Or creating those articles, etc. etc. If his editing violates our core policies, then we are talking, but I don't see any proof of that. I don't see why there 'will continue to be conflicts' when he is editing like that. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I do however agree that Benjiboi should not accuse editors of creating sockpuppets when there is no proof it is actually a sock of that editor, leave that to the checkusers. I do however think that HenjiBolmann is somehow questionable. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. that's why I suggested the account be blocked as an obvious attempt to harass Benjiboi. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That connection was asked and answered and the core take-away message remains the same. Show an actual problem exists not an acknowledged connection. As for those XfDs I think you'll find I'm rather consistent in insisting we find valid reasons to save or delete content whether articles, images, etc. I don't see that changing. I'll let you get the last word in here but it would seem that yet again this discussion has been WP:Beating a dead horse. Please move on. -- Banjeboi 19:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

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

User: PassionoftheDamon

User PassionoftheDamon is making very disruptive blanket edits that have the effect of deleting a lot of well sourced materials without any discussion on the talk page of the articles. He rarely uses edit summaries, and is displaying WP:OWNership issues. When I leave comments on his talk page, he deletes them without responding, and he rarely responds to comments or questions posed on the article talk pages.

Miami Hurricanes

• [67] removing discussion of graduation rates, gender equality and sports team costs
• [68] - again
• [69]. ("rmv nonsense")- again

Miami Hurricanes football

• [70] ("rv") - deleted 30 years worth of history section

University of Miami

• [71] - deleting the Forbes Magazine ranking without explanation
• [72] - again
• [73] - again

Previously, as noted in an October 13 ANI he has been removing {{copyvio}} and {{POV}} tags unilaterally while disputes are pending. in this June 2 2009 ANI he had the same problem with User:Patrick Whelan MD. There have been complaints noted about his non-communicative editing style on the article talk pages. Please help. Racepacket (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I've notified PassionoftheDamon of this thread. EyeSerene^talk 17:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The user has also removed sourced information with the claim that it is unsourced, which I find unacceptable.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• There are many more examples, because he kept going from there: [74], and even today where he deleted sourced material that had not been discussed on the talk page with an edit summary that read, "stop trying to force edits that were rejected over and over on talk." Racepacket (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Both parties (Racepacket and PassionoftheDamon) are not right in this situation. I've requested a RFC on Racepacket, but he has yet to respond to it (he knows it exists because he posted one of his usual lengthy comments on its talk page). I've confronted PassionoftheDamon for some of his edits (the Forbes mention on the main University of Miami article), and merely because content is sourced does not mean that it needs to be covered on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

There was no discussion regarding the removal of material. The user who removed it had previously claimed there was discussion.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I got a bit caught up in this for personal reasons, and edit warred. I shall now distance myself from this article, and not touch that button again. However, I expect the baseless sockpuppet accusations to be retracted in light of WP:NPA, in that, the accusations have no supporting evidence.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

What does this apology have to do with the discussion at hand? I don't see any sockpuppet accusations here that this would be require.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It has to do with my edit warring. That aside, the user baselessly called me a sockpuppet, if you will simply check the history of the articles above. As to why none of them are here, that is because the user has yet to respond to this ANI thread.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that I post comments on the article talk page and edit summaries, but User:PassionoftheDamon does not respond, even to direct questions. A interesting complication is that most of the active editors are either students or graduates of the University of Miami, so there are real conflict of interest problems that may cloud editorial judgments. Racepacket (talk) 04:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of disruptive bad faith edits, while User:PassionoftheDamon has been repeatedly deleting the Forbes Magazine rankings from the University of Miami article without explanation since October 8, he added it to Cornell University. He then bragged about his violation of WP:POINT on his talk page:[75] See also WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. By the way, I don't object to his adding Forbes rankings to other college articles, just his adding it to some while arguing against keeping it in UM. Racepacket (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic_Ashdod talking uncivil

After some edits between us, I asked to return to civilism, and got back from Sceptic_Ashdod: "Isn't it time you make an application to the Human Rights Council" etc to me here. This is directive (again), and thus not civil. Is there a list on this associated with this editor? Is it a regular transgressor? Are there more abused editors? -DePiep (talk) 00:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of civility, says an editor that puts this in his profile page: "This user has the impression and the rational experience that on Wikipedia Israel-related articles are not well-balanced, because of organised, agendised Hasbara", and than asks me not to talk "paternalistic". Whoever is going to review this, I don't think you'll find other 'violations' by me. I also think that such statements as above are exact opposite of the good faith approach. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 04:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Does not look like uncivility to me, but I do wonder if someone who apparently holds the view that "criticism of Israel is antisemitism" is able to maintain sufficient neutrality in his/hers edits. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read what ANI (this page) is for, it is not for this type of issue. Post at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts if you think an editor is being uncivil. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

a) Although you did contact the editor first to discuss your issues as is required, you didn't like his answer b) WQA should have been the correct forum for civility issues, however c) What he said was clearly not incivility d) As noted, your own civility/non-NPOV is clearly stated on your userpage. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Re Saddhiyama: where did you get the quote from? Something is upside down.

Re Bwilkins: a) "you [I]didn't like his answer". Right. Because the answer was out of limits. That's why I am here. I do not expect an editor who is losing "his" case to become sarcastic afterwards. Could be WQA - OK, but the point is to be made. c) "cleary not incivil"? - objection. It is incivil. d) My userpage NPOV??? A userpage!!! What does it say about anyone else's behaviour? The behaviour of Sceptic Ashdod is wrong, and cannot be justified by something else (what could be right or wriong in itself). -DePiep (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Saddhiyama was apparently talking to me. And just to be fair, DePiep observes correctly - there was no such statement. If you'll allow me to quote, "Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction -- out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East -- is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest:

To be precise, I didn't lose any case - I said either remove everything related to the findings or keep my edit about legal value of them. DePiep chose the former and that was fine. About my sarcasm, yes it was intentionally directed towards the editor, and in other circumstances me myself would have singled it out as quite distasteful. However, as noted above, this editor places a bizarre statement in his userpage that I personally find quite repulsive. So in the end I don't have a problem being reprimanded - but not by this very person. It's exactly like Israeli-criticizing resolutions are being passed at UN Human Rights Council, that were approved by human-rights champions like China, Russia, Egypt etc. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 06:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

DePiep: I inferred it from the link you provided in the OP: "Isn't it time you make an application to the Human Rights Council, I guess they too believe that criticizing Israel is not antisemitism." The only logical conclusion from that statement must be that he means criticising Israel is anti-semitism. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic Ashdod writes: "Criticizing Israel ...["]. But there are no closing quotes. Where should I read them? -DePiep (talk) 22:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Incivility by anon

Resolved

 – Blocked for incivility, but reduced to time served after further admin input. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

In response to having willful/substandard edits reasonably cancelled, and believing they were done out of some sort of personal grudge, this anon editor needs a lesson in manners or a civility warning (see edit summary). Bosonic dressing (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Go find yourself, was my advice, now reiterated. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 03:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • You can find yourself over the next blocked 24 hours. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    • TY for your prompt action. Bosonic dressing (talk) 03:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Bad abusive block. There was some mild incivility on both sides. A simple warning would have been finde. This looks like a ridiculous one sided response to what is at its core a content dispute, not to mention the usual biting attacks on a anonymous editor. Very discouraging. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I reviewed the second unblock and declined. The edit summary was incivil, but in my honest opinion, a warning would have been a better initial option given how trivial the edit summary was -- Samir 07:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I would urge that this user be unblocked, a 24 hour block for something this minor without an indication that the user was going to escalate the situation seems excessive. What was needed here was someone to come in and have a friendly chat with this user and urge that they focus on their positive contributions and continue those, rather than a block which now creates a more adversarial sentiment. kmccoy (talk) 10:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Per Samir and Kmccoy, reduced block to time served. I don't think it was a mistake, since the editor was making disingenuous claims as to the meaning of the edit summary and possibly edit warring on a couple of articles, but it was excessive. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible Legal Issue

Resolved

 – Legal threat block Toddst1 (talk) 05:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Unresolved

 – User has produced version of article with redacted name, see below. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Justin.merhoff‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Justin.merhoff‎ made the claim that he represents Chad Dukes of WJFK-FM radio fame. While not a legal threat, it appears the user is trying to pass himself off as a lawyer, which is a little odd since lawyers at know to work at 1am EST on anything. Could an admin looking into this? Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Just got a message on my personal facebook (not sure how they found it) that reads:

private email message

"I saw the message that you sent to me. I am not his lawyer, but I do his PR. If a lawyer needs to be involved, I will notify his lawyer first thing when he gets into his office. He has had his identity stolen in the past, and that is why he wanted it edited. If you could please edit it out, I would appreciate it, but if I have to, I will go the legal route. Justin Merhoff Representative of Chad Dukes The Chad Dukes RodKast in HD TheFukerton.com [phone number redacted] [email redacted]

Now that seems like a legal threat. Also seems like offline harrassment. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe it does. Too bad, I had just left a note as to how to deal with this on the editor's talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 05:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll give a WP:3O that the bar for removal of uncited personal information from a bio page is incredibly low and WP:BLP defaults to removing it. I can't believe editors are so insistent on reinstating this statement in the article and escalating now rather than spending time finding a source. DMacks (talk) 05:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

People need to realize that we are not their press relations services. just because they dont like it means nothing. the information has been sourced and if the user persists a LEGAL block will need to be made, but the information is accurate. β^_command 05:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

gah, addition of source edit-conflicted with my writing. It's sourced (and I just verified it in that ref), so it's valid. If source is wrong (per [76] edit-summary), all he would have (had) to do is provide the cite to the correction in that publication. DMacks (talk) 05:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

PLus I am getting comments from Mr. Merhoff on my personal (not wikilinked or connected) Facebook page. So this is real fun. If it keeps up, I will be contacting CBS Radio (which owns the station Dukes is on) tomorrow. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• OK, according to User:Justin.merhoff‎, who has been in contact with me via Facebook (copies of the conversation will be given to admins as necessary), the user has given a copy of the redacted version of the source given on the page. Even though my personal Facebook address is out there, I am willing to work with the person on this. I this, for the moment, we should redact (not oversight) the name and as I have stated with the blocked user, he should contact Mike Godwin to see how to proceed further as I am not sure if we can completely remove a name from a page without it still being seen by admins. That would be something Godwin would have to decide on. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems that User:Justin.merhoff has a WP:COIN issue here and should not be editing the article at all. Another case of a "celeb" wanting to control what is written about them on Wikipedia i.e. it they can't control it, they don't want it to appear. Mjroots (talk) 06:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The user has requested an unblock and I am willing to back them up on this one. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No objection to unblock. However, if his legal name is verifiable by a RS, then it should be in the article whether or not the subject wants it to appear. Mjroots (talk) 08:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

That is why I pushed this to Godwin to get his insight on the whole thing. I personally believe if the DJ doesn't want it there and requests it gone (via OTRS or Godwin) then it should be gone. Just how gone is up to him in my opinion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• To be clear here, if you suspect that somebody is a representative of an article subject and has issues with the article, and if they look like climbing the Reichstag or need to use real names, then the best course of action is probably to point them at OTRS. This is not a get out of jail free card, OTRS volunteers are quite capable of telling people politely that they have no chance of getting what they want, but it is usually better than the banhammer as a way of resolving issues related to identifiable individuals. Guy (Help!) 09:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

We blocked a user for "legal threats" that were made off-wiki and don't appear to be legal threats at all? Don't we have a policy about publishing private correspondence here? I suggest that we unblock the user, remove the email, and deal with this in a less confrontational way. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

And just to add insult to injury, it looks like there's been a slow edit war to keep the name in the article, completely unsourced until now. It could have been removed at any time per WP:BLP's guidance on unsourced info. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I see two issues here: the information itself, and the response to its removal. Regarding the former, perhaps Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of personal information applies; we're talking about a name, not a DOB, but it's a similar case and a similar argument. I only see one reference providing the name; as the article is sourced right now that doesn't rise to "widely published" as stated in BLP. That is wiki-lawyering at its worst, I know - but we are talking about real people here. (No opinion on the block; I wish it hadn't come to that but I do think policy is pretty clear, so I'm on the fence on that one.)  Frank  |  talk  12:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

User Not One Killed

Resolved

 – Indefinitely blocked.

Notonekilled (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is on the Holocaust denial talkpage, asserting that Not One [person was] Killed in gas chambers during the Holocaust[77] and that he shouldn't be deemed a hater for disputing the holocaust. He also advocates that the article should be deleted.[78] As my grandmother is a holocaust surviver who lost her entire family to the Nazis, I believe said editor has crossed all lines, both in said word and in suggestive username and should be removed from the page. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC) add diffs 09:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It is rare for me to agree with Jaakobou; but he is absolutely right here. This is a single purpose account, with an offensively POV name. It is apparent that this editor has only one intention here, and that is not to improve Wikipedia or to add to our understanding. We have enough difficulties here, without adding Nazi apologists and holocaust deniers to our ranks. RolandR 10:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Indef blocked. We don't need this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Refactoring or archiving

Talk:Denialism#Nomination of article for deletion

See these edits:[79], [80]. Neither of the editors who are placing text inside template seem to dispute the point that "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." (see the guideline WP:refactoring). The accept that I object to it, but argue that it is not refactoring it is archiving. I think they are wrong as Wikipeida archiving is usually considered moving text from a talk page to an archive page, while refactoring is "It is a stronger term than copy editing and can include removing superfluous content, summarizing long passages, and any other means that alter the presentation of information."

I think that in this case we should follow the refactoring guideline on this issue and remove the template, particularly as the comment in the header shows that the person adding the person adding had a strong opinion on the subject.

It is silly to edit war over the content of a talk page. It seems to me that the best way to solve this issue is see what the consensus (by disinterested editors on this page) on whether what has been done is archiving or refactoring. If the former then leave the section as it is now, and if the latter then revert to the edit before the template was added. -- PBS (talk) 11:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The usefulness of that thread had ended, as it was merely repeating other threads on the page and in the achieve, and the user that started the thread was advised how to nominate the article for deletion properly (which was the purpose of the thread). They apparently chose not to nominate it for deletion. You are free to do so if you would like. This also happened quite some tie ago and you have been active on the page since, and you haven't attempted to discuss this with me. Verbal chat 11:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for fair admin or clarification on wikipedia guidelines

Resolved

 – Policies are not laws, and blocks are not punitive. Poster has been indef blocked for semi-related reasons.Equazcion (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I reported User:ChrisO for violating 3rr and threatening to ban users The user has reverted 5-6 time in one day.

1st, [81]

2nd, [82]

3rd, [83]

4th, [84]

5th, [85]

He was given a 12 hour ban, but then the ban was lifted after two mintues. [[86]]

I am suprised because a user who has violate 3rr before usually gets at least the minimum 24 hours. However in this case, not only was the ban demoted to 12 hours, but then from 12 hours it was demoted to two minutes. I am wondering which wikipedia guidelines allows such break of laws of Wikipedia? Do all users get such a treatment? Imagine if one is to run a country like this and some people are more above the law, than others. That would be totally chaotic. So further clarification is requested because I thought users who have violated 3rr usually get more than a 2 minute block. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocks are not meant to be for punishment. ChrisO acknowledged the mistake before he got blocked. He then promised to not do it again, so what damage are we stopping? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 00:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know from Nepaheshgar what "law" he is referring to, because I have never seen any laws on Wikipedia. Only policies and guidelines that arent meant to be strictly enforced, and are meant to be used with common sense and discretion. As Beetstra pointed out "blocks are not meant to be for punishment". We dont have "laws" that if you "break" you are "punished"; we have ways of doing things generally, and if you dont conform to them then the Community decides what is appropriate to make sure it doesnt happen again, there is no set punishment for a set law. Am I the only one who thinks that way, did I miss WP:NOTSTATUTE being removed?Camelbinky (talk) 03:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

As previously said - "while ChrisO did violate 3RR it was in combatting some particularly egregious policy violations" - that it the reason his block was lifted so quickly. If someone violates the letter of a rule while obeying the spirit of what Wikipedia is about they are much more likely to be treated sympathetically. Exxolon (talk) 03:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Procedural note - the originator of this thread is currently blocked Exxolon (talk) 03:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, in which of those diffs did ChrisO threaten to block anybody? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO isn't an admin, so he wouldn't be able to block. User:LessHeard vanU did the blocking, as a result of the thread above, "Iranian nationalist disruption of human rights articles". Equazcion (talk) 05:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO gave the editor a standard level4 vandal warning, in which the language refers to the possibility of a block - the editor then took this to be a threat, or has presented it as such. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question, OP, quite honestly the "not punitive" argument is used much more liberally with administrators, former administrators, and well known community members than with others. Even if said editors are blocked, it is a useless venture as they will be shortly unblocked. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the ogre. I should also note that Nepaheshgar obviously used the wrong terminology. I think it would have been more helpful had editors responded as if he had used the right terminology (guideline instead of law) instead of contenting themselves with pointing out the mistake.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr unsigned Anon's attempt to bait and goad me into an edit war

This is the latest, just posted message left on my Talk page by Mr Unsigned Anon baiting and goading me to engage him in an edit war. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Jiujitsuguy#Gaza_War_3 This last post should make it clear to you who's at fault here.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC) It is specifically for this reason and other reasons involving racist undertones, that I had in the past informed Mr Unsigned Anon not to post on my page. Make no mistake, he will come across as apologetic and naive but he is well versed in Wiki rules and regs more so than me. He knows exactly how far to push the envelope without going over, though I think in this instance, he certainly did go over the line.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Unhelpful and irrelevant comments by Mr Unsigned Anon

Please go to http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Gaza_War#POV_tag for Mr Unsigned Anon's latest "helpful contribution" to the Gaza Discussion page. Instead of adding something that someone can genuinely respond to, he spews at best, incoherent gibberish and at worst, another profanity.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC) It is extremely difficult to respond to this type of comment as it adds nothing and gets us nowhere. I sincerely hope that some sanction is imposed against Mr Unsigned Anon.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Leveque

Resolved

 – Blocked for three months

Leveque (talk · contribs · logs · block log) appears to have no interest in contributing to Wikipedia other than to promote himself against WP:COI and harass anyone who intervenes when he does so. He's been blocked for spamming against his conflict of interest and using sockpuppets to avoid the blocks. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_36#User_Leveque and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive564#Sockpuppet_of_blocked_editors_Leveque_and_Loulou_50.

Since returning from his latest block, he's decided that once again he will use his userpage to promote articles he's written in violation of the very policies, guidelines, and consensus for which he's been blocked previously. --Ronz (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet incidents go at sockpuppet investigation and this should go in intervention against vandalism. GreenNezzadarGreen☎Green 17:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV is the link, if you want to follow the above user's suggestion. Equazcion (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Taking it to AIV, since no recent sockpuppet activity. --Ronz (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

AIV still isn't the appropriate forum for something like this. It's better dealt with here. Master of Puppets 22:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree and have removed the AIV entry. The situation is much more than simple vandalism and spamming. --Ronz (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Leveque returned on October 11 from a one-month block for Spamming links to external sites, block evasion, vandalism of Ronz's user page. This was his third block during the month of September. Now that he has returned to editing he's busy restoring links to all his promotional material to his user page. This is not as bad as re-adding that material to articles, which is what he was formerly doing. If he were an otherwise-productive editor the user page links might be informative, but so far they merely suggest that his attitude to Wikipedia has not changed, and he is not here to help. One option would be to notify him that if he resumes self-promotion in article space, he will be indefinitely blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 02:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted his spam linking on his user page again. Wikipedia:SPAM#External_link_spamming clearly states that such links are not allowed. I believe he has been notified on this? Meh. Netalarmtalk 02:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for three months by Kafziel. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Admin abuse by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise against me

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here, no admin abuse; RBI. Horologium (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I am philosophy student of thinking and Wikipedia newbie who wanted only correct technical errors in Greek alphabet series as follows. I used my name in two account forms, singular and plural to preemptively avoid confusion with other users. For my good contributions, I was only immediately banned by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise who prefers to have certain technical errors uncorrected in Wikipedia in long term for unknown reason. He is even proud of his admin abuse on his user page. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise accuses me for being sockmaster unrelated to me, User:Hriber/User:Hribers. Please restore my technical edits badly reverted by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. Thank you. 89.238.153.19 (talk) 13:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears that every single one of your edits broke the image at the top of the Greek letter infobox. Look. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, to be fair, he was making another edit to the template that would have fixed that breakage, partly. But there were other reasons to revert that change too. Anyway, he's a banned sock and these are open proxies he edits through, so, nothing to see here, move on. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

His reverted changes wanted to solve problem with Image:Sampi uc lc T-shaped.svg which doesn't fit into "uc lc.svg" scheme. Can you explain these all other reasons which are behind reverting of his changes? Is possible to solve problem with Image:Sampi uc lc T-shaped.svg without breaking other reasons that are behind reverting of his changes? I ask, because references of Qoppa and Sampi article are treating Image:Qoppa uc lc.svg/Image:Sampi uc lc T-shaped.svg as primary archaic-epigraphic forms, while treating Image:Qoppa new uc lc.svg/Image:Sampi uc lc.svg as secondary modern-numeric forms. Navbox in both articles should emphasize equivocally both primary archaic forms. 89.238.153.5 (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.191.252.68 (talk)

Edit War on Anita Dunn

Resolved

 – semi-protected an hour ago

Please help with the edit war on Anita Dunn. Thanks in advance. HyperCapitalist (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The article's already been semi-protected. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry -- didn't see that. HyperCapitalist (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Scoobie111/PissedOffStudentCollectiveofHSU

What is the best way to deal with a page like the above? It's basically just a rant against UC/CSU system, with no hope of ever becoming a valid article. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 17:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:MFD? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Done, see here. Tan | 39 17:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

user:Noleander and antisemitism-related articles

Resolved

 – Article at AFD

This] article, which seems to be largely if not wholely written by him, seems to be a thinly disguised pretext to bring out the anti-Semitic slur of Jews controlling the media. I find this personally offensive and I consider it a real embarassment to Wikipedia. The article on anti-Semitism can itself cover such "controversies," or articles on individual people who may have been accused of anti-Semitism, or, if I can figure out what makes this article "balanced," accused (yuch) of being Jewish. What next? Controversies related to the prevalence of Italians in organized crime? Controversies related to the prevalence of African Americans in crack- houses? Hate is easy once you get started. Slapping the word "controversy" on it does not make it go down any easier, and it certainly doesn't convert it into an encyclopedia article. How many racial stereotypes are we going to parade around at Wikipedia? I realize I could put in for an RfC but it is my hope that the disgraceful nature of this is evident to enough others that we don't need a prolongued debate. But what kind of person would even think to create such an article? I view it as an attack against me. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ditto on everything said by Slrubenstein, word-for-word it is also my opinion as both a Jew and an editor of Wikipedia.Camelbinky (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Blimey, that article is a disgrace. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to weigh in on the question of anti-semitism as I do not know either user:Noleander or user:Slrubenstein. However, having looked at the article and some of the sources, I have sent this to AfD here and will let the larger community make an appropriate decision. I do think that some caution needs to be exercised whenever an accusation such as this one is made as it may violate WP:NPA by making an accusation about a user that may not be true. Frmatt (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I was in the middle of sending it to AfD when someone else beat me to it. Black Kite 20:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of antisemitic accusations --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I didnt see a personal attack, and that definitely was not my intention by dittoing what slrubenstein said. I saw the lead of this thread asking the question if that user was a bigot or not, a very valid question because that user may indeed have such a history of being one here on Wikipedia and someone might be able to answer. Anyone reading the article can clearly see that it does seems to be intended as a slur. Nobody said that the user was indeed a racist or that he did intend it as a slur. I am sorry if someone thought it might have been an attack on the contributor (creator?) of the said article, but when for 4000 years your family has been attacked verbally and physically maybe the skin gets a little thin and tolerance for such slurs on your family gets old.Camelbinky (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That's what remaining objective is all about. I'm not defending the author, but I think it's more important to judge the article alone, rather than the person, and do so based on Wikipedia's standards rather than personal feelings (as much as is humanly possible). Equazcion (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I didn't accuse anyone of a personal attack or of violating WP:NPA. I was simply counselling caution about using phrases such as "anti-semite" which make a judgement on a person's character. I don't want good editors to end up blocked because they used phrases such as that one. Frmatt (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I want to confirm what Camelbinky wrote - it was a question. But I asked it because I felt attacked. In my mind anti-Semitism is an action, not a quality of one's character. I cannot comment on anyone's character, only on their actions. Put much more simply, I am asking other people with experience here if I have grounds to feel attacked. As to the others who have focused on the article and who have nominated it for deletion, I just have to thank you for taking action. Since I felt attacked, I hesitated t nominating it for deletion myself, as others could accuse me of self-interest which actually is kind of frightening also). Slrubenstein | Talk 21:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Cameron Scott seems to have found another article this same user has contributed to significantly and/or created. I know two articles doesnt make a pattern, but well, can someone take a look at Noleander's contributions and see if there seems to be a pattern of vandalism or disruption to existing legitimate Jewish-related articles or if there are more anti-semitic articles that this person has created? For those two articles alone there should be a strongly worded warning posted on the editor's talk page I would think. And IF there is found to be a pattern perhaps more action than just deleting the articles and posting a warning on the editor needs to be done so the editor learns this isnt acceptable. I am just wondering if an admin is willing to take some time in looking into the editor's background?Camelbinky (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The user appears to be engaged in canvassing, and as the user has been here for years, should know better. -- Avi (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstein and Camelbinky, if you believe the article(s) written by Noleander are problematic, take them to AfD, please, and not to ANI. Asking these sorts of loaded questions on ANI, and thereby accusing another editor of racism - a very serious allegation where I live - is a violation of good faith and our policy against personal attacks, and I strongly advise you not to do it again unless you have many and very persuasive diffs to back it up. (This comment is, of course, not an endorsement or defense of any actual anti-semitic disruption that may have been going on.)  Sandstein  06:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I still have an open mind on whether the article itself should be deleted or massively rewrittten. But this thread seems a textbook case of the phenomenon being discussed. Of course it is possible to suggest that such accusations are misused without oneself being an antisemite. RolandR 07:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I share Slrubenstein's concern, although I have toned down the thread title[87] as being needlessly accusatory. Further, although I won't re-open a thread closed by an administrator, this is a potentially viable AN/I matter should a single editor continue in the longer term to create ethnically-charged articles that are deleted after heated debates as unencyclopedic. I don't know where we are on this in terms of ongoing conduct, edit warring, incivility, and other things that usually go along with non-mainstream POV bias, but the articles presently under discussion are indeed troubling and strongly indicate a broader issue that could cause unnecessary strife if the long-term approach is playing whack-a-mole with individual articles. I do note that the editor appears to be civil if opinionated in the deletion debates. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have a position on the subject, but I just came across this article and it struck me as being pretty pointless as it's practically an individual's interpretation of a printed work (see notes at the end of the article). --uKER (talk) 18:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• I've never been involved in an ANI before, so I apologize if I dont understand the protocol. Just a quick history: I like movies, and I like the documentary "An Empire of Their Own". So I created an article on it, and - since it could be perceived as antisemtic - was careful to ensure that the article consisted mostly of quotes from the book, so as to remove any hint of bias by the the editor (me). As I wrote the article, I noticed there was no article on the old bigoted canard that "Jews control hollywood". I wasnt too familiar with the Antisemitism family of articles (and on hindsight I should have investigated the Antisemitic canard article more thoroughly) but I jumped in and wrote an article on "canard that Jews control Hollywood". Once again, I figured that the article could be very offensive, so I (1) mostly just quoted notable sources on the topic; and (2) made the title a softer title that wouldnt be so offensive ("Controversies about prevalence of jews ..."). Never in my wildest dreams did I think that those articles would be perceived as antisemitic in themselves (after all, there aleady were dozens of existing articles on other antisemtic canards). Finally, writing those articles got me thinking about antisemisitm, and since Im a big fan of Ralph Nader (due to his consumer activism .. I voted for him twice) I stumbled on the topic of "Antisemitism accusations are levied too much", which was also a point made by Noam Chomsky, another of my heros. I looked, and there was no article yet on this topic in Wikipedia, so once again I wrote a new article, using mostly quotes from primary sources to avoid any hint of bias from me, the editor. The fact that all 3 articles got suggested for AfD caught me a bit off-guard. I thought that the goal is to improve articles on notable topics, not to delete them. I do shamelessly admit that I think Wikipedia is overly censored, and suffers from too much political correctness, and that certainly influenced why I chose to write the latter two articles. I continue to believe that all 3 articles are notable, and deserve to be in this encyclopedia. Can they be improved? Absolutely .. and I'll be the first to help do so. --Noleander (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I have to agree, at least somewhat. I was rather disgusted by the response this particular article got. We're supposed to be the enlightened ones, yet we jumped to calling someone antisemitic for writing articles about antisemitism. I hope this experience hasn't soured you, Noleander, cause Wikipedia needs people willing to make the effort to write articles. Equazcion (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I'll let you know if it "has soured me" next week after the AfDs are finished :-) --Noleander (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
      • See, we can take this at face value rather than accusing editors of being antisemitic. I think the intention was quite the opposite. It's easy to upset people when one stumbles across racial/ethnic/religious stereotypes. Things that come off at offensive aren't usually meant to be. Some are upset that the "Jews control Hollywood" thing gets covered, and some were equally indignant when the category "Jewish-American musicians" (or something like it) was deleted. Stereotypes usually have origins in real-world customs, circumstances, or cultural traits. They get perpetuated by the group, its supporters both humble and chauvinistic, and its detractors both critical and bigoted. Cultural myths arise, books get written, films get made, jokes get told, and then there's a question in how to organize our coverage of it in a way that doesn't pay too much, or too little, or the wrong kind of, attention to ethnicity. That's not a question for AN/I, but I do think this is a great reminder to assume good faith, and I'm a little bit humbled that I slipped off that wagon a bit here. I'm still against these articles as a content matter, and think that essay-like coverage of stereotypes is the wrong way to go, but sorry to question the motivations for writing them... - Wikidemon (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Okay, so lets leave it there with the understanding that nobody intended to violate WP:NPA and if it was violated, that it was accidental and not intended to offend anyone...and...that the articles were created with the best of intentions, not to promote one particular POV. So, let's allow the AFDs to run their course and go about our editing, sound good? Frmatt (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • If you're talking about closing this discussion, I'd prefer to leave it open for a while. There was a broad AGF violation here, so I don't think it should be swept away quite so quickly. Allow the lesson to sink in a bit, and leave the door open for public apologies, if anyone else has any. It's of course easy for me to act holier-than-thou right now, having not given in to the bandwagon in this particular instance, but I hope that when I do screw up in the future along with a host of respected editors, others won't be so quick to sweep it away either. Equazcion (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

User:80.177.99.30 at Earth Song

• 80.177.99.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been disrupting the Earth Song article since July. He reverts my edits simply to be disruptive, not even looking at what he is restoring: factually incorrect information, grammatical errors, original research, unreliable sources and links to copyright material. He has been warned numerous times (including one following a previous report to ANI), but fails to heed them. Pyrrhus16 20:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a clear case, he's reverting all of your edits. Support blocking of the IP, or Topic ban if that's possible with IP users.--SKATER ^Speak. 14:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like he's now reverted another editor from a different IP. I agree with the above suggested block, or semi-protection of the article. Pyrrhus16 18:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Censorship of Alzheimer's Research

Resolved

 – All content deleted, NormanAJ (talk · contribs) blocked indef.  Sandstein  06:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Is Censorship of Alzheimer's Research possibly libelous? Should it be speedily deleted?--RadioFan (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Not libelous, just silly soapboxing for some agenda. I've nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Censorship of Alzheimer's Research.  Sandstein  15:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: I've speedy closed. The 'article' was simply soapboxing a particular point of view, and acting as a coatrack for a request for people to contact an advocacy group. The title is grossly inappropriate, and the AfD is already snowballed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

NormanAJ

I don't know what should be done about NormanAJ (talk · contribs). This user has been posting long, incoherent rants about Alzheimer's on his userpage, user talk page, two user subpages, and in article space (Alzheimer's disease Theory, Censorship of Alzheimer's Research) as well as the already-deleted 20 Trillion reasons for Alzheimer's disease. In just one day, his userpage has become flooded with warning after warning, and he has made no attempt to communicate with other users. There are absolutely no useful edits among this user's contribs. I have no idea what this user is trying to do, but it's clearly not beneficial to the encyclopedia and may warrant a block. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur that a block is appropriate for being a soapboxing-only account. I've declined your CSD request of User:NormanAJ/test because it does not clearly meet any WP:CSD, but if we get consensus here that this user and his rants are not welcome, that should be a sufficient basis for deletion.  Sandstein  16:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The Google cache of Safe Food also shows unambiguous promotion of a nonprofit with no web presence at all. At a guess, it probably consists of this one person. I would guess the user is never going to be a positive addition to the project. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You need consensus for an indef block? Okay, support. Honestly, this should be a no-brainer. But I also think nationalist POV pushers should be indeffed, so what do I know? Auntie E. 16:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of soap-boxing. An indefinite block is appropriate. There is no indication that this is accidental nor the actions of a inexperienced newcomer.--RadioFan (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm strongly inclined to believe that the 'articles' created were indeed the work of an 'inexperienced newcomer'. His actions certainly don't demonstrate significant Wikipedia-related experience. The articles were under remarkably nonstandard titles, no inline wikiformatting was used, he made some test edits in the sandbox, in some cases he put duplicate text in the article and associated talk pages, and so forth. He's got a conspiracy theory, he's shaky (I'm being charitable) on the science, and he's desperately trying to publish The Truth — but I don't think he's a returning editor. That said, while I see no evidence of bad faith – he isn't doing any sort of SEO spamming, or damaging our existing articles, or being abusive to other editors – I doubt that this particular individual will ever be in a position to make a beneficial contribution to the project. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with TenOfAllTrades and am indefinitely blocking the user.  Sandstein  06:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, since no one else has commented about -- "long, incoherent rants about Alzheimer's". It can truly be a sad thing when one's mind is going. -- llywrch (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You're telling me! This one I'm using is second-hand, with one careful owner and several careless ones. Remind me tomorrow, perhaps. Rodhullandemu 23:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Ali Muratovic

The user Ali Muratovic (talk · contribs) keeps creating articles about individuals and organizations with no WP:RS coverage to verify their meeting the WP:BIO criteria, such as:

• Ali Cerimovic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ali Fehmi Džabič (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Deer Park Mosque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ismail Abdurrahmanović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Maribyrnong Greens Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

They do not appear to understand WP:N. — 141.156.161.245 (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

it is quite possible that one or more of these will survive if some attempt is done at referencing. I've left him some appropriate advice. This really didn't need to come to general community attention. DGG ( talk ) 22:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps … my evil twin just got frustrated and wanted some backup. :-) Thnx fer the intervention. — 141.156.161.245 (talk) 00:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit notice request

Resolved

 – Editnotice in place. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

As per a long series of vandalism on the article Malthus (demon), I would like to request that User:Ryulong/Sandbox/Malthusnotice be moved to Template:Editnotices/Page/Malthus (demon) such that a better warning be placed on the page (rather than the self referential text I have added to it currently).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Hope it helps. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Unthinking vandalism of cited material by User:Ckatz & User:Ruslik0

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

Aurora (astronomy). Ckatz & Ruslik are tag-team reverting my corrections to this article, which I've cited sources for. They clearly have no idea of the subject material, having never contributed creatively to the subject, but that doesn't stop them repeatedly reverting my corrections.

I've been trying to get this edit[88], which was pretty much off the top of my head plus a little research, to stick, on & off, since 27 August, 2009. On that day I was in the process of putting together some proper refs, but Ruslik undid me within 15 minutes of my correction. So I thought, what is the point?

I recently chucked a couple of naked sources

1. [89]
2. [90]

in the text (I wasn't going to waste formatting effort only to be unthinkingly reverted) the article was still reverted. I was not surprised, and was right not to waste effort.

Ruslik reverts:

• [91]
• [92]
• [93]
• [94]
• [95]

Ckatz reverts:

• [96]
• [97]

A sample of their edit summaries:

• restore more encyclopedic text
• I do not agree with removal of information
• It was reverted because the rewrite was not of the same quality as the previous version.
• Are you a physicist

They are clearly unthinking vandals.

Even when another user reverted back to my version[98], saying, "don't remove cited mateial", Ckatz came back with the ludicrous justification about quality.

This is a fending off exercise by these two users, who clearly have no desire to improve the article, and every desire to harass me.

They have partially succeeded in fending me off, because of them I have done no other research for this article, what would be the point?

Could these two users be topic banned from this article? Thanks. HarryAlffa (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Your false accusations of vandalism are disruptive. Ruslik_Zero 15:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not vandalism; it's an edit war. Simonm223 (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, looks like a content dispute to me. dispute resolution seems a more appropriate path than ANI to me. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Have to disagree. The material I'm replacing is unreferenced, and clearly wrong. Referenced material is being removed with spurious justifications. Repeated removal of referenced material is vandalism in my book. The targeting by these two users of me is harassment as well, but the real concern is the inaccuracies of the article I'm ironing out. Topic ban for these two please. HarryAlffa (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The proper course would be to ask for assistance from the Physics or Astronomy workgroups--we have people here who can help resolve this and--quite possibly--write a better section than either of the two. DGG ( talk ) 16:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd ask that anyone reviewing this first compare the versions in question, and note especially the latter paragraphs of Harry's version. From what I can tell, it does not appear to be encyclopedic text. As to his spurious accusation above, it would be of great benefit to first review Harry's contribution history, and his lengthy list of issues on this board and elsewhere. Really, that speaks more to this particular situation than anything else. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

{edit conflict} Good call DGG. Simonm223 (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

DGG, kick this into the long grass? You see no need to examine the behaviour of Ckatz & Ruslik? HarryAlffa (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

(outOfSequence)Ckatz deceit and mischaracterisation, "the latter paragraphs ... it does not appear to be encyclopedic". Even if you agreed with this assessment, it is in no way justification for the removal of cited material. Notice the sleight of hand in directing you to other concerns. He seems to be saying, "Me and Ruslik have had trouble with this guy, so that justifies us harassing him".

{moved comment to ANI within ANI below}

(edit conflict)You've been trying to edit war an underreferenced section into an article for two months, which is much harder to read than the existing version, you haven't gone to talk once, and you insist it's the other editors' problem?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sarek, You refused my olive branch over your misunderstanding recently, now you turn up here with the perverse implication that I refused to discuss a point with others on Talk. This is a deliberate deceit. The proper procedure would be for Ruslik to start a thread on the talk before he reverted an article whose subject he knows little about. Neither he nor Ckatz made any such effort on Talk, in fact Ckatz almost universally refuses to contribute to the talk pages of any of the articles he involves himself with. HarryAlffa (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Deliberate deceit, huh? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes? There is no communication on the talk page by anyone on any of this. If you are only going by the history of the talk page (as your link suggests: 4 contribs since end of July) and not looking at the talk page itself then you have deceived yourself, and have thus carelessly passed that deceit onto this page. I'm a little pissed off at your accusation of edit war when Ckatz & Ruslik have been removing cited material - repeatedly. Particularly when you say I've been trying to edit war. Your prejudice and hostility are plain, you should recuse yourself. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

{moved whole load of comments to ANI within ANI below)

Back on topic

Ckatz & Ruslik have repeatedly, and tag-teamingly reverted cited material.

Topic ban for these two please. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Referenced? The only link (web link, not reference) that you managed to insert is this one, which, however, contains almost no useful information. So, your version is uncited and contains serious errors and omissions. You removed a lot of useful information about auroral emissions, and you are trying to use a confusing terminology, which you invented yourself. Ruslik_Zero 18:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes referenced, two separate links, as I explained above I was not going to waste formatting effort to have you revert anyway - which you did.

So lies you have told here

1. only one reference
2. "contains almost no useful information"
3. "removed a lot of useful information about auroral emissions"
4. I am guilty of neologism

1. There are two references [99], NASA[100]
2. "The flow of charged particles from the Sun, known as the solar wind, expands outwards to the surrounding space. Close to the Earth the solar wind interacts with the magnetosphere, feeding energy and particles there. Processes taking place in the magnetosphere lead to the acceleration and precipitation of electrons and protons in the upper atmosphere of the Earth, know as the ionosphere. When the charged particles enter the atmosphere, they excite the ambient atoms and molecules, which emit light when returning to the ground state, thus creating aurora (northern lights). In this course, we study the formation of aurora as an ionospheric process as well as from the viewpoint of solar wind-magnetosphere-ionosphere coupling."[101]
3. I corrected, not removed, info - as per the bold parts above.
4. I have invented no new terms of any sort

Now that we've established you will tell blatant lies about evident facts, we then examine your conclusions and, no surprise, your conclusions rely on the lies you have told about the facts. Then you throw in "contains serious errors and omissions" which is really just another lie. After that you have become quite hysterical.

You're trying your best to turn this into a "I said he said" thing about the content, but you have shown yourself to be a liar, and you and Ckatz have removed cited material in order to harass me. HarryAlffa (talk) 12:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I would draw the involved editors attention to the Bold-Revert-Discuss policy. 'Nuf said. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That might apply if it was a bold recasting of existing material, and not the correction it was. So I think it fails at that first hurdle. But I thank you for paying some attention here, and ask your indulgence in looking deeper at the false claims of Ruslik above. Ckatz & Ruslik have no record of creative interest in this article, and you can see above that Ckatz reckons past conflicts give them the right to harass - which is what this really is. HarryAlffa (talk) 12:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Repeated accusations of lying and false claims is a violation of WP:No personal attacks, and may get you blocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

... whereas actually lying and making false claims isn't. HarryAlffa (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment about the complaining editor

I can't really say much about the change proposed by HarryAlffa, but based on previous interactions and my overall impression of his contributions: I would revert any such relatively big edit by this editor on sight unless I could convince myself that it is factually correct or another, reasonable, editor convincingly supported the edit and would accept responsibility for it. This is the only editor so far that I would say something like this about.

HarryAlffa has proved in the past that (1) he is not a team player, and (2) his claims of having expert knowledge that trumps the consensus of everybody else are out of proportion to the little sense and knowledge that he may possess. This user is here to improve the encyclopedia, but does not seem to be contributing to this goal by any objective measure.

Recent previous ANI threads involving this user:

• June [102], followed by [103]. Result: Hard to say what the result was, but certainly not what HarryAlffa expected. Discussion died after he was blocked for a week.
• August [104]. Result: Proposed community ban against HarryAlffa not appropriate at that time.
• August [105]. Result: HarryAlffa blocked for a week. Discussion died after uncontradicted proposal of an indef block.

This is probably once more not the right time to discuss a community ban, but if HarryAlffa doesn't learn a few inconvenient truths about himself this will have to happen sooner or later. (Links to problematic behaviour, and some pretty funny examples of it, can be found in the ANI archive links.) Hans Adler 13:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think what Hans is saying, "I don't like this guy and it is therefore alright by me if you harass him and remove cited material".

You can see his attempt to pick a fight with me here Artificial Intelligence User Accounts with this[106]. I instead used humour and whimsy to confuse him. This is another of his contributions designed to sow conflict. HarryAlffa (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I trust readers of this section follow at least one of the links before making up their minds. Yours would be a good start, as it does illustrate how you are putting your energy into eccentric distractions. Now if you had said that you "used humour and whimsy" from the start you might have convinced me it was just a misunderstanding and there is still hope to get you on board this project. Hans Adler 17:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Both of you are showing a great level of maturity at this moment.--AtlanticDeep (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This comment is offensive, whether it is read as sarcastic or not. It doesn't seem to be compatible with having followed the links above. Hans Adler 01:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hans, there was no misunderstanding in you trying to pick a fight. I used whimsy and humour to bamboozle you, I did not say my proposal was purely whimsical - whimsy and humour are not incompatible with a serious proposal, as everyone with a sense of these things was able to discern at the time. HarryAlffa (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Atlantic, thank you for your mature reflection. HarryAlffa (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Ckatz persistent reverts against concensus

YellowMonkey has refused to comment. Please, could an admin take a look at this? HarryAlffa (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ckatz has recently been unsupportedly dismissing the legitimate contributions of others as "vandalism" and "trolling". It may be that Ckatz would benefit from advice by more experienced editors/admins. --24.187.199.178 (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Your difference link includes the "trolling" comment but has nothing to indicate Ckatz referred to any edits as vandalism. Furthermore how is this remotely relevant to the discussion at hand? Simonm223 (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a link in the supplied diff that points to the vandalism comment, iirc.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The difference link pointed to another editor replying to a (supposed) vandalism comment but does not appear to include CKatz mentioning vandalism. I'll take another look in case I missed something. Simonm223 (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, difference link does not include CKatz using the word "vandalism" or any variant therein. Still don't know why this is relevant since the only person accusing anybody of vandalism right now is HarryAlffa. Simonm223 (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The link supplied goes to a talkpage. On that talkpage is a link to [107], which is what the anon is referring to. I reserve judgment on whether the term is accurate or not. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, a bit convoluted to post a diff link to a link to a comment but I can buy that. Notwithstanding the fact Ckatz has used the phrase "vandalism" questionably in the past what does this have to do with the current topic of discussion. My understanding was that HarryAlffa called edits vandalism, not Ckatz. Simonm223 (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The IP's comments have no bearing on this matter. He/she is unhappy at having tangential BLP text rejected from Chevrolet Tahoe, and has since been following all of my edits. (See Special:Contributions/24.187.199.178 and compare it to Special:Contributions/Ckatz.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for not doing things the best way; I'm new but learning much. An earlier editor's near-question seemed directed to me ("The IP"): "Your difference link includes the "trolling" comment but has nothing to indicate Ckatz referred to any edits as vandalism."[108]
It's just that I too have endured baseless accusation by Ckatz. Frankly, her actions seem quite different from what I'd expect from an admin.

Regarding the matter I mentioned earlier, four or five editors all moved to make Dog sex a disambiguation page. Ckatz repeatedly reverts while insisting that others discuss the matter (yet she herself refuses to do so until, like, yesterday). Of the seven links which follow, the last link shows that Ckatz calls the last attempt to disambiguate "harassment" and then she locks the article claiming "excessive vandalism" (of which there is literally no evidence).
[109][110][111][112][113][114][115].
It seems likely that Ckatz is an enthusiastic, but insufficiently judicious, editor/admin. --24.187.199.178 (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

AuthorityTam, I'd only ask that if you are going to claim I've made a "baseless accusation" against you, that you indicate where and when. I can't find any trace of a post from me on your talk page, nor from you to mine, and the only post you've made with "Ckatz" in the summary appears to be the one you just made here. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact, having reviewed your contributions, I'm finding it difficult to see any articles we've both edited. There are two or three that may overlap, but I didn't see any interaction between us there. Again, please provide details or retract the claim. Thanks in advance. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

{edit conflict}That's me, I used my neighbor's computer. I'll figure out how to create my own account tomorrow since I think I'm going to be around a while. I for one am not intimidated by Ckatz threats: [116]. --24.187.199.178 (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ckatz is doing the same thing on the Medical Cannabis page, fyi. Just take a quick look at the history. 68.13.178.225 (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ckatz seems to dismiss others' work too quickly. Another editor may have spent much time creating something useful for readers, yet Ckatz might spend maybe two or three minutes consideration before rejecting and reverting all the efforts of others. For example, Ckatz also had an indefensible position regarding "SG1". She seems to have spent, at most, four minutes evaluating the matter[117]; then FIRST she cleared the disambiguation page[118], and SECOND she removed Stargate SG1's link to the disambiguation page[119], then was on to revert an unrelated article all within five minutes! That's myopic, since a disambiguation page for SG1 is an obvious! So, another editor has to go to the trouble of properly creating what was apparently too-hastily deleted, and must do so with care lest Ckatz pretend that he commits "vandalism" or "harassment" or other imaginary crimes against her. No one will be surprised to learn that SG1 is again a disambiguation page[120], despite the hurry-up deleting/reverting campaign of Ckatz. With so many examples like that, a person would have good reason to believe that Ckatz is not a sufficiently conscientious editor/admin. --24.187.199.178 (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll get User:YellowMonkey to look at this. He's blocked someone in the past for a week for "persistent editing against consensus", I wonder if he'll be consistent with his friend as he was with that victim? HarryAlffa (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Four individual editors have made a disambig page for dog sex, Ckatz has reverted them all; User:Xezbeth, User:Peter Napkin Dance Party, User:Kevinmon, User:24.187.199.178
The first revert had no edit summary, then:

• "Discuss at Talk:Canine reproduction first"
• "Wait for discussio to occur"
• "rv. - no consensus for this change"
• "rv.; please note that the issue of converting this page from a redirect to a disambiguation page is still under discussion at Talk:Canine reproduction"
• "rv. harassment by IP 24.*"

Then comes page protection, "Protected Dog sex: Excessive vandalism: IP changing before discussion complete"

This is typical of Ckatz' position. What he's is saying is, "You need permission first before you do this". Totally anti-empathetic to Wikipedian ideals.

He is unsuited to adminship.

The talk page was moribund, but then he puts something there, and then reverts with edit summary, "please note that the issue of converting this page from a redirect to a disambiguation page is still under discussion at Talk:Canine reproduction"

He is unsuited to adminship.

Then comes the accusations of, "harassment by IP 24.*", not true.

He is unsuited to adminship.

Then he pretends there has been, "Excessive vandalism", to justify protection.

He is unsuited to adminship.

I think he can reasonably be described as deceitful - that is my experience with him, and is as I pointed out in the ANI which contains this one. HarryAlffa (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly "the IP" gets a bit hacked off at being falsely accused of vandalism, and leaves a message on Ckatz talk page[121], which he deletes with the edit summary, "rv. trolling". Then Ckatz leaves a message accusing the IP of harassment[122]

Please note that your continued efforts to harass someone you've had a disagreement with are unacceptable. It is one thing if you wish to mirror my contribution list and fix genuine errors that exist in the articles.. That course of action, while creepy, is not a concern. However, it is another matter entirely when you begin to interfere with legitimate actions. Please stop, before this requires further measures.

— Ckatz

From "the IP" reply he is a bit surprised at this further accusation. HarryAlffa (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Harry, you need to read carefully WP:AGF. You have violated this very important policy repeatedly on this page by assuming the basest of motivations of people. I'm surprised no one here has pointed it out to you. You need to focus on edits, not what you think are editors' motivations. Auntie E. 15:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think I've "assumed"? You need to read this whole ANI carefully for the evidence WP:AGF asks for. That very important policy is not for the protection of non-truth sayers and deceivers. May I respectfully suggest that your efforts would be better directed at Ckatz & Ruslik in modifying their behaviour. The project would much appreciate your efforts in that endeavour. HarryAlffa (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Harry, I'm not going to bother pointing out the flaws in your claims, as that has proved utterly fruitless in the past. I will say, however, that I'd appreciate it if you could at least make an effort to accurately represent events rather than just spinning them to suit your purposes. As well, you should really examine the IP 24's contribution history carefully before basing your case too heavily on that individual. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I want say that HA is especially good at one thing—spreading slur about others. The dab page in question was a clear violation of our WP:BLP policy. Ckatz made only one error—did not delete the history of the page. Ruslik_Zero 18:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

um, Dog sex is NOT a biography of a living person so WP:BLP does not really apply. Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought I would chime in on this subject as I am the main force behind Dog sex. I won't claim that I know ckatz's mind, but she seems overly tied up with the status of Dog sex. Even after a discussion was posted, and no one commented in weeks, she still had a problem with it. Even when an editor (probably patrolling recent changes) reverted her revert because he (the editor probably patrolling recEnt changes) saw it for what it was--a user taking away information and replacing it by near-blanking the article. I'm not sure why she is so concerned with the status of Dog sex. but she seems almost too concerned, and not at all a disinterested editor. I can not speak to her editing history, but as far as Dog sex is concerned, it isn't the best. I can understand why she claims 24* is herassing her, but seriously, it looks like he has been making mostly-constructive edits. So what if he follows her around and edits the same articles as her? Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

BLP policy applies to any article that contains information about a living person. And calling somebody "dog sex" (this was written in the dab page) is an insult. I also strongly advise you not recreate the dab in the form it existed before I deleted its history. Ruslik_Zero 19:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall anyone being mentioned as being dog sex in the disambig page. I think someone was mentioned there because SHE WROTE A BOOK INVOLVING SEX WITH A DOG. Hence, people interested in dog sex might be interested in her book thus her. The article did not say SHE had sex with a dog (which in most circles I could see as being an insult). I do not think it is slander or liable or whatever if we include an author who writes about dog sex in an aritcle ABOUt dog sex, just seems like good policy to me. Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You seems to have bad memory. Saying that "dog sex may refer to ... {name of a person}, a professor who wrote a book about sex with a puppy" was grossly offensive. Ruslik_Zero 07:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It is impossible for either one of us to know because it has been censored. Maybe the wording was wrong, but I still think that having a professor who wrote about on the subject listed in the disambig page would be a good idea. The proper way about it is the CHANGE THE WORDING, not censor the information. But, if it is against the policy then I can understand why you would delete that specific instance within the history, but I still do not understand why the entire disambig page was censored. Note that Ckatz's original problem wit hteh page had nothing to do with BLP and I feel that BLP is being pulled out now when it looks like there is consensus on the state of the Dog sex article. But by bringing up this new accusation against it you are making it even longer to have it up. :( Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ckatz misleads the community

Ckatz insists on the accusation of Harassment by IP 24.187.199.178; Host: Optimum Online (Cablevision Systems). Organization: FAM MED ASSC. City: West Babylon, NY 11704

[123]

you should really examine the IP 24's contribution history carefully

— Ckatz

I can find no evidence of harassment by any IP of Ckatz

[124]

Please note that your continued efforts to harass someone you've had a disagreement with are unacceptable. It is one thing if you wish to mirror my contribution list and fix genuine errors that exist in the articles.. That course of action, while creepy, is not a concern. However, it is another matter entirely when you begin to interfere with legitimate actions. Please stop, before this requires further measures.

— Ckatz

I have examined IP 24.187.199.178 contributions carefully - it is not true there has been any harrassment by this user, nor can I see any evidence of editing by anyone which could remotely be described as harassment.

Unless someone can show some diffs here, it must be concluded that Ckatz is deliberately misleading the community by outright lying.
Please correct me with some diffs if I'm wrong, and please no distracting tirades and accusations of smears - only diffs will do. HarryAlffa (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

"Unless someone can show some diffs here, it must be concluded that Ckatz is deliberately misleading the community by outright lying." - That turns out not to be the case. As you have already been advised, please give wp:AGF a good read.- Sinneed 14:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I note the asymmetry in the advice being given to me alone - if that is your view, you must also give it to Ckatz & Ruslik.

You say, "That turns out not to be the case". Perhaps you could show the evidence for that on this page, rather than simply making a claim - show some diffs please, or something, which will result in a different conclusion. HarryAlffa (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

That because you can not find the evidence does not mean that it does not exist. Ruslik_Zero 19:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah! An intellectually typical contribution from Ruslik - someone else explain it to him, I'm to busy laughing! Why am I still surprised by this guy? But I am!!! Amazing! HarryAlffa (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Repeated posts by User:Carljung

I have tried to put similar type of complaints on Ckatz page but she removes it immediately. You just have to see her contributions to see her childish behavior. She removes links, materials etc without having any knowledge of the subject and always hides behind the fact that she is an adminstrator and has the right to do anything that she likes. I think this disruptive behaviour should be reported to the arbitration commitee and I think we should make a concentrated efoort in getting her removed as an adminstrator. The whole edifice of Wikipedia collapses with such ignorant adminstrators. Carljung (talk) 02:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd hoped to simply ignore this SPA whose sole purpose on Wikipedia has been to harass me (see Special:Contributions/Carljung). However, since he/she has seen fit to post here, I'd welcome another admin reviewing the matter. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd also wonder if a CU is in order; the language in the posts reminds me of Serafin. Could be wrong, of course, but... --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ckatz, the harassment is not my posting but your continuous removal of links and materials according to your whimsical notions of administrative power. Somebody has to just look at your contributions. I am sure you maybe doing some useful things for Wikipedia but your lack of knowledge and understanding on subjects is very shallow and troublesome. Please remember little knowledge is a very dangerous thing and in the hands of a Wikipedian administrator like you it is lethal for Wikipedia! In fact there are lots of articles written about what ails Wikipedia and I am sure most of them may have an administrator like you in their mind. I appeal to you to please stick to editorial corrections only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carljung (talk • contribs) 04:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have indef blocked User:Carljung as a single purpose harassment account. They are probably a sock puppet too. I may file a request for checkuser to determine whether this account is connected with any of the others in this thread. Jehochman ^Talk 18:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed by CU as a sockpuppet of Akraj, the head of an Indian institute who has repeatedly used socks and IP accounts for the purpose of adding self-promotional links to his own work. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

User Akraj(blocked) contributions[125] don't intersect with any of the articles by "the IP" here. Does CU confirm IP24.187.199.178 is a sock? Or that only Carljung is of Akraj? HarryAlffa (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Harry, in case the previous text isn't clear, this subsection is entirely about the sock Carljung. IP 24.* hasn't posted here, nor has anyone suggested they are related. (I certainly wouldn't have suggested such a thing, as I'm already aware of the IP ranges Akraj tends to use.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you have admitted that fact here. As I've indicated above, and you have not provided evidence to support your claims, I think you are not telling the truth on this page. So you can rest assured that it will be very unlikely that I will seek it from you. So please now go to the section above and support your accusations against IP24.187.199.178, and justify your repeated reverts against three other editors making the same edit as this IP. HarryAlffa (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll tolerate many things, Harry, but I value integrity and honesty very highly - and I certainly will not accept unwarranted and unjustified accusations of "lying". Despite our considerable differences, I had held out some small glimmer of hope that you might really be interested in the good of the project. I now realize that this was a mistake. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

A lot of blah blah in this dead section is of no use to anyone. If you want to show I am wrong, then attend to these sections

• Unthinking vandalism of cited material by User:Ckatz & User:Ruslik0
  You appear to be deceptive & misrepresent/mischaracterise
• User:Ckatz persistent reverts against concensus
  Justify your repeated reverts against three other editors making the same edit. You asked me to inspect User:24.187.199.178 contribs carefuly, I did ...
• Ckatz misleads the community ... and it would seem that your claims of harassment by this editor (or by any other) are false. I repeat my request here; that you provide diffs in the sections above showing this harassment and other things you claim. HarryAlffa (talk) 12:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

HarryAlffa, you are hereby admonished to stop making personal attacks on other editors, as you have a history of doing, [126][127] to stop engaging in battles on Wikipedia, (such as these threads) and to stop adding original research to articles [128]. You have three times been blocked for a week. If your editing style does not improve, you may be blocked for a lengthier time, possibly indefinitely.

Consider this a last warning. Jehochman ^Talk 12:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Followup

Hey, I wasn't following this conversation down here, but in case there was any concern (since I was a bit involved in this, at least insofar as it involved the article Dog sex), I am not any of the above editors or the IP address. Thank you. Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 02:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no connection to User:Carljung. I am "the IP" mentioned in the above thread, aka 24.187.199.178 aka 24dot; I mentioned Ckatz disruptive work on SG1. For reasons only partially related to that, I believe Ckatz is unqualified to be an admin. Just in the last few weeks, it's clear that...

• She does delete (not archive) unflattering comments from her Talk page, which seems wrong somehow.
• She does perform rapid-fire substantial deletions after what seems merely cursory thought.
• She does revert despite consensus.
• She does level empty accusations of "vandalism" and "harassment" and "trolling".

It's relatively easy to find multiple examples of each of these behaviors in her history (although the Dog sex history was deleted before this thread was even closed, which seemed premature). I'm quite surprised that she hasn't lost some admin privileges (even temporarily). --24dot (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ckatz is deleting unfavorable comments about herself. Please, if another admin can help educate Ckatz, that would be great.
She doesn't listen to me. --24dot (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand that it is unpleasant to correct a colleague, but it seems that Ckatz (an "admin") requires admin correction. Ckatz continues to delete valid comments for no other apparent reason than that the comments displease her. Furthermore, she does so while disingenuously marking her edits as "minor". Also, see User_talk:24dot#About Ckatz. --24dot (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Iranian nationalist disruption of human rights articles

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

Arad (talk · contribs) and Xashaiar (talk · contribs), an editor with a long history of Iranian nationalist POV-pushing, are repeatedly disrupting Human rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and History of human rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with the addition of unsourced, POV, factually erroneous material while attacking sourced material as "original research". The material was written by another Iranian nationalist editor, Arad (talk · contribs). A consensus of uninvolved editors on the article's talk page agree that the material breaches a range of policies, including WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:V, etc. The material being added promotes a fringe theory originated by the late Shah of Iran and subsequently promoted by his supporters.

Xashaiar has responded aggressively on the article talk page. He has done little but attack myself and other editors (see Talk:Human rights#Cyrus Cylinder), despite requests to tone it down. He has edit-warred to restore the problematic material [129], [130]; also see [131]. He has attacked material properly sourced to an academic work published by a major academic press as "original research", apparently because he doesn't like it.[132] He shows no willingness whatsoever to follow even the most basic of Wikipedia's content policies. It's POV and OR all the way.

Arad has tag-teamed with Xashaiar to repeatedly add or restore material that consists of unsourced personal commentary.[133], [134], [135]; also [136].

In addition, Nepaheshgar (talk · contribs), another editor with a long history of Iranian nationalist disruption, has repeatedly copied-and-pasted huge chunks of material from an external (non-reliable) website in plain violation of copyright, despite requests and warnings.[137], [138], [139].

In view of this disruptive behaviour and apparent total rejection of basic editing rules, I'd suggest blocking these three disruptive editors. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

A block of Arad is certainly warranted, and possibly Xashaiar as well. This is nationlist POV-pushing at totally offtopic articles, pure and simple. Moreschi (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

But the people whom ChrisO has reverted are not restricted to Arad and me. There are three other non-Iranian editors who did add Cyrus Cylinder and ChrisO reverted. Please see my comment below. Xashaiar (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

What makes it worse is the fact that they're aware of the content policies (NPOV, V and the rest) - they simply don't want to follow them. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, some highly tendentious editing here. (The copyvio was a quite blatant copy-and-paste even down to the oddities of commentary on the website). --Folantin (talk) 21:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

1)

In defense of myself against the accusations of ChrisO. An uninvolved admin can look at my wikipedia record and compare it to ChrisO who lost his administrationship for constantly violating wikipedia laws. I have edited Wikipedia for a long time and do not have a single block. ChrisO has blocks and actually lost his administrationship. So his characterization of me is at least suprising.

2)

As per the false accusation of copy right violation. I simply quoted many books.

A) Frye, Danmadayev, Plato, Talbott, Curtis , Woods, Laursen and most of those quotes are not in the website. Approximately 70-80% of these quotes are not in the website

B) The website is quoting books and those books do not belong to the website. I might not have a complete understand of Wikipedia copy right laws, but if a website quotes couple of sentences from a Book, and I mention the same book, does that book belong to the website? C) These quotes exist outside the website. The website has no copy right over them. They are from books, some of them even passed their copy right dates. Quoting some sentences from a book is not a violation of wikipedia copy right. Since when does a random website gets copy right over books? No such thing was mentioned in the website that the article has copy right over the books it is quoting.

D) Not a single sentence from the author of that website is mentioned. Only some of the quotes he has used were also used by me. There is no proof I am quoting him or he is quoting me.

E) We can find exact wikipedia articles in many websites.. does that mean it should be deleted.

The actual quotes are here[140]

As far as I can tell, I did not copy sentences from the author of that website. And if this needs to go any further, I have complete copy right over that website since I know the author and he has granted me rights to use any information on his website that I feel like using. I'll be happy to CC the relevant admin or even give them the contact of that author to verify this. However, I only used 5-6 quotes from the books that were quoted by that author and that author has no copy right over those books.

3) ChrisO has threatened several users with banning them. This is at least harrassment.

4) To re-emphasize, I did not even once edit the article. I am just quoting WP:RS sources. The article needs simply mediation from an uninvolved user. Thanks. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope. You simply copied and pasted material you found on an unreliable web-site verbatim. --Folantin (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You can repeat the same thing. However: A) As mentioned, that author has given me permission to use the material.

B) Most of my quotes were not from that website. Plato, Frye, Danmadayev, Talbott, Laursen and many others.

C) I copied the same sentences quoted in the books quoted by that author in that website, but quoting those same books is not a copy right violation as far as I know, since those books do not belong to the authors. It is no different than quoting google books. That is searching google books for a specific book and quoting couple of sentences from it. The author of that website has no copy right over those books just like no one in wikipedia has copy rights over most google book searches, but they are quoted. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Also using the term "Iranian nationalists" is racist as the author is trying to oppose the viewpoint of others by simply labeling their background. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Bull. You and others are simply repeating an Iranian nationalist meme dating back to the Shah. The others I expect no less from but you know better. You also know better than to cry racist, which I deeply resent. Moreschi (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec)So where is this permission? Unless we have it in writing here it doesn't count. Not that it's a reliable source in any case. Plus, you clearly never read the original sources because you never noticed how they had been edited tendentiously. And "Iranian nationalism" is an ideology not a race. Such ideologues certainly exist on Wikipedia. --Folantin (talk) 22:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

To Moreschi: No sir, generalizing all Iranians who disagree with some of point of view and then calling them "Iranian nationalists" is racist. The author above constantly refers to my ethnicity and calls me "Iranian nationalists". I do not feel comfortable when someone keeps pointing to my ethnicity when they write negative messages. Do I constantly refer to his background if I disagree with them? Note some of the users ChrisO r.v.'ed were not even Iranians. Plus if I clearly stated that Cyrus Cylinder is not a charter of human rights as it is anachronism. If my patriotic feeling overwhelmed my unbiased reasoning, then I would not make such a statement. So I feel uncomfortable for someone to constantly refer to my background when making negative reports. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

@Folantin: 1) If any moderator is concerned, I'll be happy to share that website's owner phone number and they can contact him directly and will be happy to give my name , so they can ask the website owner. 2) Some of my quotes are the same that website, but those those quotes were made available before that existence of that site. 3) The books mentioned are not owned by the website. Just like quoting google books is not a copy right violation, then quoting books mentioned by websites is not a violation of copy right. . If they are, then please provide me the link where it says: "One may not quote books that are quoted by websites". And give me a moderator's name, two or four, or whoever you trust, we can email the owner of that website in a CC with the discolure of my name and ask them if I have permission to use his material. Again though, there is no copy right violation, since the website does not own those books. Also please read the title of the thread. The user does not say: "Users uphelding Iranian nationalism" and some of the people he reverted were not Iranians....--Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)--Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

(out dented)There are few points that the editors should consider

1. giving the title "iranian nationalist" is basically what wikipedia ask not be used so often. That is called "ad hominem" and considered PA. (chrisO has done this in the talk page PA+AD HOMINEM)
   1. even so, the question is: is it true that the inclusion of Cyrus Cylinder in the article on Human right an Iranian nationalist act? I do not think so. The reason: The sources we have provided (cf. the talk page Talk:Human rights#Cyrus Cylinder) are non Iranian. It is very difficult for me to see those non-Iranian writers as Iranian nationalist POV. (non-iranian opinion of Ann Mayer and others).
2. the accusation "Arad has tag-teamed with Xashaiar to repeatedly" is just strange if not ridiculous. The reasons: 1. The meeting on the talk page of Human right is the first time I see him. There is no single other ocasion that we have edited together. 2. I made the following point: Cyrus Cylinder is worth mentioning there because of A1: the texts of document itself. A2: there are numerous sources, especially authororities of human right organisations and legal experts, that mention that.
3. the user ChrisO is doing "admin shopping". He invited two other users to that page and they were not involved at all before the discussion. After this he made the falsification that WP:CONS had been reached. How when in the talk page at least 5 people already involved said: "they agree with incusion but with less emphasis". Isn't wikipedia supposed to work honestly?
4. what I suggested was: Let us remove the entire ancient history section. But ChrisO did some OR and added Akbar the Great and removed Cyrus the great.(the beggining of ChrisO edit war (against not me, not arad, not any iranian, bur against jagged85), ChrisO removes jagged85 edit, addition of his OR, removal of Arad edits, and so on).
5. I am not sure if I can be called Iranian nationalist, but I am sure the editors involved and have add Cyrus Cylinder to the article are not Iranian nationalist and therefore this accusation based on nationaism does not work. (Note jagged 85 added the materials and he is not Iranian, this person too).

I am not sure if anybody has doubts that ChrisO has a certain POV and it is almost impossible to discuss the matters with him... Xashaiar (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I note that you're not disputing that the material which you and Arad have repeatedly added is unsourced personal commentary, or that you've repeatedly been asked not to add original research or unverifiable material to articles. There is no POV involved in asking editors to follow basic content policies. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Look you falsified WP:CONS and edited with the edit summary (according to cons) and you do accuse me and arad on being teamed when you asked uninvolved editors to come in and agree with you. Even worse you have reverted at least 2 other non-iranian addition of cyrus the great and instead you ask the adimns about me and arad because we are pushing nationalist pov? what about others who disagree with them? And one more thing you should not PA. About sources "we have non iranian sources that discuss Cyrus cylinder and none of them are Iranian" why cant we include? You know better that everybody that sources are ready for incusion but "YOU DO NOT ALLOW CYRUS THE GREAT IN THAT ARTICLE" but "DO LIKE TO SEE AKBAR THE GREAT". ARE M. Leney, Ann Elizabeth Meyer, ... not enough sources? your POV pushing and very strange PA and eurocentric view (see the talk page of Human right) is beyond understanding. And quite interestingly Josef Wiesehofer who is by no means Iranian has mentioned and sumarized the traditional view of people (not necessarily himself) on Cyrus the Great and the role of Cyrus Cylinder in this view by

Many scholars have read into these last sentences [of Cyrus Cylinder] a confirmation of the Old Testament passages about the steps taken by Cyrus towards the erection of the Jerusalem temple and the repatriation of the Judaeans, some even going so far as to believe that the instructions to this effect were actually provided in these very formulations of the Cyrus Cylinder. In any event, the clemency Herodotus ascribed to Cyrus, the aptitudes Xenophon saw in him, his mission according to the Old Testament and his piety as described in the Babylon inscription – all combine in the eyes of many observers to form a harmonious character study of the first Persian king.

— Ancient Persia 2001

Now compare this and the ChrisO interest in adding Akbar the Great. If using this quote and traditional view is not allowed and OR then ChrisO edit about akbar the great is even worse. I also note what Ann Elizabeth Mayer said "..although it does not use the language of human rights, the ancient cylinder comprises ideas that are related to modern concepts of rights" (page 8 (this is legal point of view and directly involved in human rights academy)," Now it might be said that she is not ancient Iranian expert, right. But I offered ChrisO to let these be mentioned and he can add the view of A. Kuhrt who criticizes the traditional view. I am not able to understand why so many sources and well established traditional view should be negleted just because some modern scholars call "cyrus cylinder" a propaganda document. Having said these, I would like to ask the admins to give ChrisO a topic ban for A: His PA and ad hominem (PA+PA+PA+...) B. His POV pushing almost constantly on Cyrus Cylinder (see Cyrus Cylinder history page. More recently on this subject: He made quite a story on the word "emperor" because he says "cyrus was not an emeror") C: Disagreeing with many editors and reverting 5 people (Only me and arad seem to be Iranian but ChrisO claimes that the incusion of cyrus Cylinder is "work of we Iranian nationalists" for example 2 non-Iranian editors did add Cyrus Cylinder: edit at 20:25, 17 October 2009 by User:Pfhorrest and older edit at 19:44, 28 September 2009 by User:Jagged 85 and probably more if we see the history page of Human rights) and call their edits "iranian nationalist edits". D. Falsifying WP:CONS (here) E. Doing admin shopping. Xashaiar (talk) 22:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

User:ChrisO violating 3rr and threatening to ban users

Resolved

 – Nothing more that can usefully be said, per Wehwalt. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

A) The user has reverted 5-6 time in one day.

1st, [141]

2nd, [142]

3rd, [143]

4th, [144]

5th, [145]

He has been blocked before violating 3rr, so is well aware of the rules. B) The user has threatened banning other users (without the appropriate medium).

Can a user threaten another user with a "final warning"? [146]

Here he refers to a banned user and threatens the same: [147]

I find it ironic to have to report ChrisO, because when it comes to inserting unreliable nationalistic content into Wikipedia (like calling the Cyrus Cylinder as a charter of the 20th century concept of human rights), I commend users. However I believe this does not give people the right to violate 3rr or threaten other users with a ban. No one is above the law. Since I'll be taking a wiki break, it is unfortunate I had to do this report at this juncture but no one is above the law and the law for breaking rulers should be applied.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I will leave this to others to decide, but the issue at hand is the removal of wholly unsourced personal original research, which your fellow nationalists repeatedly added despite being asked not to. You have not denied that the material was unsourced POV OR, violating every basic content policy. Repeatedly ignoring basic content policies is grounds for blocking, as I pointed out to you. The same material was removed for the same reason by Folantin [148], [149] and Moreschi [150]. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your personal viewpoints. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree.. Wikipedia is not a palce for WP:OR (although I am not confirming or denying any OR). However violating 3rr and threatening users with a ban is unacceptable behaviour. Also I did not even edit the article once, but you reported me. This behaviour scares other users from participating in the talkpage itself and creates an atmosphere were if there is a disagreement, they will be labelled by their ethnicity. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it certainly might have been better if Chris had come here and asked for help rather than reverting so many times. Unsourced is an exception to 3RR that only arises in BLP issues. I'm not sure the rest of what Chris says is a defense to 3RR. Not that the content is very wonderful. And 3RR is kinda a bright line here.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

3rr is a law and this is not a WP:BLP article. I accept fair enforcement for anyone that breaks the laws of wikipedia. Even Jimbo himself (no disrespect to Jimbo of course). --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm minded to agree, I'm just being cautious in case there is something obvious that I missed.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I accept that I might have overstepped the line inadvertently there, for which I apologise. I can only say that I lost track. But is anyone going to do anything about the disruptive behaviour of Arad, Nepaheshgar and Xashaiar? Repeatedly and wilfully adding unsourced original research and violating copyright is crossing an even brighter line. They were asked not to do it, they were notified of the policy requirements, but they did it anyway, repeatedly, and they show no sign of acknowledging their error. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

On the issue that ChrisO says "[nepaheshgar] which your fellow nationalists repeatedly added despite being asked not to.." is wrong. Because Jagged85 is not iranian nationalist, but did add cyrus cylinder, and chrisO reverted and the other user Pfhorrest who is not iranian but added again Cyrus Cylinder and ChrisO reverted. Still he claims "xashaiar and arad are nationalists who add this". Interesting. ChrisO you have reverted many and only two are Iranian. Xashaiar (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

See here:

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

So, if sticking to 3RR would do damage to Wikipedia you can ignore it. It must, of course, be the case that almost no reasonable editor would disagree with the "damage" that is being repaired. If you make that judgement and you get referred on the basis of 3RR violation then it should be a reasonable defense to say that you reverted damaging edits provided that the nature of the reverted edits is not in question. Count Iblis (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I am reluctant to apply IAR to 3RR, because the exceptions have been thrashed out and routine use (and this is routine) of IAR would gut the rule. I'm minded to consider a short block.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that there is no dispute, even from the editors concerned, that the material in question was unsourced personal original research (and I might add that the first version of that material relied on a hoax translation). I would hope that nobody would dispute that the addition of such material is damaging to the project's credibility. The article in question is top or high-importance for five WikiProjects and is part of the content that we are distributing to schools, so it should be treated with some care. This is not simply a content dispute: it's a question of whether editors should be allowed to add their own unsourced personal views to high-profile, high-priority Wikipedia articles. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

But darn it, Chris, you've been around here long enough to know that there are other ways of handling it. We do have a few admins still, even with your no longer having the bit. You don't have to save the world yourself, let others help.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

To Chriso: you said above "the material in question was unsourced personal original research" this is wrong. you do not let any source be added look at the section on it. There are sources that indicate view in favour of humanitarian aspects of Cyrus Cylinder and YES there are views rejecting that. The point is that 1. You push only for you POV which is "to reject the former view" 2. You did PA several times. 3. You did violate 3rr. 4. You did "ad hominem" and call all edits adding Cyrus Cylinder "Iranian nationalists disruptive edits" (when 3 out of all 5 involved are not Iranian). Xashaiar (talk) 00:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

And how many of those admins have done a single damn thing in the thread above? Nepaheshgar has posted his usual wall of text, and everyone else has - as usual with this individual - said "tl;dr" and moved on. AN/I is useless for this sort of thing. This thread demonstrates that point. An accusation of 3RR gets everyone running around. An undisputed report of serial OR-pushing, POV-pushing and copyright violation gets the sound of crickets chirping. If nothing else, it shows where AN/I's priorities lie. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, blocks are not supposed to be punitive. ChrisO did not count his reverts, something that happened to me a long time ago when I was reverting a few sceptics on the Global warming page. I was referred here, but I was not banned. I explained how it happened and I also offered not to edit that page for a few days. Thing is that when I was referred here people knew about the problem, so others could keep the page in the watchlist. In this case, ChrisO could focus on other wiki articles while others could take a look at the problem articles ChrisO was dealing with. Count Iblis (talk) 00:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Edit warring is not excused in a content dispute, even when you are right. Please don't use reverting to solve problems. For good faith disagreements, seek third opinion or mediation. For bad faith issues, file a request at arbitration enforcement, as that article is covered by at least one ruling, if memory serves. No block is needed because ChrisO has agreed to stop reverting. Jehochman ^Talk 00:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest that we block the whole bunch for edit warring. I know, that is a less bright line, but how often has it been in and out? Or is this warning enough for all of you to leave the unsourced statement out (so blocking either of you is not necessary as you will not damage the article further) until consensus is reached on the talkpage (something you clearly do not have)? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 00:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

No you cannot block users who have not even edited the actual article. if that was the case then other users (5-6) have edited the article.

Note to the moderator. ChrisO states: " But is anyone going to do anything about the disruptive behaviour of Arad, Nepaheshgar and Xashaiar? Repeatedly and wilfully adding unsourced original research and violating copyright is crossing an even brighter line. ". I did not edit the main page of the article once. I just entered the discussion page today and have no intention continue. As per copyright, I just quoted books that the owner of the website has mentioned, and he has no copy right over those books. I do not see it any different than quoting google book texts, since I am not quoting the text of the website outside of those books. However, just to end this accusation. The moderator can email me, I will be happy to give the phone of the owner of the website and my full name, and they can ask that owner via phone if I have the right to use his material. Either way, the material is not currently in the webpage and I did not further engange in restoring it. So I restate, the copy right violation is false.

However, I would be happy for a clarification. If a website quotes some books (say 5 books), can I also quote those 5 books (few sentences)? The website has no copy right ownership on those book. How is it different than using google books which also has many books and people constantly quote it? However as I stated, no one is above the law. ChrisO broke 3rr and content dispute is no reason to break 3rr. There are other mediums that needs to be followed if the user thinks someone is breaking WP:OR. Rfc and mediation is recommended. I have been through many debates but my record in wikipedia is clear. Because one thing I do follow is the laws of Wikipedia. Thank you.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked Chris for 12 hours, which I consider a bit of a slap on the wrist, and seems quite willing to do it again, thus it is hopefully preventative of the next time. As I am about to leave here and may not be back at my computer until the morning, if he appeals, I waive any need for the reviewing admin to confer with me. Now, someone look at what the other users were doing there, I'd say.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Again I expect that the laws of Wikipedia with regards to WP:3rr be fully enforced. Why does a user that has violated 3rr before get 12 hours and not the standard 24 hours? Users who violate it more than once get at least 24 hours. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Be careful what you wish for. It takes at least two to edit war. Three reverts is not an entitlement. If a team of accounts works together to trap a lone editor offsides, the team members may be blocked for edit warring. Jehochman ^Talk 00:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I did not even edit the main page of the article. However based on normal patterns, I have noticed users usually get 24 hours for 3rr. If they have repeatedly violated it before, it is at least 24 hours. I have no personal feelings relative to how long ChrisO is blocked, but it does bother me a little that users get different length of punishments for the same violations. However it only bothers me a little, since Wikipedia is not real life. However, hopefully in a just society, everyone is equal in the eye of the law. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have unblocked ChrisO. Like Jehochman says, it takes two to edit war, and there was just one who crossed the red line. Nepaheshgar, what you are asking for is punishment. Please be aware that you were warring as well. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 00:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not edit war. I did not even edit the mainpage. If someone else did, it is their responsibility. But if a user is given only 2 minutes for break 3rr (or in this case 5rr), then that is really unfair to all other users in wikipedia. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not some online game with strict rules. Count Iblis (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not surprised there's confusion by now - the usual wall of text posted by Nepaheshgar hasn't helped. To summarise:

• Arad (talk · contribs) and Xashaiar (talk · contribs) have tag-teamed to add unsourced POV original research, promoting a fringe nationalist theory, to Human rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and History of human rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), despite being asked to follow basic content policies: [151], [152], [153], [154], [155]; also see [156], [157]. Neither shows any willingness to even acknowledge the existence of WP:V, WP:NPOV or WP:OR.
• Nepaheshgar (talk · contribs) has repeatedly violated copyright by copying and pasting a tract from an unreliable third-party nationalist website, despite being asked to follow basic copyright policies: [158], [159], [160]. He does not acknowledge that copying and pasting the entire contents of a third party web page is a likely copyright violation.

Moreschi (talk · contribs) concurs above that a block of at least Arad and Xashaiar is required. There is every indication that they simply do not accept Wikipedia's fundamental content requirements and are therefore likely to continue this behaviour if they are not given a clear incentive not to do so. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Please note that I have indef blocked arad, Xashaiar and Nepaheshgar for their disregard of WP policy and their concerted efforts to have ChrisO blocked for attempting to apply policy in their contentious editing. I am content for any and all sanctions to be lifted or varied upon the above parties agreeing to conduct themselves appropriately in this matter. I will also take any brickbats for acting in this manner. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

  I was rapidly coming to the same conclusion on reviewing this situation. All three of them are behaving ridiculously, and while ChrisO did violate 3RR it was in combatting some particularly egregious policy violations. ~ mazca ^talk 00:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

  Isn't indef a bit harsh for Nepaheshgar? The user has been editing since March 2006 with no other blocks on record. Equazcion (talk) 03:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Brah. Vo. I'm going to email LHvU a beer as the only one with the fortitude and good sense to cut through the crap. To the rest of you -- shame on you for prioritizing blind adherence to policy over the credibility of Wikipedia. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking blocks were needed too. That said, I think it's inappropriately unhelpful to make an inflammatory comment like "the rest of you - shame on you for prioritizing blind adherance to policy over the credibility of Wikipedia". Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ncmvocalist as regards the comment by Short Brigade Harvester Boris. The duty of administrators is to enforce policy neutrally, not to decide content disputes with their tools because they decide that a particular version of an article is best for the "credibility of Wikipedia". That's called abuse of admin tools, and people are being desysopped for this, as they should be. (I'm not saying that any such abuse occurred in the present case.)  Sandstein  06:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I note that the level three and four user talk templates concerning original research, unsourced material and the deliberate introduction of errors does warn editors that they can be blocked if they persist with such edits. This isn't simply a "content dispute" - it's about whether editors should be allowed to repeatedly add unsourced, factually erroneous personal commentaries into high-profile articles. That's a policy not a content issue - it's disruptive by definition. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad ChrisO finally got some support to help protect WP against destructive elements. I'm baffled that anyone actually did block him. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 11:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I would comment that Chris could have handled this better, since he is not the only editor on Wikipedia. Posting here at AN/I would be far better than a gross violation of 3RR. His recent comments are post hoc rationalizations which put into question his statement of apology that got him unblocked. He for certain should not be commenting on Nepaheshgar's block, which raises WP:BATTLEGROUND issues, he is far from blameless here, by his supposed own admission, and should not post as if he were otherwise.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I did post here at AN/I and nobody took a blind bit of notice until Nepaheshgar started complaining about 3RR. Far from being "post-hoc rationalizations", my comments relate to what Jehochman has pointed out just below my own comments - "This matter has been festering for well over a year. Many warnings and much advice has been given." Nepaheshgar is an editor with a long history of problematic behaviour. The fact that admins have up to this point either not got involved or chosen to look the other way does not mean that there is no problem. Unfortunately I think an arbitration case is now inevitable, which will be a further waste of everyone's time. There is no WP:BATTLEGROUND involved; this is purely a case of a collective failure to deal adequately with aggressive nationalist POV-pushing. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm just an uninvolved admin; that may be so. But still, you should have asked for help. Judging from the response here, you are not a voice crying in the wilderness.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Chris. This failure to deal with tendentious editing has been going on for far too long. --Folantin (talk) 12:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I've just been reading the ArbComm decision that caused ChrisO to resign as an admin and during which he was desysoped anyway. The thing is, his behavior here fits the pattern that lost him his bit perfectly. Cowboy actions, only he can save Wikipedia, etc. This is a collaborative enterprise. I don't know whether Chris has any plans to ask ArbComm for his bit back or not, but as they would certainly look at the circumstances surrounding his block by me, I will say this: I see nothing that indicates he's learned a thing from the experience. I regret that and hope it will change. But he had no business coming close to breaking 3RR given his history, let alone grossly exceeding it. If the edits from the other side are problematic, get someone else to look at it. If Chris figures this out, then maybe sometime the cowboy will get his spurs and his badge back. Just a suggestion.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no intention of asking for the return of the bit and I wouldn't accept it if it was handed to me on a plate. It got me nothing but threats and stalking on and off-wiki, abuse by malicious individuals, and all too often disinterest from admins who prefer to walk past on the other side of the road when problems are raised. This thread is a perfect illustration of that. No uninvolved editors here took a blind bit of notice of the problems that I raised here with Nepaheshgar et al until they started complaining about 3RR. One lesson I learned from five and a half years as an admin is that unless something involves a bright-line issue like 3RR or obvious vandalism, most admins either don't want to know, aren't interested in helping or think it's too much trouble for them to get involved in it. It's that kind of thing that has led to entire areas of Wikipedia - such as our Iranian articles - being taken over by aggressive nationalist POV-pushers who get away with atrocious editing, off-wiki stalking and threats of violence because nobody wants to get involved. If you spend your time on Pokémon articles you'll probably be fine, but if you try to deal with systematic bad editing in a contentious article which few people care about you learn pretty soon that you're largely on your own. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've said my piece and obviously we disagree here. I suggest we mark this thread resolved and move on with building an encyclopedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Good idea... -- ChrisO (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

"I've just been reading the ArbComm decision that caused ChrisO to resign as an admin..." Well, actually, that's kind of where you went wrong, since that decision, as it approached Chris and another similar editor, was a complete joke and travesty. I wouldn't suggest reading that to learn anything except why ArbCom needs an extreme makeover. Heimstern:Away (talk) 06:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Election couple of months, then.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Block of Nepaheshgar

I'm coming here from CAT:RFU after reading Nepaheshgar's second unblock request at User talk:Nepaheshgar#Mistake. Like Equazcion above, it is not very clear to me from the above discussion what Nepaheshgar has done that warrants an indef block. ChrisO, above, says that he "has repeatedly violated copyright by copying and pasting a tract from an unreliable third-party nationalist website, despite being asked to follow basic copyright policies: [161], [162], [163]." I don't consider these talk page edits to be copyvios, rather, they are selective quotations from various sources to support a contested edit. No matter what the actual merits of the edit may be, that is surely allowed under fair use, and actually good talk page practice. Are there any other grounds for a block of Nepaheshgar?  Sandstein  06:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if it were a copyvio (and I agree that it's not -- he only posted material to the talk page for consideration), I don't think this one instance of frustration is indicative that the user would continue being a problem in the future. It's not like he's suddenly turned into a vandal. Considering his editing history, a temporary block (if any) seems more appropriate. Equazcion (talk) 07:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The material that Nepaheshgar posted was copied-and-pasted verbatim from this web page on the Rozaneh Magazine website. That most certainly is a copyvio. It was pointed out repeatedly by Folantin (talk · contribs), to no effect.[164][165][166] To be honest, an indef block is overdue for Nepaheshgar - his block log does not reflect the quality of his editing, as he has been getting away with bad editing and tendentious behaviour for a long time. I first came across this editor when writing Battle of Opis this time last year. He behaved then in the same way that he is behaving now - pushing Iranian nationalist POV, promoting original research, misusing sources by quote mining, using unreliable sources, distorting policy, and posting great walls of text in support of tendentious arguments. He suffers from a chronic case of WP:IDONTHEARYOU. You can see something of this behaviour above, lots of it at Talk:Human rights#Cyrus Cylinder and more of it at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-06 Battle of Opis. Note in particular this comment by Akhilleus.

Nepaheshgar usually gets away with this because (a) he largely confines his depradations to Iran-related articles and (b) his wall-of-text approach means that people usually give up arguing with him ("tl;dr"). Unfortunately the nationalists appear to have largely taken ownership of articles about Iran/Persia. During the course of this affair I have received several e-mails from editors who (in the words of one) are "sick and worn out dealing with the Iranian nationalists" and I'm aware of at least one editor, whom I trust, who has received physical threats by phone - i.e. someone went to the trouble of tracking him down - after trying to intervene in this topic area. Nepaheshgar is a bad editor and an arbitration case waiting to happen, but he appears to be only the tip of a very ugly iceberg - at least as bad as the current Eastern European arbitration case and quite likely worse given the apparent willingness of some editors to threaten or imply physical violence. Note this comment from Nepaheshgar: "I am not here to waste my time and neither I am scared of any threat. Trust me I lived during the Iran-Iraq war and what happens in Wikipedia is a joke relative to that. And you are free to come to my house and see my exercise equipment and general fitness to understand that I do not fear threats." [167]

I strongly advise against unblocking him. Nothing good would come of it. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

If any administrator has doubts about the block, ask Less for an explanation, and wait for an answer before acting. If there is a unilateral unblock, I will recommend arbitration. This matter has been festering for well over a year. Many warnings and much advice has been given. Jehochman ^Talk 09:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan, I did note on my block rationales that if a reviewing admin wished to vary or lift the sanctions imposed they need not require my input. However, while I will of course provide a detailed rationale if requested, my primary considerations is that these are indefinite, as in may be removed sooner rather than later and were designed to stop a campaign to get another party blocked in what is a content dispute (and by reference to that party's history - a desysopping - to smear them, which is something that does not sit well with me). When a blocked party agrees that dispute resolution, per policy, and not attacks upon other disputants is the appropriate process to follow then they can be unblocked with my blessings. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have unblocked. The user has apologized and indicated he will not do what he did again. There is no justification, then, for keeping the block in place, since such blocks are not punitive. I assume GF, and consider also the previously clean block log.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO, suggest you request arbitration or arbitration enforcement to deal with this tendentious editing. Don't let matters fester any longer. Jehochman ^Talk 13:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a much better road than 5RR.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Which arbitration case would cover this for enforcement purposes? -- ChrisO (talk) 14:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. If you can't find one, request arbitration. Jehochman ^Talk 18:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Simply disgusting

As one administrator put it: [168]. The whole thing disgusts me, having read it again. It gives ammo to those who say that Wikipedia is run for the benefit of a favored few. Thank you for throwing some sanity into the mix. 1)

ChrisO has a long history of attacking me. Here is an example of a personal attack [169]: "If Nepaheshgar is involved, that's an instant warning sign that crank fringe theories are being pushed somewhere... -- ChrisO (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)"

2)

In my first edit to the talkpage of the article I called for RfC and mediation! Look here:[170] "I am not going get involved more, but I hope Xashiyar or Arad can first list some of the 30-50 sources [4] (not about the Cylinder necessarily but Cyrus himself) (also use other search words instead of "human rights") and then call for a general Rfc or mediation."

Indeed I never got involved in the mainpage.

3) One user brought up a firovolous charge of violating copy right violation! This was false because: A) 70-80% of what I had was not the same as the website. B) I copied the quotes from books that are quoted in the website. But that website has no copy right ownership to those books. It is no different than quoting google books. C) However if there is a problem with A) and B), I have fully copy right to the article in that website and I told the user he can get three admins or more, they can email me, I will provide my name and also the name and number of the writer and owner of that article. They can call him and confirm if I can do what I want with regards to his article. However as noted I did not copy the article but books quoted by the article and no more than 3-4 sentence from each of those books quoted by the article. Of course the user that made this frivolous charges just repeated the same thing. But admin Sandstein expressed doubt about the charge as well. And another admin agreed: "Even if it were a copyvio (and I agree that it's not -- he only posted material to the talk page for consideration), I don't think this one instance of frustration is indicative that the user would continue being a problem in the future. It's not like he's suddenly turned into a vandal. Considering his editing history, a temporary block (if any) seems more appropriate"

Note on the "vandal" comment, I did not even edit the mainpage.

4)

The other was obvious favioratism by some of the admin and it goes back to simple corruption and favors and etc. Which is not supposed to take place in Wikipedia. If a user calls me an Iranian nationalist (I do not want a user who has been accused by others of racism to refer to my ethnicity as it has nothing to do with editing), then it is okay for me to label him "X supremacist"? I told him before I do not appreciate such labels. Exactly what do I need to do from users abusing their privilidges and labeling other users based on their ethnicity? If he is allowed to label, then I am allowed to label him a "X supremacist"? Even if (assuming) I believe he holds such ideology, am I allowed to label them?

5)

Up to now I had a clean record in wikipedia but I was given a permanent ban for refering to a users past behaviour. The reason I made this reference is that the user falsely tried to make a past record for me, when I had none. I had argued with the user before but I agreed to Rfc and mediation and accepted the results. That is how wikipedia works. In my first edit to the talkpage, I also called for RfC and mediation. Yes we went to a content based mediation before. Content-dispute based mediation is exactly the way to solve problems.

6)

Unlike what one admin claims, the user who does not have admin power threaten to ban people. This is in direct violation of wikipedia law. Here he refers to a banned user whom he has dealt with before and threatens the same: [171]

What does a former ban user have to do with me and why should that be evoked? That is creating an atmosphere of intidimation (which I am not intimidated the least).

7)

The user tries to link me to some Iranian nationalist whom he claims has made a threat to someone unknown person! That is no different than me relating him to the people that practiced apartheid. This is racism, because he is implying that I am the type that makes these threats. One can say : "User that has the opinion of nationalism", but to directly attach ethnic labels to negative reports and negative sentences is not in the spirit of courtesy but more like WP:Battle. Specially if one does not know the person in real life. I am not a racist nor a nationalist in the sense that ChrisO implies.

8)

Overall, as the neutral admin put it, it was disgusting and it showed favioratism. An indefinite block for users who are not in the "crowd" is a disgusting example of such a favioratism. Another person called me a vandal. Sir I did not even edited the article, how could I be a vandal? I made 0rr to the article yet I was given an indefinite block! My first message was about RfC and mediation! Ultimate source of corruption for any government, organization, society, online community and etc. is when favioratism occurs (for whatever reason including the case of probable common friendship or ethnicity or etc.). Eventually if is not stopped, the corruption can reach the highest level. So when the neutral admin states: The whole thing disgusts me, having read it again. It gives ammo to those who say that Wikipedia is run for the benefit of a favored few. Thank you for throwing some sanity into the mix.

He is totally correct. This sort of damage is much more than a silly content dispute which I asked for RfC and mediation.

Conclusion:

Despite all these and false accusations, I ask any unbiased person to go read my contributions to the article on human rights (I am sure out of 16000+ edits I have not been perfect but we are discussing a single article and if there is an arbcomm, I am sure out of the thousands of edits by the other side, they have not been perfect), I did not edit the main page nor violare 3rr or even 1rr or even 0rr. If they can show me exactly were I made a mistake, that would have been okay.

I just commented based on some scholarly sources and my first message was RfC and mediation! However due to favioratism (or possibly other biases) I got the short end of the stick while the only one that actually broke a wikipedia guideline got 2 minutes! Favioratism, lying and abuse of admin power is disgusting. I rather not see an arbcomm though due to unchivarlous behaviour behind a vga monitor. Big deal, it is all bits and bites (not physical ones), but this would be a waste of my time in real life. However if ChrisO goes that route and initiates an arbcomm, then obviously abuse of power and favioratism will be addressed and already two unbiased admins noted this abuse of power and favioratism. And in the end, the whole thing starts by blocking a user who has not even made a single contribution to the main page and actually agreed that CC is not a human rights charter, but there is not much difference between mentioning CG and Akbar Shah and in his first message called for an RfC and mediation!

Another user that edited the article has been around since 2005 (with a clear record) and did not violate any wikipedia guidelines that merited an indefinite ban. He has been in wikipedia for four years and has not been blocked [172]

The user who constantly made the false accusation of copy right violation (and I can get even that website owner to give a call to each of the arbcomm members if necessary although I did not violate any copy right violations), and etc. will be involved. This would be a grand waste of time, and I won't be the only loser. The biggest loser will be the admins that abused their power and users that have been in previous arbcomm. However, I rather move on and eventually someone else will deal with the same sort of favioratism and will not let go as easily as me. Life is good, I am publishing papers, I have a lovely wife, and life is too short to waste behind a monitor. I'll take a good (possibly permanent wiki break), but eventually anything that is corrupt (favioratism as shown here) is digusting and will fall apart and that refers to a group of users proxying for each other and coming to support each other with comments, abusing admin power. So lets let go of the whole episode and close this thread. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

TLDR. But a hearty agree to closing this thread. Equazcion (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Usually when I read a paper to see if it is good, I read the first and last paragraph. Anyhow, lets move on. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• I do not believe that ChrisO, Moreschi, Folantin, LessHeard, or Jehochman can be considered anything but involved, and their actions as such are highly inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Too long, didn't read. This noticeboard is not for posturing, battling, or seeking to get a rise out of other editors. I recommend that blocks be issued should Nepaheshgar or Ottava Rima continue with their disruptive posting. Jehochman ^Talk 17:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• We can consider that as part of ChrisO's arb case he was supposed to start, can't seem to find it. In my view, such an arb case will have the biggest caliber pointed-backward gun since Alger Hiss sued Whittaker Chambers for defamation ...--Wehwalt (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• I think it is obvious that for the calls of my block for my "disruptive posting" when I have made -1- post that merely points out that Jehochman is involved and not neutral is verified by the above and the above is further proof that he is acting disruptively. Jehochman, do your self a favor and stop involving yourself in these matters before you are finally banned for these actions. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This thread has degenerated and nothing productive will be accomplished by further discussion. ANI is not for dispute resolution. ChrisO has been admonished not to edit war, to use dispute resolution instead, and possibly to file for arbitration if underlying behavioral issues prevent normal resolution.

Thank you to all participants for your comments. Jehochman ^Talk 13:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Headsup on possible off-wiki COI

Um... Team JNL need YOUR help! JNL is featured on Wikipedia, but the article is way incomplete!... thanks to Nihiltres for this headsup, via twitter. Is it going to be a problem? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I might AFD this, given Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Nicole Lee. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I love the "referances" listed on that page. If those aren't reliable sources, what could possibly be? Deor (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Nicole Lee (2nd nomination) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like this is going to survive the RfA, but the spam level is making editing annoying. Please semi this, someone? A kind individual with leet search skills has dredged up sources and I am integrating them, but it is like trying to swim in a washing machine. (It isn't TOO bad, just annoying)- Sinneed 20:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Second the request for protection, semi at least. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 21:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Since most of the spammers are simply copying from a copyrighted site, I am just going to murder the junk as it is added.- Sinneed 22:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• For anyone who sings in and adds to the article, you will receive a ANY JNL digital product of your choice! Simply email us at [redacted] what you added to the article, making sure you cite an internet reference to insure that your addition is posted, and what JNL program you would like to receive as a free gift!

FWIW, the issue of Wikipedia's policy or guideline covering paid editing is still being debated. Interested editors should join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Paid editing (guideline).   Will Beback  talk  23:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• True. However. Most of the editors spamming in the *cough* content *cough cough* from the promo page were brand new, and simply pasted the junk in... it wasn't even "paid editing", just "induced spamming". :) I wanted to write the spam-inciting-address and say "Hey, some of us here did real edits for you for free, and Wikimedia foundation is hosting it for free, and you made it WAY harder than it had to be, so why not donate a set of each of your DVDs to the nearest 3 shelters in the name of Wikipedia?" *ducks to avoid the wp:talk police* - Sinneed 04:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

someone please review my block of User:Raffasucks

Resolved

I deleted a nonsense page created by this user, who was also reported by the name watcher bot at WP:UAA. They vandalized my user and talk pages, apparently both while logged in and as an ip. I blocked them. I feel it was a good block, but normally you don't block someone who is messing with you personally so if somebody could just review and either endorse or undo the block I'd appreciate it. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree with that block, he's only edited twice, one of which was your page. I would of waited for 4 warnings then sent him to AIV so an uninvolved Admin could review.--SKATER ^Speak. 04:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

And I would have said "would have." Where the heck did anyone ever get the idea that "would of" is correct? :-P Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not correct. The correct form is "woulda". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Good block. Screwing around with an article; making a personal attack; and choosing an offensive username. Three strikes. He's out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Endorse - the "sucks" name gets a block for WP:U.  7  04:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If you could see his deleted contribs, it's more like 4 strikes actually. In spoken English "would've" is a fairly common expression, but as TPH says it means "would have." I never knew you were a grammar nerd on top of everything else. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I are. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Also when you factor in the logged-out vandalism that was obviously the same user, it's about 6 vandal edits in total. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The 4 warnings thing is not mandatory in the face of a blatantly abusive vandal. People should feel more free to ignore all rules and block obviously disruptive accounts rather than issuing pointless warnings 1-2-3-4, which just gives the troll an idea of how much longer he has to commit vandalism. I also think it's silly, bureaucratic nonsense to expect an administrator whose talk page is being assaulted to go looking for another admin to issue a block. Just block the blatant abusers and ignore them, I say. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Good block, and I agree with Multixfer above. Just because you get caught in collateral damage does not mean you shouldn't block. Pedro :  Chat  07:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Multixfer's post sums up my view on the subject rather nicely as well, I only brought it here in case somebody tried to call a foul on it. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio image

Resolved

 – Deleted by User:Crum375 Frmatt (talk) 03:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Could I please have an admin delete File:Mallary Hope.jpg? It was uploaded with a "found on a website somewhere" tag and has been tagged for seven days; it's a fair use image of a living person and shouldn't be kept around. The last time I saw such an image, it sat in the queue for nearly a whole month, which is inexcusable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Deleted. Crum375 (talk) 03:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. Just like with anything else pertaining to country music here — if I don't say anything, nothing ever gets done. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• You could always write a song about it ;) --Hammersoft (talk) 12:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Censorship of Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft

Resolved

 – Discussion in progress on article talk page; user has been welcomed. --pablo 12:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC

Not quite sure where to put this, as it involves elements of edit-warring and censorship.

Bobbieball (talk · contribs) aka 80.41.73.114 (talk · contribs) repeatedly amended the text of Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft, changing a word he deems offensive to "F*cking".

1. "offensive language
2. Offencive language which shouldn't be allowed!
3. (no edit summary)

Anna Lincoln (talk · contribs) has reverted 80.41.73114 with vandalism warnings several times, I reverted the change by Bobbieball. His reply on my talk page indicates that he intends to continue; I am seeking admin involvement as user commentary seems to carry no weight with this user.   pablo_hablo. 11:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:IDHT If s/he's just ignoring people, block him/her. Of course, there is no need for my comment, as I can't block people. Yet. Just trying to give a bit support, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 11:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't think it's got to that yet, although this editor is certainly misrepresenting the position of Anna Lincoln. Which is naughty. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Didn't see this thread and just reverted Bobbieball again. I have put a note on his talk page and the article talk page seeking discussion. My view is stated there - I see no merit in censorship, but will go with whatever the consensus is. No intention to edit war, but his was the original "bold" (if one can use the term for such a piddling matter) revert.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

My initial reverts were based on WP:NOT#CENSORED. He complained, and I found some more articles where the change had been made. I explained to him on my talk page that Wikipedia is not censored, that he must abide with policy, that I personally didn't care if the change was made or not, and that he should gain consensus instead of edit warring, no matter if the change was done or not. Anna Lincoln 11:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Once again, Elen has done the right thing. This is not blockable - unless they reach the magic 3RR, which they're approacing... How would one pronounce "f*cking" anyway? Is the asterisk like the "!" in some African languages? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I count four times he's made this change under one account[173] and two under the other.[174] But as it's a new account I think discussion would be best.   pablo_hablo. 11:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

When I said "I found some more articles where the change had been made", I mean that I found the wording "f*cked" in other articles [175]. Anna Lincoln 11:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The consensus is WP:NOTCENSORED. In particular, we do not change literal quotes. Doing so repeatedly is unaceptable, 3RR or not, and certainly blockable. But the quote should have a full reference. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::::Anna, the use of the word F*ck in the links you gave is because this is the name of the album/band/record company. They use the * as part of their trademark. It's not because someone has censored the page. (Apologies if you knew this already) Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice :-O Anna Lincoln 11:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

...user commentary seems to carry no weight with this user... then why not ask me what my objections to the changes are rather than ignoring my concerns and reverting to the original offensive text? I made the change again under the mistaken belief that my amendment had been approved by Anna Lincoln.

I'm (and i assume most new users are) unaware of 'edit warring' so until someone takes the time to explain the rules to new users, and how amendments should be made, these problems will persist.

I will now raise my objection on the articles 'talk page' as Anna has suggested but i do take acception to the accusation of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbieball (talk • contribs) 11:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't approved anything, read my talk page where I explained Anna Lincoln 11:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the sentence in question is the following: On 28 February 2005 the MoD named Airtanker as its preferred bidder for the £13bn contract. Air Forces Monthly reports that the tanker shortage that could result from any further serious delay has led some RAF personnel to joke that FSTA stands for "Fucking Short of Tankers Again." That shouldn't be censored. A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 11:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I've found a citation, but not to Air Forces Monthly. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Incorrigibly disruptive editor

Skipsievert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an incorrigibly disruptive editor who has systematically undermined the best efforts of a team of editors on the Sustainability (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article for nearly a year now. During this period there has been a collaborative effort by a team of editors to bring the article to GA or FA status. Membership of the team is open to any editor who agrees with its goals and process. All the regular editors of the page have signed up to this team, with the exception of Skipsievert, who does not subscribe to its goals and process. Throughout this period, Skipsievert has mocked the collaboration, systematically confronting each editor in turn, tirelessly grandstanding back and forth with unfounded attacks and wikilawyer flourishes.

Skipsievert is always right, always. Anyone else's view is POV, while his view is always neutral. When the collaborative team disagree with Skipsievert, that is proof to Skipsievert that the team collude against him, and that their position is therefore invalid. He repeatedly states that even if there were 100 members on the team disagreeing with him, then it still wouldn't count, because Wikipedia is not a democracy and his view is the neutral one. He retains in his memory every disagreement he has had with the team, and endlessly recycles the same worn out issues, never letting anything go, determined that he is going to flog each of his dead horses back to life.

Most days, he tediously adds back into the article, one or more of the positions the collaborative team has rejected. He has been restricted to one revert per day, although recently he has not been adhering to this.[176][177] He also has a suspected sock/meatpuppet called AdenR, who usually edits in tandem with Skipsievert. AdenR occasionally adopts a rather strange and stilted style. Then he reverts to his more usual style, which is an uncanny mirror of Skipsievert's, echoing his opinions and language, including his idiosyncratic grammar. AdenR has never been known to disagree with Skipsievert.

The upshot is that work on the sustainability article has largely ground to a halt. The talk page has become little more than a vehicle for Skipsievert's grandstanding. The unpleasant and non-collegial atmosphere generated by him has driven off new editors — prompting Skipsievert to make more attacks on the remaining editors, claiming they are the ones driving the new editors away.

It would be easy, but not really helpful, to give long strings of diffs. What is happening here cannot be reduced to this or that incident. It is a pattern of behaviour that tenaciously games the system. He has mastered wikilaw. The flavour of it can be appreciated only by scanning the actual talk page material. I would suggest scanning the last archive followed by the current talk page. Then a cursory examination of the edit history to the article page, where Skipsievert's pattern of tendentious edit warring is on display. --Geronimo20 (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Note that previous disputes involving this editor have been reported here and here. Skipsievert's disruptive behavior is also currently being discussed at Wikproject Economics, on this thread on the wikiproject talk page. Skipsievert has been warned several times about uncivil behavior, for example, here, here and here. On the Austrian School article he has continuously reverted User:Cretog8 and myself when we removed edits made by the socks of a banned editor User:Karmaisking, and then accused us of wrong doing. He refused to withdraw the accusations even after being confronted with conclusive evidence that the socks were of the banned editor. LK (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not a regular editor of the sustainability article, and so only know as much about this issue as I've seen from Skipsievert discussing the conflict at other talk pages. However, I did want to say that Geronimo20's description of Skipsievert's behavior is mostly consistent with what I have seen in economics articles. (I would disagree that Skipsievert has mastered wikilaw, since he often seems to misunderstand policy, but he is very free with arguments from his understandings of policy.) CRETOG8(t/c) 14:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Tsk, I forgot it's not a good idea to make ironical remarks when commenting. I merely meant that he extensively quotes wikilaw, as though his take is definitive.--Geronimo20 (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This smells a bit like a content dispute, but I should also note that I am one of the project econ editors who has run into skip and basically been driven off articles in frustration due to his editing. His pattern of behavior fits the profile for civil POV pushing almost precisely. I don't actually know that AN/I is the right venue (and there is an ongoing attempt at mediation), but most of the comments made above are accurate. Protonk (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Protonk, your input into this thread looks like it could do more harm than good. Best to think twice before commenting here.--AtlanticDeep (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? Protonk (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope that the Mediation mention by Protonk would not be hindered by whatever action might be taken with respect to other complaints. (I have observed only a limited share of skipsievert's edits, and am not well-positioned to comment on his general editing behavior.) —SlamDiego_←T 16:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that this does seem like a content dispute, it actually is a repeated string of violations of behavioral policies]. IMO, the current mediation is an entirely separate matter. Sunray (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This revolves around a content dispute on the Sustainability article regarding a word definition (sustainability) to a political pov, which is not an actual definition of the word in question but to another word (Sustainable growth or development), and the use of uncivil interaction by user Geronimo who has misrepresented the situation. Also some people coming here to comment have made some disturbing personal attack commentary recently like Cretog's way over the top attack.

Also, User:Lawrencekhoo has interacted on several articles very much not according to policy and guideline editing in my opinion, along with making extensive use of personal remarks in a very negative way and that person (L.K.) believes that sources should be weighted toward a mainstream view and has asked me to not be a participant on the Wiki project economics page more or less or suggesting I should not edit there here, thus a larger issue of that editor and policy guideline issues.

N.p.o.v. is my comment as to my editing style, and also verifiable as contrasted with truth giving, whether mainstream or heterodox. Neither in or of themselves have weight. I may drop out of the Mediation described Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/WikiProject Economics Guidelines, now concerning the Econ project page, because of the resulting bad faith explanation of L.K concerning my editing activity. Coming to this page by L.K. and using it as an attacking vehicle while this other mediation is happening, seems like a very very bad idea.

I am a good faith editor on Wikipedia. I doubt whether there is any evidence to show otherwise. I edit a lot and on a wide variety of articles. Real issues of non neutral pov to a political pov on the Sustainability article exist in my opinion. The sign up editing team there have used consensus more as a weapon than a positive editing process. Removing a tag calling for more scrutiny done by Geronimo and citing consensus or edit warring as he has done is not good. All around making false charges of calling another editor an Incorrigibly disruptive editor in the heading here is that persons opinion, but does not reflect my trying to make the Sustainability article into a better article by trying to maintain policy and guidelines as to neutral pov on that article. skip sievert (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Geronimo20 has provided an excellent summary of the situation, IMO. As a member of the editing team that has been trying, for the past year, to raise the quality of the Sustainability article to FA status, I can attest to the fact that there have been almost continual disruptions by Skipsievert. Five of us agreed to work on this in November, 2008. We have continually invited other editors to join. However, likely due to the disruptions, until recently no one else has signed up. Two things have changed within the past month: 1) The disruptions have become more pronounced with tandem reverts and continual violations of WP:POINT by Skip and AdenR, and 2) other editors have now joined in the discussion (User:Geronimo20 and Lawrencekhoo).

The article has had two peer reviews this year. In the second peer review Ruhrfisch advised that the article should be submitted for good article nomination prior to FA assessment. There is a consensus between all of the regular editors except Skipsievert/AdenR that the basic content should remain stable, subject only to format improvements, copyediting and reducing the size of some sections using summary style. The content of the article has been worked out over a long process of collaboration between Granitethighs, Travelplanner, Nick carson and me, who, collectively, have considerable expertise in the subject matter. We have been aided in this by the editing and administrative skills of several other editors, including OhanaUnited, Geronimo and Lawrencekhoo.

Going back to the beginning of October, the current pattern of disruption is evident when one considers this edit [178], which is a major change to the consensus version of the article. It was reverted with the message to discuss the changes on the talk page [179]. Despite lengthy discussion on the talk page from September 23 to October 13,, Skipsievert and AdenR failed to get a consensus that the changes had merit. Despite repeated requests to not make changes unless agreed to by consensus, the pattern of edit warring by Skipsievert and AdenR has continued: [180], [181], [182], [183], [184], [185], [186], [187], [188], [189], [190], and so on and on, my fingers are getting blistered, but there are probably at least 10 more examples up to the present date.

It is important to note that, although the current situation is more blatant than before, the pattern has been consistent throughout the past year—over a half dozen issues that stem from a particular POV that is being propounded over and over by Skipsievert. He has singlehandedly brought any productive collaborative editing to a standstill. If the article is to have any chance for improvement, we need assistance. I conclude from the abundant evidence that a topic ban for Skipsievert/AdenR is warranted. Sunray (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• I've encountered Skipsievert on a number of pages. I broadly agree with the comments above. Skip supports a fringe POV and pushes very hard to get that POV given more attention and credibility than is consistent with WP:WEIGHT. That includes a good deal of unproductive wikilawyering and straight-out disruption.JQ (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute. Despite working for nearly a year on the article, Sustainability (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) still has some not inconsequential NPOV and source issues. I do not know what condition the article was in a year ago but it appears that these problems have been caused as much by the group of editors trying to get the article up to FA standards as by Skipsievert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his "disruptive" editing. While it is a problem that Skipsievert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems unable or unwilling to work with other editors toward building consensus on the article, I think he is not the only editor on the page causing a problem. There is plenty of blame to go around. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Voiceofreason01: Would you be able to support your contentions above about the "group of editors" with some examples? I think that the regular page editors have been open and responsive to all outside parties, including other editors, various notice boards, and two peer reviews. With respect, given the evidence presented above, it seems to me to be a superficial view to refer to this as a "content dispute." Sunray (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Voiceofreason01: I have worked on the article now for about 2 years. I have found that the team of editors has worked extremely well (and efficiently) together except for the relentless and debilitating criticisms of Skipsievert that have protracted the development of the article by about a year. It is an unfortunate fact that over time the kind of disruptive editing exhibited by Skipsievert builds in resistance. When compromise only ever proceeds in one direction then the relationship eventually must deteriorate. Skip does not compromise - ever - and this does not endear people to his case(s). Perhaps a new but more "collegiate" editor expressing views in a less uncompromising manner would be a help in improving the article. Would you act as an advocate for those "not inconsequential NPOV and source issues" which you believe the article contains? In the meantime it is my candid opinion that Skipsievert has, since first working on the article, proved a relentless and indefatigable negative influence. Granitethighs 22:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I meant no offense to the regular editors of the Sustainability article, User Skipsievert's behavior seems to have been, in the balance, detrimental to the improvement of the article. In retrospect my comments, and the converns about the article that promted them, are probably not relevent to this discussion and I apologize. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 05:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Skipsievert, on numerous occasions, made me pull my hair out. Whenever he loses an argument, he will employ the "I didn't hear that" strategy. By citing comments against his view as incivil and personal attack, he will removed comments on talk page even when the comment itself is neutral-worded to try redirect the attention. This is a clear violation of talk-page guidelines. In addition, he violated yet another 1RR just a week ago.[191][192] Skipsievert should have received a few more blocks due to his multiple 1RR violations, as shown by my evidence and from others. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, Skipsievert has also been banned for disruptive behavior from various Technocracy groups and internet forums. As seen here: [193] [194] and //technocracynet.eu/backup/old_net/20_4_07/index.php?option=com_mamboboard&Itemid=103&func=view&id=3818&catid=44 (which is currently on a spam filter list) LK (talk) 06:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The above ^ is a personal attack Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor. I suggest it be removed. This is the reasoning

linking to outside information for use in attacking another Those are internet blogs that L.K. is using. This is turning into a witch hunt now above.

L.K. has canvased other users blatantly to come here in a very very negative way here. Linking a blog forum attack in this section points out something about what is going on here. Also the way this whole thing was presented Incorrigibly disruptive editor was not neutral or accurate for a content dispute. skip sievert (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I viewed it as a neutral message. Both you and LK have interactions on that page, so what makes his message viewed as "canvass" while you removed the post and claimed yourself to be neutral? Just today, you are getting close to violating 3RR at WikiProject Economics, which you tried to prevent people from coming to here and comment on the issue.[195][196] Others are warning you that you're edging towards 3RR violationg.[197] OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Skipsievert's activities obviously extend far beyond only the Sustainability article. Perhaps, in addition to the topic ban there should be a shorter term block to restore order and give him a chance to cool off. But please, let's address this question of the topic ban in any case. Sunray (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a topic ban for the Sustainability article and shorter term blocks are an essential first step. But I would mention that I have never seen such a blatant case of POV-pushing by SS, across a whole raft of articles as in Category:Technocracy movement. I am concerned that SSs own brand of pro-technocracy views have unbalanced articles such as Technocracy movement, Technocracy Incorporated and Energy accounting. (SS's agressive promotion of his own agenda has resulted in hundreds of posts from him to the Technocracy movement talk page.) There are many scholarly books written on the issue of Technocracy but these are not being referred to, and the WP articles typically rely on the slanted views of a few self-published and wiki sources. There is a lot of overlapping content in the Technocracy articles (ie., particular paragraphs and chunks of text appearing in several articles), see Talk:Energy accounting#More repetition and [198], and it appears that repetition of content across articles has been used by SS as a way to blatantly push technocratic ideas. I and other editors discussed this POV-pushing extensively on Talk pages of the articles involved and in extensive edit summaries in early 2009, but we had no success in bringing more balance to the articles. And SS has sometimes warned off other editors in a way that could be seen to be threatening, using edit summaries such as "Do not remove tag" or "Do not add again" see [199]. POV pushing was an issue that was discussed at SS's 2008 user conduct RfC, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Skipsievert. Johnfos (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

October 17, 2009

Just to underscore the seriousness of this problem, here are today's edits to the article:

• Skipsievert reverts once again with major changes to the article lead [200]
• I revert, pointing out that there is no consensus for these changes [201]
• AdenR reverts with the statement "Your POV is in conflict Sunray/GT/TP/Nickcarson/Geronimo. You edit in tandem." [202]
• Lawrencekhoo reverts, once again pointing out that the edits by Skipsievert/AdenR are against consensus. [203]

Meanwhile the tendentious posts and violations of behavioral policies and guidelines continue on the talk page:

• Endless rehashing of the same point [204], [205]
• Personalized comments at the expense of content [206], [207]

I believe that this tandem-editing duo is making a mockery of Wikipedia's fundamental goals and most important policies; there is a need to take action now. Sunray (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban for Skipsievert and AdenR

Given the evidence presented above with respect to continual reverts and insertions of major changes to article text against consensus, disruptive and tendentious commentary on the talk page and violations of WP:POINT, the following action is proposed:

Skipsievert and AdenR are topic banned from the sustainability article and associated talk page for a period of one year.

• Support. This combo has obstructed collaborative editing and violated Wikipedia behavioral policies. A topic ban is the minimum step needed for a constructive editing environment to be restored. Sunray (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• No This isn't the right venue, we haven't explored or exhausted DR and there is an ongoing mediation with skip as a party. Protonk (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The mediation is unrelated to the Sustainability article. This is not mediatable, IMO (and I am a mediator). Sunray (talk) 01:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• If this in not the right venue, then let us move it to the right venue. The ongoing mediation has no direct connection with this case. You were referred above to 300K of talk page text attempting to resolve the dispute. And there is probably one or several megabytes of earlier attempts. You would not take this position if you had already experienced some extended process with Skipsievert. Skipsievert is interesting in grandstanding, not in resolving disputes. I think a lot of good editors will just give up at this stage if this matter cannot be settled. --Geronimo20 (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• A few responses. First, I feel he has disrupted articles well outside the sustainability sphere, so a narrow topic ban may only actually resolve things for that one editor. Second, An/I is generally not a fair venue for those facing topic bans nor it is a good venue from which to seek a permanent solution (unless there is overwhelming support). Third, I noted above that I have been and am now involved in some version of the DR process w/ Skip, so you can't assume ignorance of the subject on my part. Lastly, the right venue is a user conduct RfC. Protonk (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, good points. From what you say, this process may have to be expanded. However, we are currently prevented from constructive editing of the sustainability article and we need an immediate resolution there. Someone may wish to initiate a broader RfC relating to his activities elsewhere. Given that, how would you vote for this specific proposal? Sunray (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• I still oppose a topic ban, based at least partially on the unwarranted hassling on my talk page about this position. Protonk (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. As a wholly uninvolved outside party, I agree that - from the description above - this appears to be a clear-cut case of persistent civil POV-pushing which is having a deleterious effect on the project. Editors who do not participate in good faith should not be allowed to disrupt those who do. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Skipsievert always stoutly maintains his behaviour is impeccable, and everyone else is out of step. If they are not topic banned, the behaviour will continue and the article might as well be abandoned by constructive editors as a lost cause. It is not right that so much time and energy from so many constructive editors should be shredded in this way. The collective effort lost, trying to contain and work around the Skipsievert/AdenR barrages, would have resulted in several FA articles elsewhere in Wikipedia. --Geronimo20 (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Agree with Geronimo: Skipsievert believes he is always right, and everyone else is wrong, so no collaborative editing is possible, and much time is wasted. Johnfos (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support Skipsievert, to my mind, is a paradigm of what is meant by "tendentious editing". Granitethighs 03:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• User Johnphos has previously followed me with negative commentary whenever the opportunity has arisen like here. I do not believe I am always right and I am a collaborative editor.

• To Geronimo... I have never said that my behavior is impeccable as you quote me above. I am human. I am a neutral pov editor that has had concerns about the Sustainability article directed in a non neutral political pov.

• To Sunray and Geronimo suggesting a topic ban? What is the point? No one is, or has, stopped anyone from editing the article. The same core of people have been editing this article for a very long time as this shows I only have tried to copy edit it for neutrality, and take out glaring non neutral aspects. Concerns about the article are different than being a disruptive editor. Also to propose a topic ban on a newbie editor... AdenR?? The sign up team previously tried to say that he was a sock puppet because he agreed on some editing points that others have also agreed with in opposition to Sunray and a couple of other editors. It is noted that the pov toward political in the article is so overwhelming as to be beyond question such as the over-sourcing of a political pov. which is still a dominating issue and has been the source of driving off multiple editors that disagreed with that over-sourcing for a long time, so this a consistent pattern.

• Suggestion to ChrisO. Manipulating sentiment by giving a one sided or incomplete view is not so hard if people are determined to do that. You might go to the talk page of the Sustainability article, and see my behavior instead of being convinced here by a negative attack. If there is a Rfc,... I believe it should directed at the article editing direction itself with a question of is it being neutrally edited? This is or was a content dispute. Now it seems a variety of disgruntled users that do not seem to like me for what ever reason, have appeared here through canvassing also Lawrence khwoo calling others to come here - Sourcing an entire lead to a political point of view is not a good idea. That is the only ref/citation in the lead. I tried to source the word to a dictionary meaning instead. That would have no baggage. Instead the editing team prefers the definition of sustainability to the U.N., but there is a problem there. That is not a definition of sustainability, it is a definition to sustainable development or sustainable growth, and it is dated. My wish is that other editors actually go to the article and get involved to improve it.

• Can people in the sign up team come here sign up team, and suddenly propose a topic ban because they do not like their edits being questioned as to n.p.o.v.?? Then pile in their friends for extra support? This is not good. skip sievert (talk) 04:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support topic ban and add in a few more blocks per 1RR violations. He still leads people going in circles even in here. Had I been a neutral admin, I would have issued the blocks right away because clearly Skipsievert did not learn his lessons after his previous block, which the admin blocked him indef for "Created blog to attack users, has an obvious axe to grind, nonstop tendentious editing and edit-warring, POV-pushing and general unproductiveness" before shortening the block to 1 week per ANI. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• There were no 1RR violations or undoing reverts in the time frame. I may have edited other parts of the article but that is not undoing an edit. Sunray under a 1RR did violate that though, at least once. I did not. I am not leading people in circles. Previous block... several years ago. No... I grind the ax of neutral pov. and that should not be a problem. How is it that you are dredging negative stuff from several years ago above? Not good. And why are people from the sign up team showing up here to now make negative attacks?? Previously I tried to resolve some issues through informal mediation and Ohana also showed up to castigate and make demeaning commentary and dredge edits from years ago and now he repeats the same kind of behavior. It is noted that he has not participated except negatively on the discussion page in question. Ohana is also a member of the editing team on the article Sign up team. Also it is noted that Ohana came to a sock puppet investigation by the team, which was proven to be not true, with the same kind of negative polemic here - skip sievert (talk) 04:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Ah ha, thanks skip for pulling out more evidences against yourself. This edit[208] shows your abusive behaviour. His edit is removing my comments on someone else's user talk page, added his own comments, and in the edit summary states "comment". You're trying to mislead others into thinking you're adding your own comments, when in fact you're also removing people's comments. I gave Skip one last chance in December 2008 in the hopes of AGF, but Skip did not improve at all and my faith is losing fast. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. The above comments, the evidence against the two user accounts and the continued disruption of collaborative, unbiased editing on WP in the affected articles, speak for themselves. I am disappointed it has come to this, but all other avenues, short of a face-to-face chat, have indeed been exhausted. I see 6 in support, 2 calling for the process to be expanded. Nick carson (talk) 05:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. as an uninvolved party - one individual (and has a sock-check be done) cannot hold up progress. After reading the talkpage and the archive, I'm happy the other editors are acting with the best intentions of the project. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support' as uninvolved. It's obvious from the comments above that SS uses false accusations of NPA which is a violation of policy. The issues with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT et al. show a tendentious editor who refuses to accept consensus. We need editors from all points of view editing here, but they must follow the rules and accept consensus. Auntie E. 15:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support as uninvolved. It is clear that progress on this article is being impeded. --Iacchus —Preceding undated comment added 20:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC).

• Support based on discussion above. (For disclosure I am involved in a mediation just beginning which includes Skipsievert.) The Four Deuces (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Enough already. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. If Wikipedia is to have a sustainability article worth reading, then the proposed ban is the only option. I have been editing the Sustainability page for one year now, I was part of setting up the editing team specifically in response to this post [209] from Granitethighs, who is clearly an expert on sustainability, ceding defeat to Skipsievert whose disruptive tactics had caused GT to give up on editing under normal protocols. One year on I have come to the conclusion that progress on the article isn’t difficult with Skip involved – it’s impossible.

Mediation and RfC are pointless – as pointed out at the very beginning of this thread, Skip is always right. The entire talk archive since Skip began editing has been one long mediation process – in common with all the other constructive editors I have spent hours attempting to mediate with Skip for every minute I have spent contributing to the article. An RfC will just require us to waste even more time, and nothing will change as a result.

BTW the above support from Wikipedia admins is heartening; I have been put through more incivility and timewasting than it is reasonable to expect anyone to tolerate, and the other constructive editors of this article have all had it worse than me. It is a delight to hear the Wikipedia community agree this is unacceptable.--Travelplanner (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I don't see any alternative, given the track record. This sort of situation is exactly what discourages improvement and deters collaboration. There shouldn't have to be a lone group of editors fighting against extreme tendentious behaviour to improve any article on this project. (For the record, I don't recall having ever edited this article or any closely related articles.) user:J aka justen (talk) 07:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Tally thus far

• Support = 14;
• Oppose = 0;
• Other = 1 (move to another forum)

As a sign of good faith, I will 'step back' from editing the article for at least a few weeks and stick to its talk page. The issue of neutral point of view editing on the article is not being addressed in my view and obscured with information that is not connected to that issue. skip sievert (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This wouldn't work, I'm afraid. Most of the havoc you have wreaked has been on the talk page. The continual reverts are highly annoying and against WP:CON, however most of the violations of behavioral policies and guidelines occur on the talk page. The inability to edit collaboratively and abide by consensus; endless disruptions to make a point and frequent violations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA by you and AdenR are what prevents other editors from progressing with article improvements. As Travelplanner points out, above, dealing with you over the past year has been a continuous mediation. Nothing has worked. The only way to avoid a ban or a block, IMO, is for you and your puppet to leave the article completely. For good. Sunray (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This proposal to 'step back' seems out of character, and I doubt that it is serious, as edit warring continues on the sustainability page, and personal attacks on the talk page. It's more likely that the proposal is being made only because of advice given to Skip about how to respond to this proposed topic ban. LK (talk) 04:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, today it proved that this "stepping back" wouldn't work. AdenR is now doing all the work for Skip while Skip refrains from editing the article. For example, AdenR cited consensus in the revert[210][211] when the consensus is against such edits doesn't hold much weight. Merely using the word "consensus" in edit summary does not give you a "get out of jail free" card. It is the actual consensus backing your edits that matters. And has anyone realized that AdenR never come to this page and tries to defend himself? Hypothetically, if I were the subject of a topic-ban, I would come to this discussion immediately and try to stop it from happening. From what I am seeing right now, Skip is doing all the talking while AdenR is doing all the editing. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for interjection, but given the care that seems to be placed in the review process I wanted to bring to light that while researching for a AfD I saw in Skipsievert's contributions page a solicitation for protection to another administrator here[212] in regards to this ANI. It would seem unethical for a protagonist to subvert the AIN process this way as similar WP:GAMES seems to be central focus of the incident review against this editor, so could be considered as evidence. At the very least I hope this can prevent more delays in getting a resolution for what is a very impressive portal. Again, sorry. Datheisen (talk) 07:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

whoww! Jeez guys. I never really check my page for messages. It would have helped if someone mentioned to me that this was happening on the talk page. I only saw it mentioned for skip by Geronimo20. I didn't know I was involved with this. Anyways, these accusation are ridiculous and false. I admit that some of my reverts could have been dealt with more reasonably but I still don't constantly revert. But my recent revert was already agreed by consensus. And I have proof, and we are currently discussing this on the talk page. AdenR (talk) 07:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If I'm being discussed for a topic ban then I think it would be reasonable to separate me from skip in this argument. I haven't gone agianst consensus but for a few times. I don't make Hugh changes either. I admit I did revert some edits that are questionable and I'm sorry about that. Also, my recent revert Is being discussed on the article. I have proof it was agreed by consensus and some editors are ignoring that fact. I will take this slow though. Plus most of my edits were not major changes and were still reverted citing consensus. I was reverted for switching "community and political structures" to "humanity" over here. I was reverted for deleting a sentence that added no value to the article and introduced comical comparisons of cancer here. I was Even reverted for doing an edit that that WAS agreed by consensus Here and reverted here. Now, These were most of my edits except for the Blue marble image edit that is still being discussed. All of my minor edits are being reverted all the while the team and others are making edits similar to this. I do think it should be discussed if thier are problems and I am doing that. And once agian my recent revert is being discussed. AdenR (talk) 07:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Right now an editor just recently changed an edit that is being discussed without getting consensus here...How is it that others are allowed to do this but anything made by me is reverted for ridiculus reasons. It seems I am being attacked just for agreeing with skip on some edits. AdenR (talk) 07:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have also been attacked over and over agian by Sunray. He never talks about the subject and talks about me being a sock puppet which is not true. [213] I have asked him MANY time to please stop. Even when I only stick to content him and GT still talk about it. Also, he has stated he doesn't pay attention to anything I bring up about the article HERE because of his opinion of me. AdenR (talk) 08:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Aden, you continually reintroduce your and Skip's preferred version of the lead, knowing that this significant change is disputed by every other person actively editing the page. Since the beginning of the month, you have reverted to yours and Skip's version of the lead: here, here, here, here, here, and here. This is not including other disputes and reverts. Several people on the talk page have asked you to stop doing this, and yet you continued doing so. In fact, your edits are so similar to Skip's that other editors have taken to treating the both of you as one voice. Given this, I hope you understand why you have been named in this complaint. LK (talk) 08:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The second edit you mentioned is still being discussed. That is not anything major. Also, The blue marble image is still not agreed by consensus. After only a few opinions about what it should and should not be you automatically change it to YOUR view. Without consensus by the team whatsoever. I suggest you revert yourself now. Since it seems like you are doing this to stir things up. Only SUNRAY, LK, MORPH, and myself have talked about what that edit should be. But you still took it upon yourself to speak for the team and changed it. An ongoing problem which should be dealt with in content dispute. Not in this manner. Personal attacks about me and another Impeding the progress of the article are ridiculous IMO. This is about content NOT the contributor. Also, I think it is only fair that the ability to say things like "their actions are impeding the progress of the article" can be stated in the content dispute. You guys don't know what is and what is NOT good for the article. Edit wars "i assume" occur because of content. And that IS an issue we are discussing. THis is not the right venue. AdenR (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the diff of the caption change (which I included by accident). That still leaves many times since just the beginning of the month, that you have reintroduced a significant change in the lead that you knew was disputed. This list does not include the other minor edit warrings that you participated in (over the caption for instance). LK (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

OK Aden, the above is a subject dispute and we should probably move it back to the talk page. At first I believed you to be a sockpuppet of Skip's, but this was checked out and came back negative. Your own editing history is, as you point out, not grounds for a ban so unless there is other proof that you are the same person I can't see how a topic ban on Skip should be widened to include you.

Can I change my vote to Support topic ban on Skipsievert for incorrigibly disruptive editing as per evidence above.--Travelplanner (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

However, as the clerk noted in closing the sockpuppet/meatpuppet investigations, Skipsievert and AdenR edit in tandem.[214] The MO of both accounts is relentless hashing of the same points in an aggressive and disruptive manner. So whether we call it "tandem editing" or call it "puppetry," it is just semantics as far as I can see. I have said to AdenR several times that if he does not develop a separate identity from Skip they are likely to be treated as one entity. There has been no change in behavior so they need to be treated as one IMHO. Sunray (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope, that won't work Sunray. If you have problems with it then reopen the case and do whatever you have to do if you think I am a sock puppet or what have you. Until I am "convicted" of something you need to quit with the personal attacks and remarks. They do NOT address anything I bring up concerning the article. You have been shown to lead the discussion into personal attacks/remarks instead of talking on content on the talk page. You and GT specifically. Such as saying things like I am not surprised you side with skip. Or thanking other editors who have personally attacked others on the talk page. Such as this, you could have talk about content but didn't. Same here for GT. You guys constantly do this, which has added to the madness of the article and talk page. Therefore I do not think I nor Skip should be topic banned. Skip has already said he will take time off. I think he has learned his lesson. But still the editing styles and personal remarks if applied to skip should be applied to the other editors as well. AdenR (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Next steps

Can I point out that this dispute over Sustainability is one of three separate disputes in which Skipsievert is engaged at this moment, involving largely separate groups of editors. There was also a Mediation with WikiProject:Economics which broke down on Skip's withdrawal and an AFD on one of his POV-pushing Technocracy articles. In each case, his conduct is similar. I'd suggest that a block is needed so he can take some time off from Wikipedia and return with a more constructive approach.JQ (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I suggest we move over to RfC for user conduct, citing WP:Disruption. We should ask for a block as it's clear that the actions of this user(s) are disruptive, and leading to a lot of wasted time and effort on the part of other editors. LK (talk) 02:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Not true, as to disputes I am involved in according to JQ. How is it fair to call my involvement in an Afd. a Pov-pushing article and a dispute? I am getting sick of that kind of banter, here is the Afd, and there is no dispute going on there just normal debate. The mediation your speaking about stopped because of Lawrence Khoo from the sustainability article sign up team [215], and yourself making a very negative appeal for people to pile in here which they did. This is sometimes referred to as canvasing, and it was blatantly negative. I am not involved in any disputes currently, except maybe defending myself here, because I am not agreeing with what I would term a political pov and a wrongly given definition to a word, on the Sustainability article. I also volunteered not to edit the article page for a few weeks as a good will gesture. Now I see the article still having problems with me not around it also. Could we stop the attack blog approach now? skip sievert (talk) 02:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

We need to bear in mind that if it goes to RfC it will not be about "asking for a block." As WP:RFC states: "An RfC cannot impose involuntary sanctions on a user, such as blocking or a topic ban; it is a tool for developing voluntary agreements and collecting information."[216] I agree, though, that if a topic ban is not possible here, we do need to explore all options to find a solution. Sunray (talk) 06:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

An/I seems seriously broken. What makes you think RfC will not also be just another black hole for sucking up energy? --Geronimo20 (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that ANI is broken. Only that it is not equipped to deal with this kind of problem. ANI works for clearly demarcated incidents. It is not set up to rule on evidence, or sort through huge piles of verbiage and long strings of diffs.

It is true that an RfC would take many people away from their normal editing tasks. Given the persistent behavior patterns over the past two years, it would also be unlikely to succeed in getting a resolution. That could prove discouraging for many and may even drive off some good editors. However, Skipsievert and AdenR deserve a fair hearing and due process. If it were to go to a user conduct RfC, it would be to get community-wide input. Logically, from what we have seen here, if there were no change in Skipsievert and AdenR"s behavior as a result, it would then proceed to arbitration with a lifetime site ban being the likely request. The other approach would be to see if there is a change in Skipsievert's and AdenR's behavior now, and, if not, proceed directly to arbitration. I am leaning towards this latter approach, but would be interested in hearing other views. Sunray (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I ran into Skip in Representative money and you can read my complaints in sections 5-8 of Talk:Representative_money, total POV misuse of sources, deleting WP:RS info in favor of WP:OR, etc. He is the first editor I ran into who got me so frustrated that he alone made me want to quit editing - and I'm someone who constantly has been drawn into various Israel-Palestine related disputes over the years. At least one knows the opponent's motivation for policy violations in those cases! Wikipedia can't have credibility if this sort of chronic violation of Wikipolicies is allowed to continue. It just drives editors away. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Rangeblock please

Resolved

 – Page semi-protected. Need to keep an eye on IP range though. Abecedare (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

99.165.105.168 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 99.139.220.179 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 99.139.220.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 99.139.231.245 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seem to be the same anonymous user editing from the same IP range. This user has a pattern of adding an unsourced store directory to Washington Commons and then throwing a wikitantrum when I remove it, including random undoings of my edits. 99.139.220.238 got blocked by Jéské Couriano on 10/16 for very vicious attacks (see ANEW archives). Just today, 99.139.231.245 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made a random undo of my editing, and not only re-added the store listing again, but also added "Kiss my a** 10 inch weiner, you're not god and you've been breaking the rules on here" in comments. This definitely warrants a rangeblock to get this @#!*$ away from the article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If you include the first IP listed there, the range is way too big. Is semi-protection an option? Tan | 39 19:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say just go with the 99.139 IPs if you rangeblock. Semi-prot isn't out of the question, but I think blocking would get the point across more clearly that this user is not helping things. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Could we try semi-prot first? I'm happy to do so, rather than rangeblocking, which causes all sorts of problems for people. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Jéské is handling the semi-prot, and he just blocked the IP. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

"Before I give you a midnight wake up call" Is that a death threat I hear?--SKATER ^Speak. 20:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I've semi'd for one week, but given this guy's modus operandi, I'd keep an eye out for any IP in the 99.139.xxx.xxx vicinity suddenly appearing on an article to undo TenPound's edits. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Brews Ohare's right to collect evidence

Resolved

 – The clerk, Hersfold, has spoken: This is not the right venue. Abecedare (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

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

---

User:Brews ohare was the subject on an arbitration case. He feels that he was not treated correctly in this whole process. The precise details are not so important. The point is that many people involved in this process have to some degree behaved in an uncivil way, but only Brews and David Tombe were punished. Whether that's correct or not is irrelevant for this particular discussion. My point here is that Brews does have the right to build his own case for an appeals process or just for the record. He is, of course, not allowed to launch personal attacks.

Brews made this subpage to his userpage. Brews is now blamed for launching a personal attack, while all he is doing is quoting Physchim62 when Physchim62 says that Brews is nuts (he suggests that Brews believes in a giant conspiracy). I believe that the title of the page is to be interpreted like that.

The question is if other editors who have had problems with Brews can just accuse Brews of launching a personal atack, if Brews is just quoting what someone else (who was also involved in the arbitration case) has just said. Count Iblis (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I've just added {{db-attack}} notices to four pages:

• User:Brews ohare/Physchim62: Is he nuts?
• User:Brews ohare/Physchim62
• User:Brews ohare/Dicklyon
• User:Brews ohare/Physchim62: A typical discussion

These pages have nothing to do with collecting evidence for an arbitration case that is near to closing, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light. They serve only as a collection of (very recent) satements which Brews ohare (talk · contribs) does not seem to agree with. In the case of the pages concerning me, they are extracted from a discussion which is still active on my talk page, as anyone can see. These pages should be delted forthwith as serving no purpose for the encyclopedia. Physchim62 (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

While I initially deleted all four of those pages, I later restored the last per Brews' request on my talk page. However, I admonished Brews to be civil in his discussions with Physchim62. With this post, I also strongly admonish Physchim62 to be civil as well. I am not taking sides on this dispute because 1) I do not know all the facts of the ArbCom case and 2) I am not a science major. Willking1979 (talk) 22:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I request redeletion of User:Brews ohare/Physchim62: A typical discussion, simply because of the title – it is not a typical discussion – because it would be recreation of otherwise speedy deletable content contained in User:Brews ohare/Physchim62: Is he nuts?, because the material is available on my very own talk page (Brews ohare simply took a few paragraphs) so the page serves no purpose except to attack me. Physchim62 (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Since I was involved in the initial deletion of the pages--and the subsequent restoration of one--I will abstain from any other actions regarding them. This ArbCom case is too complex to digest and interpret in a brief period of time. Again, I urge the editors to be civil during the case. Willking1979 (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a bizarre comment that material quoted directly and verbatim from PhysChim62 without additions or deletions or any editing of any kind, taken from PhysChim62's talk page somehow demeans him. By putting this material on my own page I insure that this content will not be lost due to further edits by PhysChim62, who apparently finds his own remarks do not reflect well upon him. Brews ohare (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

(redent) My comments are there for all to see, on my talk page, but in context. Failing last minute surprises, with 22h to go on the motion to close, Brews ohare (talk · contribs) will be banned for twelve months "from all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed" due to his disruptive editing and "engaging in tendentious debates and soapboxing" [217]. Would an admin like to quietly delete this material, or must I take it to WP:AN/AE? Physchim62 (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no missing context: the comments and replies are self-contained. Brews ohare (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

What about the first line? "A verbatim dialog with Physchim62 illustrating a failure to follow simple discussion:" Finell (Talk) 00:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Judge for yourself. It is certainly typical of his interaction with me. Brews ohare (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Contact the case clerk for guidance, but my advice is for everyone to cool it. Don't create material that serves no constructive purpose, don't feel obligated to read it.--Tznkai (talk) 01:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• It is disruptive to bring matters under arbitration back to this board. I recommend deleting the evidence gathering pages; the case has been voted on and will close shortly; such pages serve no useful purpose. Other admins are cautioned to steer clear. This matter should be handled by the clerks, and this thread should be closed. Jehochman ^Talk 01:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• • I was asked to swing by this thread as someone thought I was clerking the relevant case (I'm not - Hersfold is). Regardless, the above comments by Tznkai and Jehochman above are well worth heeding. Manning (talk) 05:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If Jehochman's suggestion is to delete the evidence gathering pages of this Case, it is very self-serving, and certainly a cover-up of the first magnitude, although a great relief for those implicated. Brews ohare (talk) 10:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

As Brews continues to battle and assert conspiracies where there are none, I recommend a block. Count Iblis should be admonished to stop drama mongering. Clerks, step up and do your job. Arbitration cases should not be allowed to spill over to other pages. It is disruption, pure and simple. Jehochman ^Talk 11:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This thread certainly reads as the usual 'cool kids' circling the wagons 'round one of their own. I'm not a physicist, but I understood clearly the distinction Brews was getting at between the two 'c' measurements, and I get the snide derogatory attack from Psychim62. I see nothing wrong with building an appeal process page, especially since Arbcom's such a hackneyed mess of cross-purpose procedures and rules that unless you watch it for sport, you can easily get confused and consumed. Everyone should be able to appeal, especially given the numerous controversial edicts handed down. Preventing appeal is no more than another dictatorial decree with no teeth - it's not as if they can't just construct the entire thing in notepad or word, then post it all at once, or post it at WR instead. Nothing's to be gained from deleting such pages, so long as they build to a purpose, and frankly, that one snippet seen on the 'typical discussion' page, isn't a PA in any form - Psychim62 should not have shot his mouth off if he didn't want to see it again. ThuranX (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This matter is at arbitration. Please don't shoot from the hip when you don't understand the entire history of the dispute. Jehochman ^Talk 13:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If it is agreed that these are evidence gathering pages, and the arb is still open, then why is deletion needed? And if it is under the exclusive jurisdiction of ArbCom, why is deletion taking place pursuant to discussion here? It strikes me as rather odd. If it is routine to require the deletion of evidence gathering pages, then of course they should be deleted, but if it is not so, and these are userspace pages, it is customary to give great discretion to the user per WP:UP#OWN. I'd like to see some clarifications here and less mentions of "blocks" or "shoot from the hip", which may tend to make people afraid to engage in debate.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The arbitration has been voted on and will close within a day. The evidence presentation phase is over and done. The pages serve no useful purpose at all; they merely antagonize the other disputants. It is routine to require deletion of evidence gathering pages that are derogatory towards other editors once the evidence has been presented. Keeping lists of grudges and disputes is not permissible. Wehwalt, we have grown very tired of repeating the same arguments time and time again with these disruptive editors. They should not be granted an umpteenth bite at the apple. There's nothing new in this thread at all. It's just pure disruption and abuse of process. Jehochman ^Talk 13:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that at least for appearance sake (which is part of what is being complained about), deletion should have awaited the formal closing of the ArbCom case. "He who did sell the lion's skin ..." To do otherwise seems to be stepping on ArbCom's toes, nothing wrong with that in a good cause, but not sure this qualifies.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This thread should not be here at all. I agree, all the parties should let the case close and then request enforcement. I'd very much appreciate if an arbitration clerk would appear here to admonish Count Iblis for doing an end run around arbitration, and to forcibly archive this thread. Jehochman ^Talk 13:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Strikes me then, we should reverse the actions taken in this out of jurisdiction thread and leave a clear field for ArbCom.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be one approach. However, it might be best to leave the current position as it is, and ask a clerk to sort it out. I've been asking ArbCom to send a clerk here to close up this thread, but that has not happened yet. Jehochman ^Talk 14:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think restoring status quo ante is better than status quo ilikeit.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I think letting the clerks sort it out is best. Don't use tools at all here. Just leave things where they are so as not to confuse the matter further. This thread should not have been started here, the files should not have been deleted, and the clerks should have attended to this already. Jehochman ^Talk 14:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Note:

• Some are talking about the evidence gathering pages of the arbitration case. Others are talking about the copies of these pages Brews has been gathering as subpages of his own user page. DVdm (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If these deleted pages are copies of pages found elsewhere which will not be deleted at the close of the Arb, then I think we are arguing about nothing.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

"Don't shoot from the hip"? You prove my point. This is you protecting your buddy, and ignoring the entire fact that he is doing this for an appeal, because ArbCom is a mess to learn how to deal with when you're in the thick of it. I stand by my position, and I'll thank you to keep your own snide attacks to yourself. and no, DVdm, I'm not confused at all. any appeal starts somewhere, and gathering evidence is the best place to begin. ThuranX (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure we're getting anywhere here. If anyone needs what's on those deleted pages, I can make them available to them so it can be had off wiki. Perhaps email me, and I'll send the text in my reply. Otherwise, I don't think we're accomplishing anything. Again, I think appearances don't look wonderful on this one.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's not forget that Jehochman is an involved Admin in this dispute. Before the Arbitration cased started he raised the problems with Brews, David etc. here (a few times I think). Physchim62 and I are also involved in this case. Jehochman, however, was not a party in the Arbitration case itself.

To be clear about my position, I do not support Brews' POV in the dispute about the physics. The problem as seen by many editors was basically that Brews was posting so frequently and pushing so hard for his (allegedly) idiosyncratic POV, that he was hard to deal with. The Arbitration case was aimed at this.

A few days ago William Connoley stepped into this debate (as far as the physics is concerned) on his own talk page and also on Physchim62's talk page. These are more or less invited discussions, purely about the physics. Brews also participated in these discussions. Then on Physchim62's talk page, Physchim62 made a remark that Brews found typical of how discussions that are initially about physics escalate into big fights. On the Arbitration case he tried to argue that point but he was not successful in that.

Now, when I raised this particular dispute about Brews collecting evidence here, I immediately notified Physchim62 on the particualr Arbitration talk page where Physchim62 himself had raised the matter. I told him that because I support Brews (under certain conditions) in this particular matter, that he needs to come here and give his own POV. I think Physchim62 was ok. with that and that only Jehochman seems to strongly object to my action. But I don't think it is correct if involved parties can exert so much influence in this particular dispute. Count Iblis (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't copying and pasting another person's comments into a collection page a copyright violation? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That depends. If the comments were made on Wikipdia, they were released under CC-BY-SA and GFDL. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

 Clerk note: You know, it's funny how people keep saying "it's the clerk's decision; the clerks should have handled it already; clerks, step up and do your job" and yet it wasn't until Brews gave me a link to this page five hours ago that anyone bothered to give me the slighted notice that this discussion was going on. The clerks are not omniscient nor online 24 hours a day. In fact, I was asleep for the majority of this discussion. If you people want Arb Clerk action on an issue, ANI is the precise last place to request it. The proper locations would be the case pages, the clerk's talk page, or the clerk's noticeboard. I have neither the time nor patience to read through, much less find, a heated argument like this to try and figure out who wants what done and why. If you have a specific request that absolutely cannot wait until the case is closed in six hours, let me know on one of the three pages mentioned above. Otherwise, stop the complaining. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Brody6900

Resolved

 – User warned. No further action required at the moment. Abecedare (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I ran across this user when he/she was making editing tests and a clumsy but good faith edit on Black Death. That is alright, there could still be potential for a contributing editor in him/her, but I am a bit unsure about the editors userpage. It seems he/she is using it as a chatforum with two other IPs. I just wondered what is the official stance on this? --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The articles created were (I think) probably about people the user knew, which is not good. If they're chatting, I'd say give them a WP:MYPACE warning. May want to keep tabs on their edits to see if they improve. They deserve a warning before we take any action. But what do I know, don't listen to me if you don't want to, I'm probably wrong, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 11:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope, you're probably right. I blanked their userpage, gave them a honkin' Welcome template, let them know that their edits have drawn attention of admins, and advised them of this ANI. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes! Someone agrees with me! (sorry, irrelevant, I'll just go now...) Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 11:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Thanks, I guess the ball is in Brody6900s court now. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I reverted further IP vandalism to the user page. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

high volume minor changes - not sure about this....

Resolved

 – All edits seem to have been reverted. IP remains unblocked since it is no longer active. Abecedare (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/82.47.120.38

User is applying minor changes to the height of tennis players. I'm asking him on his talk page what's going on but someone may have seen this sort of serial change marauder before. Leaky Caldron 13:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism - taken care of. Leaky Caldron 13:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it was vandalism,the IP should be blocked --NotedGrant Talk 14:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of referenced text is disruptive

Resolved

 – Domer reminded to be more civil, 3RR block declined, Sarek and Toddst1 probably should be careful if they use admin tools with regards to this particular issue. Enough said. Tan | 39 16:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan has been removing referenced text form this article. There first edit was to revert my edit which replaced text that had been removed by an IP. There next edit was to remove a whole section from the article, with the edit summary “checked 8 other articles -- none reproduces the definition of a bull, they just link to the term” could the editor be told, that first, Wiki is not a source of reference, and secondly the text was supported by secondary and third party sources. Their third edit was again to remove large amounts of referenced text, in addition to removing attributions to authors, which are required when dealing with controversial subjects. They then placed this notice on my talk page despite the fact that it was their unexplained actions which were being reverted. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

How is this a problem? That sentence is unreferenced and makes no sense at all. I see no real attempts on your part to actually try to discuss anything - you revert with "POV pusher" and then come straight here to ANI. I see no action that can be taken here. Tan | 39 14:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, considering Domer made a 4th revert after being warned, there is some action that can be taken here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that he made a fourth revert, but it would probably be best if someone else handle any administrative action that is deemed necessary. user:J aka justen (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I reported him at the 3RR board, so someone uninvolved can handle it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Tan, I used the term Troll not "POV pusher" and the sentence is referenced. So considering you have a problem with reading, maybe that would explain why the sentence "makes no sense at all" to you. I've seen no part on SarekOfVulcan or the IP to actually try to discuss anything, but again, no mention of that by you. Now you only bothered with one of the edits I outlined above, so lets deal with the others. I've seen no effort by you to discuss them here at all, and the fact that I came here when a problem developed, should not be an issue unless you are trying to make an issue of it. Were else should I have gone?Reverting vandalism is not considered a revert.--Domer48_'fenian' 14:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tan above, and Rannpháirtí anaithnid on the article talk page. This is not vandalism. Unfounded accusations of "vandalism" and "trolling" are of absolutely no use; are not accurate descriptions of what's going on; and do nothing but create a more difficult editing situation. It's a collaborative encyclopedia, so... collaborate. By the way, the fact that text is referenced is not a cloak of invincibility, meaning it can never be removed; inclusion of text is an editorial decision, made in collaboration with other editors on the talk page of the article. Domer, please consider reverting your fourth revert, and soon; I'd hate to see you blocked for 3RR, and I'm pretty confident that's what will happen, soon, if you don't self-revert. Instead of reverting, please just discuss on the talk page of the article.--Floquenbeam (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Domer48 (talk · contribs)'s edit summaries appear fairly disruptive, and he seems to quite like the word "trolling: "rv trolling", "rv further vandalism by trolling admin", "rv trolling admin", etc. [218] --Elonka 14:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Clear that Domer needs a block. How long though? Would a month be too long? I see a horrendous block log, the 4rr highlighted above, and loads of uncivil edit summaries. In addition the language of the post just above shows no evidence of learning. This user can be very slow to "get it" and maybe a month to think about how we work here would help him. --John (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Given the previous block log, nothing short of 1 month. Toddst1 (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Please note that much of the "horrendous block log" is modifications/cancellations of existing blocks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Removing referenced and sourced text without any reason or discussion is not vandalism? Removing a whole section from the article because it is not supported by wiki as a reference, but is supported by secondary and third party sources is not disruptive? --Domer48_'fenian' 14:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Typical! Lets raise the red herring of a block log, rather than deal with the issue at hand. When was the last time I was blocked? A quick look at the log we see an number of them over turned, and we see SarekOfVulcan block on me being a bad one. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Block logs are very material when discussing length of blocks. Toddst1 (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

domer, here is where you use "POV pusher". I have no problem with reading, but you have a problem with civility. Sarek, can you comment on the removal of the above section? I don't see discussion about it anywhere on the talk page, but I could be missing it. Tan | 39 14:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't discuss it on the talk page, but I noted in the edit summary that I ran through the list of papal bulls and checked 8 or more of them, and none of them included a section duplicating the papal bull article -- they just wikilinked it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Please, your edit summary said "checked 8 other articles -- none reproduces the definition of a bull, they just link to the term" now since when does the fact that 8 other articles on wiki that don't deal with the definition of a bull justify the removal of text which does explain what a Papal bull is? Note also that the section is completly referenced. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Block logs are very material when discussing length of blocks after the nature of the dispute has been addressed. You have not commented on the dispute yet. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Domer has shown quite a streak of incivility, no doubt about that and should be sanctioned accordingly. Nevertheless, I understand that Sarek's edit as presented above was easy to misunderstand. "checked 8 other articles -- none reproduces the definition of a bull, they just link to the term" makes no sense whatsoever as a reason to remove referenced text - without knowing which articles he refers to. He has now clarified it and it can be discussed whether it's pointless or not to duplicate such information but that's an editing dispute that needs a discussion on the talk page instead of here. The incivility Domer showed though needs to stop as well and I propose to support aformentioned block if they continue to use such language instead of trying to solve the problem. But if they understand that such language is inappropriate and will not accepted and show this in future comments, a block would be punitive. As such, I think we should only discuss a block if further incivility occurs. Regards SoWhy 15:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Rephrased to reflect further comments made while I was writing this.

strike minor confusion
It would be easier to comply with the above if I knew which language of mine I wasn't supposed to use... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Sorry if I sounded confusing, I was using the singular they to refer to Domer48. Regards SoWhy 15:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC) *headdesk* Yes, sorry, got it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I disagree that my edit summary made no sense -- why would I be checking anything except other papal bull articles to see if a section defining papal bulls was appropriate?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If by addressing the civility issue, it will focus the attention onto the dispute itself, I have no problem stating that I will no longer describe Mooretwin as a “POV pusher” or SarekOfVulcan as a “Troll.” I also know, by giving such an undertaking, that Admin’s would also consider such terms being used towards me as equally wrong and act accordingly. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Logical fallacy. It's only wrong to consider you a troll if you aren't trolling. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ya'll should protect the article-in-question. Then work-it-out on that article's discussion page. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to protect it at this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I declined the 3RR block for now. While technically a violation, a block would be primarily punitive at this point since discussion is underway. I did however undo the violating edit and will block if another revert takes place (within 24 hours or otherwise). This action was only a comment on the 3RR aspect - a possible block for incivility can still be considered separately. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(←) User:Domer48 has got to stop with the hostility. That being said, I think it's important to understand where that may be coming from... I believe it's obvious he views User:SarekOfVulcan antagonistically (made clear by his reverts to his talk page, and probably due to a problematic block in June). Likewise, with User:Toddst1 (problematic block in August). This does not excuse the incivility or absolve him of his responsibility to edit collaboratively, but two recent instances of problematic blocks would undoubtedly make him anxious of noticeboard discussions trending in the direction this one is trending in, and the earlier reference to his block log to justify a new monthlong block is really salt in his clearly still fresh wounds (which, to his credit, User:SarekOfVulcan pointed out). Another block isn't going to help in the long run, although I agree it's the only option unless he agrees to drop the hostility and incivility. Still, I'm disappointed it was the first option discussed here, disappointed by this (given the history), and disappointed that neither User:SarekOfVulcan nor User:Toddst1 considered their histories with this editor relevant as a preface to their comments here. user:J aka justen (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If I had started the discussion here, it's likely that I would have linked to the previous discussion. However, I didn't. Domer came here without attempting to discuss first (not even in the edit summaries), and knowing that AN/I discussions get all parties looked at. J, why are you disappointed that I told him that I wasn't going to block without warning him first? Note that that response was on my talk page, not his. Posting it on his would have been trolling by most definitions, agreed.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Because you shouldn't be blocking him -- or threatening that you will block him -- given that you were involved in the dispute as an editor. (That's even ignoring that you should probably be a tad more careful given the past situation with him in your capacity as an administrator.) user:J aka justen (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

":I'm not going to block you without warning first..." is not actually a threat to block, though it might be read as such. I agree it would be better if someone without a history with Domer was the one to block. Even better if Domer would stop being uncivil and edit-warring of course. --John (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

"Even better if Domer would stop being uncivil and edit-warring of course." I couldn't agree more, and I hope he takes the fact that this particular recommended course of action has been reiterated here multiple times today seriously. user:J aka justen (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I've had the same experience with the same editor on the same article. See that ANI. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Domer has now been reminded to be more civil at least eight times in this thread. 3RR block has been declined. Content dispute can now be moved to a relevant talk page; marking resolved. Tan | 39 16:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no substantial content dispute to discuss. The matter is that Domer48 accuses his perceived "enemies" of persecuting him ("trolling" in this case, "stalking" in my own) should they copy edit a page that he has taken a liking to. The matter is not even ownership or incivility, it WP:BATTLE. There is noting of substance to discuss regarding content.

I used to edit that page - both under my current user name and my old one - but I feel I've been chased away from it now since any edits I make (literally no more than spelling and grammar fixes) are reverted on sight by Domer48.

There is nothing to be discussed with Domer48; nor is there any point in discussing anything with him (as I know from experience of his modus operandi elsewhere). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

User IP address misusing talk page or something

Resolved

 – Blocked for two weeks Tan | 39 14:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The IP address 70.121.33.144 removes my recent notice of the removal of the sandbox and the header. He/she went to my talk page and scolded me and put "Stay off my talk page. I removed your template warnings but the sandbox is virtually unvandalizable. Don't remove messages I put there either. Any of the such will be reverted." I reverted that edit, and now he/she put "In my opinion, your careless use of the rollback feature, by reverting valid messages as vandalism, is inappropriate and will never garner you as an admin on Wikipedia, so read this while you can becuase you'll just revert it as vandalism, even though, by definition on Wikipedia, it isn't. Just an attempt to cover and hide your mistake." I do not have rollback rights yet. And now I saw the user talk page for the IP address redirect to Penis. How can I deal with him/her?  Merlion  444  14:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks. Tan | 39 14:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

But now the unblock review said "No such actions existed. Where did I attack? The only thing I can considor I an attack was his edits. Which is acceptable as critism." I think he/she just put these quotes shown above on my talk page, that's all. He/she might not have attacked me. However, he/she still misused the talk page by creating a malicious redirect before he/she was blocked.  Merlion  444  14:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

...and they are still blocked for two weeks. Jpgordon denied the unblock request. If we end up having to protect the IP talk page, we will - there's no more action necessary from an ANI standpoint. Marking resolved. Tan | 39 14:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Jimhsuseattle creating disharmony

Jimhsuseattle is creating disharmony in this thread: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Too_Beautiful_to_Live#Merger_proposal

Among his slurs against another poster:

1. "ignorant" 2. "sad individual" 3. "it" 4. "ignorant" 5. many others ...

THX Secretoffatima (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Level 1 warning given. You should notify the editor of this thread. Tan | 39 15:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - just notified him. Secretoffatima (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Can someone else look into User:Secretoffatima? The situation has gotten away from me a bit on User talk:Jimhsuseattle's talk page, and Secret themselves are proving to be problematic. Any additional eyes would be helpful. Tan | 39 16:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoever is currently patrolling SPI has deleted Secret's SPI notification and asked him to resubmit. I think Secret thinks that Jimhsuseattle did it. I have advised Secret on their talk page of what has actually happened.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee elections: Urgent! Final call for applications

Time is rapidly running out. The closing date for completed applications is 23:59 (UTC) 22 October 2009. If you are interested in becoming one of the three non-arbitrator members of the Audit Subcommittee, see the election pages now for the job specification and application details.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 17:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy, editwarring, disruptive editing and personal attacks

• ~19:20 20 oct. I like to have some reaction/advice from any admin interested in this case. If not here feel free on my talkpage. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy (talk) Last unprovoced personal attack and false accusation made me decide to take action at this side.

16 oct 04:37 "Incidentally, I just want to add that we (all editors) were playing quite nicely in the sand box together until Mr unsigned Anon came along, reverting like a madman and tossing and mixing paragraphs and sentences as though this article was a salad. The edit wars began with him and unfortunately, protection status was instituted becuase of him and his inability to work with others"[219]

First, my last edit on Gaza War before articleprotection was 6 Oct 06:17[220] self reverting

Jijutsuguys part of editwarring. Proving he was a, if not the, reason for the need of protection of Gaza War

• 8 oct 06:13 more complaining on admins talkpage and accusations "There are a few of us who are only trying to restore some balance into the artice" [221]
• 8 oct 04:12 Complaining on admins talkpage (who protect page) complaining over reverts (His own editwar, Possibly violation of gaming the system).[222]

• 8 oct 03:58 [223] editwarring, revert RomaC, last before protection and version during the protectiontime.
• 8 oct 03:10 [224] editwarring, revert Sean.hoyland
• 7 0ct 20:58 [225] editwarring revert Dailycare [226]
• 7 oct 20:52 [227] editwarring, revert Dailycare[228]
• 7 oct 20:42 [229] Editwarring, possibly revert Blanchardb indiscriminate [230]

Here are all his edits on [Gaza War] the days before, showing his combative editstyle.

• 7 oct 15:27 [231] Added "indiscriminate"
• 7 oct 01:57 [232]
• 7 oct 00:36 [233]
• 6 oct 20:43 [234] revert Mr Unsigned Anon [235]
• 6 oct 20:19 [236] editwarring revert Untwirl, no RS, posibly BLP violation
• 6 oct 19:50 [237]
• 6 oct 19:41 [238]
• 6 oct 19:36 [239]
• 6 oct 19:34 [240]
• 6 oct 03:39 [241] Possibly editwarring lead section
• 6 oct 01:14 [242] editwarring revert Nableezy
• 5 oct 06:41 [243] editwarring, revert Mr Unsigned Anon,
• 5 oct 03:08 [244] editwarring revert Sean.hoyland
• 5 oct 02:48 [245] editwarring, revert Sean.hoyland

Disruptive editing and personal attacks

• 16oct 04:37 "Incidentally, I just want to add that we (all editors) were playing quite nicely in the sand box together until Mr unsigned Anon came along, reverting like a madman and tossing and mixing paragraphs and sentences as though this article was a salad. The edit wars began with him and unfortunately, protection status was instituted becuase of him and his inability to work with others"[246]
• 8 oct 06:13 "The most vile of the bunch is Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) who was already warned that he would be blocked for persistent vandalism to this site. Please go to his talk page to see what I'm referring to "[247]
• 6 oct 15:57 "The article was shaping up to be pretty good, though when it comes to Middle East, no one can be entirely satisfied. But comes along Mr Anon Unsigned and starts reverting like a mad man with out regard for any etiquette or decorum. "[248]
• 6 oct 14:29 "This fella has gone crazy with reverts and will not even entertain discussion" [249]
• 6 oct 01:24 "The reasons for attacks against civilian had been stated in the lead for a while undisturbed until anonunsigned went crazy with reverts. I could't even respond to him becuase his English was so poor I had no idea what he was talking about" [250]
• 5 oct 19:54 "Unfortunately, work obligations prevent me from dedicating more time to this nonsense and dealing with these abusive censors. It seems that they've adopted a tactic of coordinating their reverts and come at you in swarms and try to overwhelm and exhaust you "[251] answer to Stellarkids 'list of edits'[252]
• 5 oct 08:10 "Revert to your heart's desire just don't call it the Gaza War or Operation Cast Lead. Call it a recruiting poster for Hamas and don't forget to throw in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" while you're at it." [253]
• 5 oct 07:00 "They don't even bother hiding their anti-Israel bias, By the time their through with this article, it's gonna look like a Hamas recruiting poster." [254]
• 5 oct 02:35 "I must say that you've taken what was shaping up to be a pretty decent article, somewhat balanced, fact-intensive and gramatically correct and turned it into garbage. Just another example of how a perfectly good Wikipedia article can be single handedly butchered by a lone, rouge "editor" "[255]
• 5 0ct 02:05 "Your English is barely understandable so it's difficult for me to respond to your incoherent, illogical arguments. Again, I suggest you take a two-year English course and come back when you can articulate a coherent thought" [256]

His personal attacks was up at Wikiquett [257] but it was met with more attacks and case didnt come to a resolution.

There is more problems around Juijutsuguy about POV-editing and I can probably dig up advice from other editors telling him to stopp that he neglect. But I think my presentation of diffs should be enough for administrators to take action after checking them.

Reservations for errors with the editdiffs but I hope all are correct.

Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 10:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr Unsigned Anon

Sigh. It seems that Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) has filed yet another complaint against me. Honestly fellas, I work for a living so it's difficult for me to spend an inordinante amout of time compiling "evidence" of the sort my friend seems to have compiled. However, I did make a short list of some of Mr Unsigned Anon's gems:

• Come on Wikifellows. His IP says he is from Brooklyn USA. Why on earth can one believe a guy from Brooklyn working for the Israeli Goverment. Just look at all nice areas and etnic... Borough Park... Wait! Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 12:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Finally I found that recruitment office. Now where is jiujitsuguys bankacount so he can get that recrutbonus? Lookie new bombwest. Wonder what happen if I push this red button. Oh shii.... Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 05:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Just trying to grind up a solution, no accusation involved. But BashBrannigan suggestion is a middleway. No bold text and no Cast Lead. And thats just the first part of lead. Damnit, there is more diputed. But without you and Nableezy agrea this will take long time. I understand he will drop the bold text if Im right. Cant you accept BashBrannigan:s? Its attractive to me as 'Cast Lead' is, even kind of abstract as I never been in Gaza, a name splattered by up to 926 civilians blood. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 09:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC

• Yes, November 4 shit started... Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• If you are a Israeli or American jew I like to discuss some tings with you. Because there is some things i dont understand and you could help me with it. But first I think you should stop edit articles about the conflict between Israel and Palestinians. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 09:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Never mind, hope the weather is good in Brooklyn. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

His comments, in addition to using inappropriate foul language, are laced with a racist undertone based on ethnicity and demographics. I believe that his invective toward me stems from the fact that his last complaint against me was found to be without merit and fell flat. Indeed, it backfired on him and he became the subject of scrutiny and criticism.

My only regret was poking fun at his spelling and grammar and I have already apologized for that. It actually did not come out the way I meant it but I really had difficulty understanding him, making any meaningful dialouge and exchange of ideas difficult.

Since his last complaint against me, I have refrained from addressing him directly lest I be accused of insulting him again and have asked him not to post on my talk page. He has difficulty comprehending instruction as he still continues to post messages on my page.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps what upsets me most is that (based on his first comment) he assumed that I lived in a certain geographical location and based on that assumption, he presumed that I belonged to a certain ethnicity.Because of that presumed ethnicity, he assumed that I held certain pre-disposed beliefs. He is wrong on all three counts. But I needn't justify myself to him. I am just presenting the facts to you.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The message below was left on my talk page by another editor who encountered similar problems with Mr Unsigned Anon (talk)

I don't know what to make of it or do with it but I analyzed Mr Unsigned Anon's contributions. I can't believe this can be seen as productive, collaborative editing! He has been here for just over a month and worked almost entirely on the issue of the Gaza War. There are few (if any) positive edits, all seem to be editing from a strong anti-Israel bias (POV) and consist mainly of removing material that has been added, with quite a lot of discussion on the talk page, but little or any of it actually calling on Wikipedia policy.

90 total edits since Sept 24, 2009 - 27 of these on just two articles (Gaza War & International Law and the Gaza War) and virtually all of the rest on their talk pages : of the 27 actual article edits, some 15 -over half of all edits were removals of (mostly substantiated) material or reverts.

1. [258] -rvt

1. [259] -- moved material to lede
2. [260] rvt
3. [261] rvt
4. [262] rvt sourced material
5. [263] rvt sourced material
6. [264] rvt
7. [265] rvt
8. [266] rvt
9. [267] rvt
10. [268] removed material
11. [269] removed material
12. [270] totally reworked article called it "restructured section"
13. [271] removed sourced material "removed israeli[sic] side exlanation [sic] that it is undue weight in lead"
14. [272] removed sourced material "remove superfluous opinions fron not involved parts" [sic]
15. [273] removed sourced material

I didn't even know there was such a thing as Wiki etiquette alerts, but anyway, that is the only other place besides your talk page and Roma's that he has "contributed" besides the Gaza War. Somehow I find something not terribly polite can be seen in the results of the above analysis. Again not so sure what can be done about it, but maybe something.? Stellarkid (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that this message was posted on Oct 5. Since that time, Mr Anon Unsigned has reverted back to his usual unilateral ways, reverting sourced material without doing any original research of his own. It is truly a frustrating experience to watch your research and sourced edits go down the toilet by someone who's trying to push a non-neutral POV.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Second time that list of editdiffs is up. It was used as an incorrect accusation then and so now. It is second time Jiujitsuguy respond to complains of personal attacks with countercharges [274], and this by his friend stellarkid badly compiled list. Last time it led to a vandalizingwarning by uninvolved editors, later removed "I hearby remove this warning. As, according to the edit difs it doesn't seen like vandalism. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 10:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)" [275] I hope you admins dont let Jiujitsuguy bring you out of focus with this mostly nonsence counteraccusations and really out of context claims. The importent thing shown here is that he have no intension to stop, or change his behavour and I have to ask you to ban or topicban him. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If that's a bad list I want to correct it. I somehow must have copied something other than the diffs, like "previous" or something. I did however check every one when I wrote it up and they were reverts or removals. So please scatch that list if you would and I will put up a corrected one. Not sure what happened but I am sorry if it is wrong as I said earlier. I want to recheck each diff and to find the correct link. Something went screwy if it is wrong. Stellarkid (talk) 03:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I dont understand how jiujitsuguy could post it the second time well knowing of its inconcistnsies and faults. Or the first time without checking it. Or just adress my complains in first case. But no... Here we start wars Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 03:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> There were mistakes in that list and for that I do apologize to Mr Unsigned Anon. I am not sure how it happened, but I take full responsibility for those mistakes and again am sorry. The list ran from Sept 26-October 5. Most were not real reverts. Just a couple. Two were duplicates of each other. One was a proper revert of (anti-Israel) vandalism. One had just moved stuff around so much it seemed disappeared. Here are the ones that I do feel are relevant and that demonstrate that Mr Anon is removing (sourced) material based on POV rather than NPOV:

1. [276] Not a revert, but wholesale removal of well-sourced material from a certain perspective -- including removal of JPost, The Economist, Amnesty Internation (Cant understand why the lead is filled upp with pov stuff even if ballansing out eachother. Start a section or continue to use the reportin other sections. I put the stuff I cut in talk for use els)
2. [277] not a revert but a POV removal
3. [278] not a revert but removed huge amounts of sourced material, edit summary {International law: removing opinion and views better discussed in the main article} However the material maintained the opinion of Hamas
4. [279] removed sourced material appears to be a revert -(Edit summary "views, comments away")
5. [280] rvt straightout revert , no comment
6. [281] rvt straightout revert
7. [282] totally reworked article called it "restructured section"'' Removed considerable amount of sourced Israeli POV
8. [283] removed sourced material explaining Israel's reasons for "destroying mosques, houses, medical facilities and schools" -- which was that (according to Israel) they were being used by combatants. This was very POV to remove. (edit summary: "removed israeli[sic] side exlanation [sic] that it is undue weight in lead"
9. [284] removed sourced material "remove superfluous opinions fron not involved parts" [sic] Superflous because it presented an opinion (Cordesman) that could be seen as favorable to Israel.
10. [285] removed sourced material edit summary: "removed the Marc Garlasco stuff) This is arguable, although it might have been less POV to have removed some parts of the material until they could be discussed instead of using a butcher knife.

Again I apologize for my errors. I hope I have not made any in this corrected list. If I have I please ask for you to point them out so that I may correct them Stellarkid (talk) 05:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

So you take full responsibility for this. Start explain why you posting this list and to what purpose. This is ANI. Make a complain accusation or requst for admin action. You edited in Jiujitsus text. Am I supposed to edit aditional analyses in your 'list' ? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 05:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Further, this list surfaced here [286]19:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC). Why? What was your intension for creating it? You didnt respond when I asked you to elaborate. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 05:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Your way of teaming[287] up with jiujitsuguy raise conserns, early on by making the list. And this show you are not unawere about your lists intent to be used against editors not supporting your POV [288] Same spirit as Jiujitsuguy. The list nonsence, and the making of it, tells about a mission. Importent enough to keep list on supposed opponents editing. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 06:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy, you was the one Godwined yourself!

• 5 oct 08:10 "Revert to your heart's desire just don't call it the Gaza War or Operation Cast Lead. Call it a recruiting poster for Hamas and don't forget to throw in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" while you're at it."

Note timestamp, and stopp insinuate racism. As you remember from Wikiquett that was not your first , what you call "gem". Wikiquett is a problemsolving, not action taking by anyone. Your counterattack made me back off after understanding you are not reasonable. I dropped it. Two times. This is diferent. Adress my first complain. This one:

"Incidentally, I just want to add that we (all editors) were playing quite nicely in the sand box together until Mr unsigned Anon came along, reverting like a madman and tossing and mixing paragraphs and sentences as though this article was a salad. The edit wars began with him and unfortunately, protection status was instituted becuase of him and his inability to work with others" Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 04:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr Anon, I had to go look up what it meant to "Godwin" oneself. Jiujitsuguy was perhaps over the top with the remark about Protocols but it was not a direct personal attack. Antisemitism and the Nazi treatment of Jews in WWII is no joke or game, especially in an environment such as WP and editing of articles in relation to Israel and Palestine, where there is a need for sensitivity on both sides of the fence. Remembering that the European Union's working definition includes using a double standard when discussing events controversial issues such as is inevitable in an article such as Gaza War. I am not a "friend" of Juijisugy but a colleague in the Wikipedia endeavor, as I am your colleague as well, and I read hints of ethnic profiling in your remarks on his talk page. Perhaps it would have been better to discuss your real intent or meaning when you noticed he was sensitive to your remarks rather than dragging him to a wikicourt and making jokes about "Godwining" himself. Stellarkid (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about in Jiujitsuguys place? And why? I find this a strange answer to the request above. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Filed an Arbitration case see: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Gaza_.22Wikipedia_Edit_War.22 --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 21:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

68.231.147.253 spamming

Resolved

 – All taken care of; thanks, guys! — Gavia immer (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for dumping this on ANI, but my internet connection is useless right now. Can someone please revert all of today's contributions by 68.231.147.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? They are all spam. Thanks. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it's all been reverted by various users as of 20:10 GMT. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 20:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Template removal & incivility...

Resolved

 – User blocked for 55 hours HalfShadow (talk)

17:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)}}

Restored from archive... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Again... still unresolved, silly Miszabot... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Once more, due to continued activity... - Adolphus79 (talk) 06:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Back on September 20, 2009, Chao19 (talk · contribs) was blocked for removing article maintenence templates and incivility. He was removing {{fact}}, {{refimprove}}, and {{Unreferenced}} templates from assorted Creed articles... he was given fair warning, and his only replies the the warnings were that no references were needed and I was an asshole for restoring the templates. After the block, that user was inactive for a while, although there were one or two IPs (67.167.33.47 (talk · contribs) and possible others) that continued the pattern, even going so far as to continue the incivility on my user talk page (this and the following half dozen revisions)... within a minute of the IP's last comment, Chao19 had logged in, and replied to his own IP comment (Chao19's first edit since the block)... Since that edit, the IP has not made any further edits, and Chao19 has continued the incivility[289] and removal of maintenence templates without reason... I filed a report at AIV, and was going to file a report at SSP, but was told it would be better brought to ANI...

It is obvious that the IP is a sock of Chao19, and it is also obvious that Chao19's original block did nothing to change his editing habits... his counter-productive editing and harassment of other users has become more than an average bother to me, and I would like someone else to look into this... - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes this behavior is pretty bad. Comments like "Why do you expect everything to be referenced? Jesus.." leave me with doubt that this person has the willingness to comply with Wikipedia's most basic editing rules. If this was a new editor I would suggest that a person have a talk with them about the necessity of verifiability but seeing that they've been an active editor for over 9 months with over 600 edits I'd consider any ignorance of rules at this point to be willful. -- Atama頭 19:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

For the last month I have tried to explain this to him, and have been met with nothing but stubborness and incivility every step of the way... I just sat down to find his latest revelation, "And from what ive seen over the year and a half ive been on here, your the only once who truly gives a flying fuck about the unreferenced stuff."... Anyone that takes a look at my conversation with him so far, will see that this guy obviously does not care about Wikipedia's policies, and plans to continue doing what he wants with no regard for them. Add to that the incivility, and you've got the makings of someone who (while not a blatent vandal) will do nothing but cause harm to the project in the end... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Although, I am still looking forward to my Worst Admin Ever award... LOL - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll get started on an excremental barnstar for you. :) -- Atama頭 19:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sa-weet... that'll be number three in as many years... - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Back to the original comment, the editor in question has now begun vandalizing my user page, and continues the incivility on my talk page... Someone with tools please do something about this... - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Adolphus79. That last comment was completely out of line.--Crossmr (talk) 01:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur. A block per WP:NPA would seem to be in order if this happens again. --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

His being blocked a month ago for it, and coming back to continue harassing me isn't enough? Or the contsant and blatent template vandalism, which also continued after the last block? I can guarantee that the harassment and template removal will continue, it's not a matter of if... - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, that didn't take long, I just sat down to find that the user had removed maintenence templates again on assorted creed articles, and continues to think that twitter, youtube, and blogs are reliable sources... I am really getting tired of having to constantly clean up after a user that thinks third-party, reliable refs are stupid... - Adolphus79 (talk) 06:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This needs to be stopped right now... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 55 hours. I'd ask you, Adolphus79, to give him a wide berth once his block expires - either he will, in turn, leave you alone as I've instructed him to do, or he will invite a longer (or indef) block. Edits such as the one you cite above are absolutely unacceptable, and as blatant a violation of WP:NPA as I've seen in the past few hours. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to do so, this user's edits that were done in good faith, and those that were beneficial to the 'pedia, have gone untouched by my hands... My only concern is the blatent template removal, the bad refs, and the incivility... I will certainly give Chao19 a chance to change his ways (just as I mistakingly did with the last block), but I can not help but keep an eye on his future edits, due to his editing history... I promise that when he comes back from this block, and shows evidence of an effort to follow Wikipedia policies, he will never hear from me again... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, you've acted properly - I did not mean to imply otherwise. Rather, it's clear that Chao19's anger is directed at you, so if you choose not to interact with him/her, then they either a) seek you out for further attacks, or b) let it drop. We'll see what happens. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Epigraphist

More about the user page than the user (who is mostly retired): are lonely hearts ads appropriate for user pages? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted per WP:NOTMYSPACE. Tan | 39 16:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Reasonable outcome, but MFD would have been more appropriate. Stifle (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, outcome was inevitable. No need to be bureaucratic about it. Tan | 39 17:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think doing this was extraordinarily bitey, since only the last of the three paragraphs met this description--the first two were just quiet & polite complaints about feeling unwanted at Wikipedia. I'd like it undeleted and sent for RfD, where I will suggest giving him a chance to delete the paragraph. His last comment to article talk space was just 3 days ago and earlier edits were helpful. We talk about not discouraging new editors. This was the diametrically wrong response to an existing contributor who has done nothing else wrong here. DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC) .

"I've pretty much given up on editing Wikipedia because it's a huge scam where the Big-Business-Government pays off head Wikipenazis to distort all knowledge to keep the public uninformed." This is quiet and polite? We have very different notions of "polite", then. If you want to take it to MfD, go right ahead. Tan | 39 18:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with DGG: the sentence Tan cites is the most venomous line on that page -- which, when all is considered, is mild for an "I'm outta here, lusers!" rant. Although I think he's wrong about us regulars being paid to edit here -- or else I'm the only one who hasn't received any remuneration for all of my work. (Then again, I do regret giving my bank account information to that guy in Nigeria; never did see any of the $650 million dollars his uncle needed help getting out of that country.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, DGG. Wikipedia is not a dating service. The person has some obvious issues, and we should not be encouraging such behaviors by restoring his user page. WP:THERAPY is a good essay explaining this sort of thing. MuZemike 18:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Epigraphist has been contributing for more than two years, and it is precisely his exposure to Wikipedia's rules which led to the current state of his user page. If I'd considered that he's likely respond positively if questioned I'd have gone nowhere near the dramaboard with this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Testing the waters

Hello there. Some of you may remember that a week ago, I was here asking for a summary reinstatement of my Twinkle rights. After a while, some level heads intervened, some explanations and suggestions were traded, and I decided to give it a two weeks and ask for a reassessment. All of it is here or in the archives for this page, if you are interested.

This is my one week "testing the waters" request. It is not a request for reinstatement (although that would be nice,) but a request for advice and guidence. I want admins and other skilled users to look over my actions in the past week and show me where I need to improve.

In the last week I made a few adjustments that you should be aware of.

1. I have been spending significantly less time in recent changes, only popping in occasionally after doing something else, and rarely spending prolonged time in RCP.
2. Instead I have been working with Featured Pictures, Valued Pictures, and Picture Peer Review. The regulars there have been showing me the ropes.
3. I am interested in GA nominations and to a lesser extent FA nominations for articles in the fields of East Asia, Politics, East Asian Politics, Video Games, and Role Playing Games. When I have longer periods of time (I.E. when I'm not using Wikipedia as a study break for midterms) I will be delving into that.

Please confine comments to edits happening in the week, I don't need to be chewed out twice over things I already have decided I made mistakes on. Also, please confine the discussion to one place, so I can copy it and save it. Thanks.   Nezzadar ☎   18:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not violently opposed to it, for one thing I think your picture work is fantastic and a big boon to the project, and I also think you mean well even when you made mistakes. I've looked at your interactions with new/anonymous editors over the past few days and I don't see any communication that was out of line. I'm still concerned about what occurred in this ANI incident, and your interaction with new editors in that situation. That did occur less than a week ago. But I don't see any problems after that time, so my only suggestion would be to keep doing what you've been doing. -- Atama頭 22:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Admittedly, that was handled rather poorly. It was my first incident where it was almost entirely in a gray area. Was the user a sock? Was there bad faith? Ironically, the message I left on the talk page was my attempt not to bite the kid. I was trying to give him a message that would encourage him to contribute without jumping right into the chaos that that incident was. However I see where you are coming from, and I see how it could be biting. Another irony is that the reason I had to wing it was that I didn't have the warning bank from Twinkle. I know the warnings are at WP:WARN but Twinkle explains them much better and allows me to choose the best option. Thanks for the feedback Atama. Domo arigato gozaimasu!   Nezzadar ☎   23:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Disruption at Race and Intelligence

Resolved

 – Nothing requiring admin intervention here. Manning (talk) 00:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

An editor has claimed that he has problems with my edits at Race and Intelligence, but won't tell me what they are. Instead, he has offered to be wp:POINTY.[290] He complains that nobody else reverts me while making wild accusations that I want to circumvent consensus.[291] He also complains that I am a troll and a sock puppet. This has gone on for quite a while, but specifics are never offered.[292][293][294] Can someone step in and explain these issues to this editor? T34CH (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's add some balance here.

• I've never claimed T34CH was either a "sockpuppet" or a "troll".
• The "wild accusations" were on the basis of T34CH's own words.
• Rather than explain - which I have tried on numerous occasions - what I found to be "wrong", I simply edited the section in question. Thus, T34CH can see for himself.

There's no need to investigate anything here, as far as I'm concerned. But if an "investigation" is found warranted, I willingly submit to a full and impartial inquiry. Thanks, --Aryaman (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it was Occam and Fixentries who called me a troll. You simply thought I was a sock.[295] I'm confused how stating that I will "hopefully get consensus to rename it to something more meaningful and descriptive" is working to circumvent consensus. I'm not sure what there is to investigate. It's just that I keep asking for examples of your accusations against my edits and consistently get nothing. I hoped that someone here would be able to point this out to you as you don't seem to trust the other editors at R&I. I'm off line for a while now. T34CH (talk) 22:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I called you a problematic editor, not a sockpuppet. Regardless, can we stop with this here? I thought this was for informing admins of conflicts, not bickering between those involved. --Aryaman (talk) 23:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Mufka

What a big surprise!

Resolved

 – The only one with a big secret here is the OP, and even then it ain't a secret. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 22:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This user User:Mufka has a big secret. I asked one of the checkusers to scan Mufka's IP Address. That checkuser told me that Mufka has 2 sockpuppet named User:ISWAK3 and User:Peparazzi.Those sockuppets have very similar edits to Mufka. I reported this to Wikipedia:Sock Investigations but they did not believe in me. Please block these 3 users please. Thanks Kontrabida (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This is quite an allegation. Do you have any proof? Shared interests among several editors does not indicate sockpuppetry. Basket of Puppies 22:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Obvious trolling is obvious. A new user out of the blue seems to know what sockpuppetry and checkuser are? Fishy. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, for crying out loud, an army of socks of User:GMA Fan have been raining down on Mufka's userpages as well as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mufka (which I had to semi-protect for blatant sock disruption). This is another one of those socks. Can we get a checkuser, please? It's obvious GMA Fan will not stop. MuZemike 22:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• • I agree with User:Kontrabida . Mufka is an administrator who blocks user that did not do anything wrong. I believe that Mufka should not be an admin at all. Especially, when Mufka has 2 sockuppets 166.129.142.64 (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • Speaking as a checkuser, no checkuser would state to a random user that an admin has undeclared sockpuppets. We'd email ArbCom and keep our mouths shut on the issue. However, I will be checkusering the both of you, Kontrabida and IP editor, shortly. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • • Really?! I have lots of proof that Mufka is ISWAK3 and PEprazzi. Mufka also blocks people that did not do anything. This user really needs to be block forever now!!! Kontrabida (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Liar. I'll be by shortly to block you for trolling. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 22:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ne'ermind; Hersfold whammied 'em. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 22:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Jessica Foster

Resolved

Not sure where else to go with this one, so I'll post it here... Can someone with a bit more experience than me cut back this article to something more encyclopedic, and talk to the article's author without standard templates. It's an article about a missing teenager, apparantly written by the teenager's mother. If notable, it probably doesn't need to be deleted, but I'm not sure how to explain it properly to the author... Singularity42 (talk) 22:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Meh. I prodded it. I don't think this would have a chance in hell even with cleanup. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • This should be speedy deleted. Not only is it soapboxing, it's an egregious BLP violation concerning claims of criminal activity on the part of a third person, and just far too much linking to YouTube. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I did leave a note on the author's page; see here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll deal with this. Don't worry chaps! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's been dealt with by someone else, it seems. Resolved, anyway. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the article as a G10 right after I was blockblocked by Hersfold above :P -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 22:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

ChinaUpdater

Collapsing post

User:ChinaUpdater's repeated BLP violations ChinaUpdater (talk · contribs) continues to post BLP-violating rants at every venue he/she can possibly find. I have repeatedly tried to explain why they should stop, their screeds on multiple users' Talk pages have led to those users telling ChinaUpdater to quit posting them there, or on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allied Artists International page, and I issued ChinaUpdater a final warning that if there were any more BLP violations, I would bring their conduct here, and yet, just as soon as I left the warning, AND after he/she replied to it, they posted this, a cut and paste rant which they're putting all over the place. ChinaUpdater got reported once already to the 3RR board for their repeated edit warring on Allied Artists International and SEVERAL related pages, but the page wound up getting protected instead of the user being dealt with. It's time for this to come to an end. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Can you provide more diffs of the BLP violations and what in those diffs is a vio>? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC) I can. Here [296]. ChinaUpdater (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC) China posted his screed on my talkpage. However he and I have been able to resolve that issue co-operatively and constructively, without the need for either of us to go blubbing to the Administrators. Crafty (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Death Threats, and Email requests Re "Can you turn on your email, even if temporarily, so you can email me? It's very important. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)"', I have received death threats, recorded by the LAPD, and in posession of the SFPD. I reported them to Agent McClatchy at the United States Secrete Service, Division of Bank and Wire Fraud, as well as to Detective Level II Barragan in the same office, both of whom I met with in person. Because of KDR's past "solicitation to commit murder", and other crimes to further his Allied Artist misrepresenations, I do not feel comfortable with giving my email, as I know from personal experience that there are problems with at least two admins related to something else entirely. ChinaUpdater (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC) ChinaUpdater (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Using Wikipedia to Commmit Fraud, other Death Threats I also called the number, which is in the links I put on the article page, for Robert L. Brosio, United States Attorney, Major Frauds Section, United States vs. Kimball Dean Richards, before the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case CR 88-411 (A) –R, about WarriorBoy85 and Wikipedia editors locking the phony company page of his in place, while people are purchasing shares in his company by being defrauded using the information on Wikipedia. ALL WARRIORBOY85 EDITS IN ARTICLES SHOULD BE BLANKED OUT FOR TWO WEEKS., before anyone is hurt in these coroporate frauds, and associated crimes, using wikipedia articles on Non Notables as a means of defrauding. There can be no harm done in blaning out even the Allied Artists Pictures Corporation article, even though it is owned in part by a 93 year old, computer illiterate man, who has done nothing wrong, but the article is in fected with WarriorBoy85 edits promoting the company of Kimball Dean Richards. I have already called, and reported in person, legal threats, "I warned you" threats, 'death threats, and other matters related to bank and wire fraud, and other frauds. The attempt to use Wikipedia to commmit stock fraud by creating the illusion of one company being another, as outlined in my many edits. I suggest that the VERY HIGHEST level of Wikipedia admins write these articles on these criminals, editors who are identity protected. It would be very wrong if the public information of the convictions would be allowed to be kept off of Wikipedia, as this ommission would in itself be a form of aiding and abetting. I provided links in many places to the New York State Corporations where anyone can see that Allied Artists Pictures Corporation is not linked to the '93 year old man I have written about on talk pages, nor in any way with Kimball Dean Richards or his Allied Artists, Allied Artists International, or any ohter of his criminal conspiracies to appear to be something that he and his companies are not. It is inexcusible that these NON NOTABLE articles should be locked in by Admins, which will only lead to more people being defrauded in stock purchases of this phony company, which is not Allied Artists Pictures Corporation, as can be seen by going to the links I have provided.ChinaUpdater (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC) ChinaUpdater (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC) "Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit" Abce2|This isnot a test 00:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC) That's can, not should. Rodhullandemu 01:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC) I meant it for this comment, "I suggest that the VERY HIGHEST level of Wikipedia admins write these articles on these criminals, editors who are identity protected." Abce2|This isnot a test 01:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict) Yeah, "The encyclopedia anyone should edit" just seems awkward. What would that even mean? Anyway, I don't really understand the OP's issue. Hopefully someone does. Equazcion (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia rules are not being followed, and the pages for these fraudulent, nonnotable companies, should eb blanked out before anyone else gets defrauded. Allied Artists Records is the company of a convicted felon, who has committed solicitation to murder, by his own admission in a plea agreement, as in th newspaper articles I provided. ChinaUpdater (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC). Why? Why don't you just remove the false info? Why delete an article that you just provided sources for?Abce2|This isnot a test 01:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC) You try going to one of the pages, and try to add or remove info on this convicted felon, who admitted to SOLICITING MURDERS [297] , and when I posted the newspaper links, the edits were massively deleted, and so was the whole article, leaving only the appearance that Kimball Dean Richards, or his Allied Artists, Allied Artists International, Allied Artists Records, etc., were really Allied Artists Pictures Corporation. Wikipedia is being used to commit Fraudulent sales in exactly the same way, but a much larger scale, as this gang did in the 80's, before going to the pen in the 90's. The guy got off with only three years probation for paying someone to murder his employee, being the son of a sheriff as he was, then commited mass fraud. Now he is with a company AGAIN posing as Allied Artists Pictures Corporation, using Wikipedia to promote and ADVERT his NonNotable company.ChinaUpdater (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC) What the hell is going on? Can we have a sane explanation for those of us not savvy with the facts? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC) I'm warning ChinaUpdater to 'tone down' his edits. This is simply disruptive. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Comment ChinaUpdater had been blocked indef by SarekOfVulcan for WP:DE. Best, Mifter (talk) 01:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC) If he can tone it down long enough to write a coherent unblock request, I won't oppose. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive edits - request for block

Resolved

 – Content dispute, doesn't require admin intervention. Equazcion (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I call admins to block this user

user Hxseek did a lot of distruptive edits in the article of kosovo history edits including Dardanian Kingdom, territory etc You can see history [298] of the article he removed the text a couple of times and reverted

I warned him to stop these reverts check his talk page Hxseek talk

You can verify that this kingdom existed just go to google books and type dardanian kingdom you can find hundreds of books about this kingdom.

thanks-- LONTECH  Talk  08:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

As it says at Talk:Kosovo, all editors are subject to 1RR on that article, and are to discuss any content reversions on the talk page. I see some discussion on your user talk pages, but nothing on the article talk page. You should get a discussion going there so that other editors can weigh in. And stop reverting each other immediately, until the dispute is resolved. Head to WP:Dispute resolution if you need guidance in resolving this. So far this is a content dispute, and doesn't require any admin intervention. Equazcion (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

User Lontech is a new user, a has been inserting unsubstantiating edits, changing the previously established status quo in the article. Moreover, he blatantly misquoted a reference, given that it did not state anything resembling what he claimed. As evident from his above statement, he appears to have little grasp of how proper referencing works or how Wikiepdia etique runs Hxseek (talk) 08:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hxseek, please take it to the article talk page. I notice your name is conspicuously missing from that page. New user or not, you still have to collaborate with Lontech if you want to continue contributing to that article. Good luck. Equazcion (talk) 09:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

he keeps reverting and admin intervention is required-- LONTECH  Talk  13:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Both editors reminded of 1RR probation, Hxseek warned about personal attacks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

IPs and page creation

As far as I know, IPs cannot create new pages. However, it seems that they can create new talk pages. Twice this morning I've deleted new talk pages created by IPs where there is no corresponding article.

Is this a loophole that needs closing or something we just have to put up with and deal with as and when it happens? Mjroots (talk) 08:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There are many legit reasons for IPs to create talk pages - to comment on an article, for instance. In addition, the Articles for creation process depends heavily on IP's ability to create talk pages. Submissions are created in the Wikipedia Talk namespace, and, if accepted, moved to mainspace. Tim Song (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I came here to ask the same question, because I have noticed a lot of orphaned talk pages being created about the place tonight (like Talk:Elysha Pinkstone Queensland Author, for instance). Some new form of obtuse vandalism? A coincidence? A bad set of help pages somewhere? I'm really not sure. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC).

Better idea, instead of allowing IPs to create any talk page, restrict the creation to articles which exist, so that IPs cannot create talk pages which have no corresponding article.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't that also prevent them from creating the talk page for their IP? Or would you make an exception in that case? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That would totally mess up AfC. Tim Song (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

How so?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 11:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at CAT:AFC. Most, if not all, of the pages are in WP talk exactly because IPs cannot create project pages. None of them have corresponding project pages. Tim Song (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it'd be a great idea to create some method so IPs could not create new article talk pages without an existing article. But say they reverted and then wanted to warn a new user without a userpage or talk page. Then it would be appropriate for them to be allowed to create user talk pages, provided such a user existed. (I have no expertise in the area of technology and maintenance, so I don't know if this is plausible or not.) A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 12:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

recreating Edward McMillan-Scott, Michał Kamiński and the Observer

Note: This thread was archived but I'm moving it back here as there still seem to be some unanswered questions about this.

Original thread

I was reading the papers this morning over breakfast with my wife, and read the article in today's Observer.

Given the article in today's Observer: [299], might I suggest that an admin looks into the following accounts:

Special:Contributions/John_of_Gaunt23

Special:Contributions/Xerxes23

Special:Contributions/EPP_fanatic

Special:Contributions/Yorkshire_Bumblebee

Special:Contributions/Saer1957

All of whom seem to solely edit McMillan-Scott's page, in a similar manner to Special:Contributions/Strasburg who is named in the article. They also seem to show evidence of some POV pushing, and may all be the same account. I was talking to my wife about this and she said it was important to let you know. Thank you for your time, Mr Hands. Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 12:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting that. I have raised a report at WP:COI/N quoting the original Observer article. Stephen! ^Coming... 14:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The edits of User:Strasburg, User:194.60.38.198 (which comes from the British Parliament) and User:136.173.162.144 (which comes from the European Parliament) should be looked at, as well. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

A sockpuppetry case has been opened here but it's waiting for clerk review. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I noticed 136.173.162.144 (talk · contribs) wasn't listed in that investigation. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

end of archived text

The original sockpuppetry case revealed some accounts, but User:Xerxes23 or User:Saer1957 don't seem to be listed or blocked. Can someone please confirm if a) these accounts are unrelated, or b) there is a COI problem from another source. Certainly these accounts seem to be carrying out the same disruptive and POV pushing behavior as the other accounts, but are currently unblocked. The checkuser case has been archived, but I'm concerned that there are still accounts which have been disruptively editing the edward mcmillan-scott page which this investigation has not revealed. Can the checkuser (or any checkuser, for that matter) confirm the status of these accounts, and whether any other accounts have been involved in sockpuppetry - best we sort this out on-wiki before the Observer gets hold of it! Many thanks, Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 14:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Kolocho Kitler

Resolved

 – Deleted, salted, blocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

A quick look at the contributions and deleted contributions of Kolocho Kitler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should reveal the problem. He doesn't seem to grasp that he should not be continuously creating self-promotional articles. His earliest versions of the article described his album as "imaginary", (here's a copy) which seems fairly accurate. Now, he describes himself as an "international singer", which would prevent a strict application of A7. My efforts to discuss resulted in him plastering his biography into WT:Record charts.—Kww(talk) 16:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

User has just had two recreations of the autobiography deleted per A7 and has been given a final warning. Cassandra 73 (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Now he's recreated the article again! Cassandra 73 (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted, salted, blocked one week. Better check any articles he's created that aren't yet deleted... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I deleted and salted, but I do note that he hasn't had a notification of this discusssion, and I wasn't going to block until he'd had a chance to comment here. Rodhullandemu 17:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering his talk page contains eight page-deletions, the fact that he doesn't seem to have figured out he's doing something wrong suggests he either doesn't care or he has some sort of mental deficiency. HalfShadow (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And Special:DeletedContributions/Kolocho_Kitler is quite lengthy. This block was preventative -- if he makes a persuasive case for unblock, I have no objections. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't object to the block; the frequency of unhelpful recreations made it inevitable. Rodhullandemu 18:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

IP at Earth Song

From two different IPs (86.134.94.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 80.177.99.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) this user is restoring the following to the Earth Song article: grammatical errors, factual errors, original research, unreliable sources and links to copyright material. I've already reported this user here twice, and he received edit warring warnings. He continually fails to heed them, as well as refusing to use the talk page to resolve the issues he has. His disruptive behaviour cannot continue to be met with warnings. I feel that a block or article semi-protection is the only way to stop the unconstructive edits of this user. Pyrrhus16 17:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, the link to the copyvios need to go , but as far as I can see both versions being warred over aren't perfect in terms of original research - the IPs edit, whilst introducing typos, also does wikilink some useful links and fixes a run-on sentence at one point. This is effectively a content dispute and should follow the dispute resolution path unless the edit-war becomes more problematic.Black Kite 18:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing of Outlaw motorcycle club

Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) is repeatedly reverting legitimate edits to Outlaw motorcycle club on the flimsy excuse of some unspecified "formatting" problem.[300], [301], and [302]. After long discussions at the article's talk page (and more), the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and then here at ANI (for outrageously deleting talk comments), several editors agreed that this information belongs in the article, and that the only question was one of what the wording ought to be.[303], [304], [305], [306], [307], [308].

Delicious carbuncle ignored every request to offer any compromise wording or to collaborate in any way, Instead, they stonewall. Today, Delicious carbuncle is simply reverting edits, and has refused multiple requests to specify what the formatting errors are, or to simply go ahead and fix the supposed formatting problem.

What this comes down to is an editor who refuses to get the point. Bluffing about formatting errors is silly, childish, and disruptive. I'm requesting that this user be banned from Outlaw motorcycle club for a reasonable period of time as a means of encouraging Delicious carbuncle to edit constructively and to respect the consensus reached by other editors.--Dbratland (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

And can this be reverted back to the way I left it without me also being dinged for a 3RR violation? Thanks.--Dbratland (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

A quick glance at the recent history of the article and talk page will show that Dbratland has completely misrepresented the situation in his comments above. Formatting is not the issue, as Dbratland should be very well aware at this point. This diff and this diff should shed some light what is really happening. I've grown rather tired of Dbratland's tendentious methods, so I'll likely not comment further unless compelled to defend myself. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Four separate statements about formatting problems: Here it says that my edit made"...no attempt to format them correctly." Then here you called my edit a "text dump;" i.e. there was some phantom problem with the of raw, unformatted text? Note that the edit summary says they don't wish to edit war; within an hour they violate 3RR. Again "text dump." That was a reference to my fifth offer of a new revision, and Delicious carbuncle again did not try to constructively offer any changes. Here, for the fourth time they said "There is somewhat more to this than the formatting..."

But now formatting is not the issue? You can't collaborate with an editor whose bluffs have be called on the Administrators' noticeboard just to get them to take half a step towards working constructively. --Dbratland (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be continued differing opinions over sources. Disruptive is a mischaracterization, though both editors need not edit war. Consensus (if there is any) isn't justification for warring. Grsz¹¹ 21:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a reading comprehension problem.

Delicious carbuncle read WP:TALK and apparently believes somewhere in there it says he is allowed to delete talk page comments. It makes no impression how many editors tell him you can't do that, and WP:TALK does not say what he thinks it says.

When told these three edits [309], [310], and [311] are a violation of 3RR, he simply denies and denies.

It goes a long way to explaining why he clings to the belief that I'm biased and trying to slant articles to make motorcycle gangs look good. I have this editor disputing with me what sources say, but this person will not listen to anyone who points out his reading of the words is mistaken. He decides it means what he wants, and then digs in and will not listen to anyone else.

That is why a ban is called for. Discussion does not work with Delicious carbuncle and consensus means nothing if it doesn't agree with him.--Dbratland (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Dbratland, I suggest you drop the whole "deleting talk page comments" accusations. There are legitimate reasons to remove other users' edits on a talk page, I've done it multiple times. DC thought that he was right to do so on that talk page, others disagreed, and he hasn't done it since. Bringing it up over and over again makes it look like you're just stirring up trouble to punish him, which isn't going to strengthen your claims. You're both edit-warring, and the way to resolve this is not through administrator action, but dispute resolution. -- Atama頭 22:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm bringing it up to point out how many times he had to be told he was wrong about WP:TALK. I can put up a half dozen diffs of how many different editors it took if that will help. My point is that I'm being told to work out my differences with a person who does not listen to sense. What am I supposed to do with him? I offered many variations on how to word the article, and it made no impression. I went ahead and made my changes without his input, and he reverted. We've had 3rd opinions five or six times. What's left? Can you talk to him? If you or anyone can make him be reasonable, I'll be happy. But again and again and again he has shown that he won't listen.--Dbratland (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'll get involved, I was going to suggest you take it up with WP:MEDCAB but since I volunteer there anyway I guess I can just give it a try. I can't help but feel there's a way to compromise without having to escalate this further. -- Atama頭 23:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC

I would appreciate it if you would like to try.--Dbratland (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Dbratland has evidently decided to continue to edit war even while this is at ANI and no further discussion has taken place on the talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? Even replacing one fact tag with three solid citations is a problem for you? Have you even looked up "Hollister riot" at Google books or the Google news archive? Ever? Books, articles and documentaries that say the so-called riot was sensationalized are a cottage industry. They quote a half dozen living eyewitnesses who say it was not a riot. Would you like 20 citations to support this single statement? I can do 20. Can you find even one source willing to defend the reporting of the incident? Even the SF Chronicle and Life magazine don't even try to make excuses for their abysmal coverage back then. I'm beginning to think you are totally unfamiliar with this subject and have not read the sources that go with it, which calls into question what business you have accusing me of bias or making blanket revisions to sections of this article. This is going beyond absurd.--Dbratland (talk) 04:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Dbratland, I owe you an aoplogy - I saw the edit summary of "replacing deleted citations, adding Yates1999" and didn't look closely enough at the diff. I assumed you had made yet another attempt to revert. I have no problem with your additions other than to suggest that it might be better use of your time to improve the main article at Hollister riot and direct readers there. Your tendency to include long quoted passages in citations is unusual and, given that I have already noted your tendency to selectively quote references, probably not a good idea. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Your complaints are the only reason for the quotes.--Dbratland (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you were doing that well before I arrived on the talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that the "disruptive editing" of this particular article has been going on for quite some time. Anyone can skim over the history of the article and see a slow pattern of Dbratland pushing a POV of his onto this article. Slowly removing or altering sections dealing with the criminal aspect of the content, while selectively and misleadingly using references to push a pro image. Hooper (talk) 05:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And you are selectively ignoring all of my edits on many articles dealing with outlaw motorcycle clubs that do the reverse of what you accuse. Stop repeating this rubbish unless you are prepared to back it up. Find the diffs that prove your accusation and I will then proceed to bury them in diffs that show the opposite. You don't get to just go around making accusations against people without proving it.--Dbratland (talk) 05:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yawn. That article's entire history is my proof. Hooper (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF does not work that way. You are blatantly, repeatedly violating the policy of AGF, and it needs to stop.--Dbratland (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, AGF states that it is fine with proof. This article is my proof. Hooper (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, thousands of editors were putting quotes in {{Citation}}'s quote= field long before I came along. But the set of citations you were complaining about had no quotes until you decided to make an issue of them. The quotes in this case were for Delicious carbuncle's benefit.--Dbratland (talk) 05:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on English Defense League

Resolved

 – Discussion returned to talk pages Leaky Caldron 22:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I am reporting this here based on my understanding of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and in particular Dealing with disruptive editors.

In the English Defense League article a consensus was reached yesterday on the lead sentence in which the previously disputed use of the word “political” was agreed to be dropped. Consensus and reasoning are here: [312]. There were clear issues concerning WP:NOR, WP:Weight, WP:Synth & WP:Verifiability relating the insistence that this group is, in its present form and structure, a political group.

Verbal has strenuously argued against this in the past but did not participate in the most recent consensus discussion. Nevertheless, a previously strong supporter of the word (Snowded) did agree to drop his opposition in the discussion referenced above. Only following that agreement with a previous antagonist was the disputed phrase modified (by Snowded himself) clearly reflecting the revised consensus [313]. The previous consensus had been weak and was confused by the use of the expression "far right" which is no longer at issue. The latest consesus is strong - especially as it is backed by a previous opponent.

Today Verbal maintains that the use of political is “factual and well supported content” in this dif. [314] and maybe had not read the amended consensus before reverting what he judged to be an unapproved change. I therefore changed it back per consensus here [315] pointing out the new consensus. However, he has since changed the lead back at this dif: [316] claiming consensus, RS and bizarrely, “dictionary definition and the fact this is an encyclopaedia,”

He has strenuously argued about this previously. Without providing a source he has relied upon the interpretation that political is inferred in the use of “right wing”. That in itself is a taut rendering the use of the word “political” redundant. However, the main argument against using “political” remains most importantly the lack of any source. Given what is reliably sourced about EDL it would currently be unduly prominent in the lead for an organisation characterised as a street-based, football hooligan-based mob.

If there is a more suitable venue for this please advise.

Leaky Caldron 12:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, so this is the wrong venue. Also, it is not my editing that is disruptive and there was no attempt at following WP:DR before bringing this to ANI. A "new consensus" has not yet been established. For these two reasons at least it is premature to bring this here, especially as there has been no edit warring. However, I would welcome the input of more editors at the article and would hope more people get involved and add it to their watch lists. Verbal chat 12:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Verbal, this is edit warring [317] but I'll not revert it until guided. However, the consensus (even without you) is very clear. I've played everything by the book here. The content dispute was resolved by consensus and your edits were therefore out of line. Dealing with disruptive editors point to here and I cannot find a more suitable forum unless the NPOV noticeboard is preferable. This would have degenerated into 3RR in a matter of minutes. Making false claims of a personal attack does nothing to help either. Leaky Caldron 12:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Two reliable sources (Reuters and tv press gazette) have been added, many many more could be added - but that would be pointless, and this discussion should return to the article talk - where people are still trying to get "far right" removed despite nearly every report describing them as such! See also recent attempts to get the BNP labelled "left wing". This area needs a lot more eyes. PS that isn't edit warring for technical (not more than 3 in 24hrs) and practical reasons - I added the requested RS in a two edit block. Please report me to WP:AN3 if you disagree, but I'd ask you bring it up on my talk page to see if we can reach a compromise first. Thanks, Verbal chat 13:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Neither of the sources verify that EDL is a political group. I have brought it here because you are insisting that your consensus of last week cannot be replaced by a fresh consensus in which you did not participate and you will not allow the revised consensus to stand. If you accept the new consensus and are willing to discuss on the talk page then that is clearly the right place, but you cannot keep restoring "your" particular consensus - especially in view of the strength of the new one. Leaky Caldron 13:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Please take your concerns to the article talk page. Verbal chat 13:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem in doing so if the article is returned to the consensus. The new material which was requested last week and not provided, still fails to advance your opinion that EDL is political and needs wider discussion before being accepted. As will the obvious taut. The status quo is the concensus version. You insisted on reversion to consensus last week regarding "far right" and I agreed. I am asking you to show those of us who disagree with you (about "political" in the lead) the same courtesy. Leaky Caldron 13:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Following your suggestion to discuss on your talk page you have advised that if I revert the article to consensus you would “think if you reverted again without discussion, you may well be blocked. Consider this your edit warring notification. Wikipedia doesn't take kindly to people setting conditions for debate, and promising future disruptive behaviour”.

Anyone reading this, together with the article talk page and yours, will see that what you accuse me of is completely without substance. Your allegation (that I am promising future disruptive behaviour) is reprehensible. I think you are stepping close to breaching policy on conduct and would urge you to stop and ideally retract that statement. Leaky Caldron 15:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect and misleading. The other editor has stated he wont debate the issue until I remove sourced information. There is also not a consensus for his version, even before the new sources were added. I reverted him once and then added sources and started a discussion on the talk page. I don't see why you have to reply to a post made on my talk page here. Reverting without discussion now sources have been added and a discussion added would be disruptive. I just counted up the opinions on the talk page, and didn't get a majority for removing political. I saw a few "don't care", some "remove right wing" and only two "remove political" - before the sources were added. Now sources have been added that changes the debate again, and discussion should continue. You boldly removed the phrase you are objecting to, for reasons I still don't understand, and I reverted and added new sources. I also started a discussion. Following the WP:BRD process, that discussion should continue. I has been my experiance that Wikipedia doesn't take kindly to people setting conditions for debate, and promising future disruptive behaviour (I stated this as the other editor stated they would only return to the debate if I restored his preferred version, and he asked what I would do if he did that himself). Please engage on the article talk page and show a clear consensus there to remove well sourced factual information. Verbal chat 15:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For the benefit of doubt I have refactored the section concerned. It is here [318]. In that section 5 editors concluded that “political” should be dropped. They are: Gabagool, Ghmyrtle, BritishWatcher,Snowded and me. Each one made the comment “support” or “agree”. No editors joined to say they did not agree. You obviously would have and have now done so. 5 editors supported the change which Snowed then implemented, not me.

The new material is not supportive and I’m not obliged to discuss it at anytime, much less when there is a dispute bordering on incivility. Last week you forced a reversion to consensus during the “far right” dispute. I agreed and eventually supported the consensus. Why am I in error following your good example and insisting that the new consensus should be adopted while discussion takes place? Snowded has just made a commendable suggestion and you should consider it. Leaky Caldron 16:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

⬅Its a content dispute and should not be at ANI. The EDL page is controversial and for some time Leaky C attempted to argue against both the right-wing and the political labels. The claim has not been reduced a bit to accept right-wing but avoid political. Some of us think that the political label is not the most important - it self evidently is political but its not vital to state it. If a direct citation can be found then its use is uncontroversial, for the moment organisation should be good enough. However the history of this article is not good, and Leaky C has been edit warring and using drive by tagging at times. Best to cancel this thing from ANI all together, issue an RFC and let everyone calm down a bit. Its meaningless and unnecessary escalation to bring it here. Oh and Verbal is not edit warring against consensus. I made the change based on a talk page discussion before he had a chance to get involved. He is thus fully entitled to revert it - I was being bold. Leaky C is just wrong there and the blocking threats are silly and provaocative--Snowded ^TALK 16:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you meant "now" not "not" (4th sentence). I haven't made block threats - the other user has against me - let's just be clear here. As for consensus - how is 5 editors agreeing something not a consensus? I have not edit warred. I have made 13 edits including tags and have reverted the other user 3 times over 2 separate aspects. Lets not throw stuff around not supported by the facts. I'm no bandit. The other editor has done many more reverts than I have. Leaky Caldron 16:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually its two editors (of that 5) being prepared to accept a compromise but not agreeing with you, now with some new editors its changing. Whatever, you should not bring basic content disputes to ANI against another editor who acted properly. I was bold (in support of a compromise) they reverted. That is fine, they are allowed to do that. I meant "not", he is not edit warring against consensus he has restored it, as he was not happy with my compromise edit. --Snowded ^TALK 17:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Boovaloo

Please ban this user indefinitely. It is a vandal. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Boovaloo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made 3 edits. After the third edit he recieved a level 2 warning. I don't see any edits after that. With a few exceptions we usually give users a chance to respond to warnings. If he continues he should get a at least a final warning, if not a level 3 warning first. Then if he continues WP:AIV would be the best spot to report.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And as I post that he earns himself a final warning...---Cube lurker (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I blocked by accident, thinking there had been another edit past the final warning, but unblocked when I saw that wasn't the case. The autoblock is still active -- I figured if they wanted to get in that badly, they could follow the instructions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing of Outlaw motorcycle club

Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) is repeatedly reverting legitimate edits to Outlaw motorcycle club on the flimsy excuse of some unspecified "formatting" problem.[319], [320], and [321]. After long discussions at the article's talk page (and more), the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and then here at ANI (for outrageously deleting talk comments), several editors agreed that this information belongs in the article, and that the only question was one of what the wording ought to be.[322], [323], [324], [325], [326], [327].

Delicious carbuncle ignored every request to offer any compromise wording or to collaborate in any way, Instead, they stonewall. Today, Delicious carbuncle is simply reverting edits, and has refused multiple requests to specify what the formatting errors are, or to simply go ahead and fix the supposed formatting problem.

What this comes down to is an editor who refuses to get the point. Bluffing about formatting errors is silly, childish, and disruptive. I'm requesting that this user be banned from Outlaw motorcycle club for a reasonable period of time as a means of encouraging Delicious carbuncle to edit constructively and to respect the consensus reached by other editors.--Dbratland (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

And can this be reverted back to the way I left it without me also being dinged for a 3RR violation? Thanks.--Dbratland (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

A quick glance at the recent history of the article and talk page will show that Dbratland has completely misrepresented the situation in his comments above. Formatting is not the issue, as Dbratland should be very well aware at this point. This diff and this diff should shed some light what is really happening. I've grown rather tired of Dbratland's tendentious methods, so I'll likely not comment further unless compelled to defend myself. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Four separate statements about formatting problems: Here it says that my edit made"...no attempt to format them correctly." Then here you called my edit a "text dump;" i.e. there was some phantom problem with the of raw, unformatted text? Note that the edit summary says they don't wish to edit war; within an hour they violate 3RR. Again "text dump." That was a reference to my fifth offer of a new revision, and Delicious carbuncle again did not try to constructively offer any changes. Here, for the fourth time they said "There is somewhat more to this than the formatting..."

But now formatting is not the issue? You can't collaborate with an editor whose bluffs have be called on the Administrators' noticeboard just to get them to take half a step towards working constructively. --Dbratland (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be continued differing opinions over sources. Disruptive is a mischaracterization, though both editors need not edit war. Consensus (if there is any) isn't justification for warring. Grsz¹¹ 21:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a reading comprehension problem.

Delicious carbuncle read WP:TALK and apparently believes somewhere in there it says he is allowed to delete talk page comments. It makes no impression how many editors tell him you can't do that, and WP:TALK does not say what he thinks it says.

When told these three edits [328], [329], and [330] are a violation of 3RR, he simply denies and denies.

It goes a long way to explaining why he clings to the belief that I'm biased and trying to slant articles to make motorcycle gangs look good. I have this editor disputing with me what sources say, but this person will not listen to anyone who points out his reading of the words is mistaken. He decides it means what he wants, and then digs in and will not listen to anyone else.

That is why a ban is called for. Discussion does not work with Delicious carbuncle and consensus means nothing if it doesn't agree with him.--Dbratland (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Dbratland, I suggest you drop the whole "deleting talk page comments" accusations. There are legitimate reasons to remove other users' edits on a talk page, I've done it multiple times. DC thought that he was right to do so on that talk page, others disagreed, and he hasn't done it since. Bringing it up over and over again makes it look like you're just stirring up trouble to punish him, which isn't going to strengthen your claims. You're both edit-warring, and the way to resolve this is not through administrator action, but dispute resolution. -- Atama頭 22:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm bringing it up to point out how many times he had to be told he was wrong about WP:TALK. I can put up a half dozen diffs of how many different editors it took if that will help. My point is that I'm being told to work out my differences with a person who does not listen to sense. What am I supposed to do with him? I offered many variations on how to word the article, and it made no impression. I went ahead and made my changes without his input, and he reverted. We've had 3rd opinions five or six times. What's left? Can you talk to him? If you or anyone can make him be reasonable, I'll be happy. But again and again and again he has shown that he won't listen.--Dbratland (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'll get involved, I was going to suggest you take it up with WP:MEDCAB but since I volunteer there anyway I guess I can just give it a try. I can't help but feel there's a way to compromise without having to escalate this further. -- Atama頭 23:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC

I would appreciate it if you would like to try.--Dbratland (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Dbratland has evidently decided to continue to edit war even while this is at ANI and no further discussion has taken place on the talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? Even replacing one fact tag with three solid citations is a problem for you? Have you even looked up "Hollister riot" at Google books or the Google news archive? Ever? Books, articles and documentaries that say the so-called riot was sensationalized are a cottage industry. They quote a half dozen living eyewitnesses who say it was not a riot. Would you like 20 citations to support this single statement? I can do 20. Can you find even one source willing to defend the reporting of the incident? Even the SF Chronicle and Life magazine don't even try to make excuses for their abysmal coverage back then. I'm beginning to think you are totally unfamiliar with this subject and have not read the sources that go with it, which calls into question what business you have accusing me of bias or making blanket revisions to sections of this article. This is going beyond absurd.--Dbratland (talk) 04:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Dbratland, I owe you an aoplogy - I saw the edit summary of "replacing deleted citations, adding Yates1999" and didn't look closely enough at the diff. I assumed you had made yet another attempt to revert. I have no problem with your additions other than to suggest that it might be better use of your time to improve the main article at Hollister riot and direct readers there. Your tendency to include long quoted passages in citations is unusual and, given that I have already noted your tendency to selectively quote references, probably not a good idea. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Your complaints are the only reason for the quotes.--Dbratland (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you were doing that well before I arrived on the talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that the "disruptive editing" of this particular article has been going on for quite some time. Anyone can skim over the history of the article and see a slow pattern of Dbratland pushing a POV of his onto this article. Slowly removing or altering sections dealing with the criminal aspect of the content, while selectively and misleadingly using references to push a pro image. Hooper (talk) 05:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And you are selectively ignoring all of my edits on many articles dealing with outlaw motorcycle clubs that do the reverse of what you accuse. Stop repeating this rubbish unless you are prepared to back it up. Find the diffs that prove your accusation and I will then proceed to bury them in diffs that show the opposite. You don't get to just go around making accusations against people without proving it.--Dbratland (talk) 05:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yawn. That article's entire history is my proof. Hooper (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF does not work that way. You are blatantly, repeatedly violating the policy of AGF, and it needs to stop.--Dbratland (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, AGF states that it is fine with proof. This article is my proof. Hooper (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, thousands of editors were putting quotes in {{Citation}}'s quote= field long before I came along. But the set of citations you were complaining about had no quotes until you decided to make an issue of them. The quotes in this case were for Delicious carbuncle's benefit.--Dbratland (talk) 05:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Jeff V. Merkey

Resolved

 – Jvmphoto blocked for making legal threat. Guy looking into any relevant article/BLP issues. Best to handle this through email etc. Abecedare (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we get some more eyes on Jeff V. Merkey? There seems to be some tag-teaming going on to remove maintenance tags and insert self-promotional info. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The IP has been warned for 3RR violation and has refused to AGF as indicted by the comment above. QuackGuru (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a sockpuppet account of the SCOX trolls. Leave the photos in the article is better with them. People need to know all sides of me, not just the opinions of the Merkey-hating trolls from Yahoo SCOX. The whole point of biographies of living persons is to enhance the content of an article. PLEASE. Thaknk. Jvmphoto (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Where are your sources, Mr. COI? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not what should be asked. Why did you delete the sources and content? QuackGuru (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What sources? I didn't see a single source in your edits. Never mind, I didn't see the primary sources at the bottom; that section is decet. Still, is there a reason why you're editing your own article again? And adding an unsourced DOB, unsourced spouse, unsourced unsourced unsourced? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You did delete several sources including sourced text. For example, you did delete this reliable secondary reference. "United States Attorney Press Release Mooney indictments".

Why are you saying I am editing my own article. Please strike you comment or run a checkuser. QuackGuru (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidently Jvmphoto (talk · contribs) is Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is indefinitely blocked. Unless something has changed that I'm not aware of, Jvmphoto should be blocked on that basis. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I did some cleanup of the article, unaware of this discussion and JVM being indef blocked. --Ronz (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat, protected

Subsequent to Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry's block and FisherQueen's decline, Jvmphoto posted "everytime you block me or post more of these lies, you are violating a Court Order.", which seems to me to be unambiguously a legal threat. So I've protected his talk page (but not blanked it; another admin may choose to do so) to prevent further threats. Evidently he's au fait with the arbcom, Jimbo, and the Foundation, so he knows where to go to ask for an unblock, and he should be doing that on his main account anyway. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oh FFS. Jeff always talks that way. He's also pretty much incapable of working with the Wikipedia community, so I will send him email asking him if there is any error of fact that needs correcting. He's not evil, actually he's a great guy with many good and steadfast friends in the tech industries who really respect him, but he is very passionate about some things and he has been royally trolled because he rises so readily to the bait. Oh, and that photo is the same as the one on his FaceBook profile, so is probably OK even if it was a joe-job (which it probably wasn't). Guy (Help!) 22:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No guy, he's not well respected in the tech community. With the attempt to buy linux for $50K, his continuous ranting on the lkml, his theft of Novell's property and the subsequent attempt to sell it to Microsoft(which got him a a beatdown in court) and his uncontrollable hunger to file really strange lawsuits http://scofacts.org/merkey.html, he's a laughing stock. For the record, I was User:Vigilant. I have not editing wikipedia in a long, long time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.139.4.129 (talk) 02:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've received a few unpleasant emails from JVM, but I'm keen to agree that he means well and just reacts badly to not being in control of a situation. I'd appreciate it if you let him know that personally, I have no hard feelings against him, but obviously on-wiki there are rules, etc. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this guy the one who said "I will sue you in a COURT OF LAW in Trenton, New Jersey"? Regardless of whether he means well deep down inside, we shouldn't give him further opportunities to go make legal threats on Wikipedia, not even if they're unintentionally hilarious. rspεεr (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That was someone else, the threats to sue and legal liability made by this guy aren't specific to location. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

POV pushing and propaganda by User:Ketabtoon

Resolved

 – article fully protected for 1 week - editors to attempt to reach consensus, I will remain on standby to assist.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 21:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ketabtoon (talk · contribs) is once again propagating WP:POV and WP:OR, this time in Afghan Mellat. He is deleting sourced and relevant material, proving that the "Afghan Mellat" party is considered ethnocentrist, nationalist, and racist. He removes a relevant source (from the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung) which explains that the founder of the party was fascinated by Nazi ideology. He also removes a relevant link to the homepage of the Socialist International, proving that although the "Afghan Mellat" party calls itself "social democratic", it is neither a member of nor accepted as such by the Socialist International. Tajik (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to the article's discussion page. (Ketabtoon (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC))

I already have. And I am not interested in any "discussion", when there is a clear act of propaganda for a fascist and ethno-nationalist party and ideology. It's already a shame that you knowledge the party's (and its founder's) liks to the NSDAP regime of Adolf Hitler's Germany, yet you say: "the source does not mention by which aspects of Nazi policy he was fascinated." So I am asking you here: is there any aspect of Nazi policy that YOU support? Tajik (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I asked the admins (or other parties involved) to refer to the talk page. (Ketabtoon (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC))

User:Tajik is very disruptive, a racist and he should be banned. [331], [332] He has been blocked so many times but is still edit-warring, POV pushing, vandalizing pages and meatpuppeting. [333], [334] Since he's restricted from making over 1 RV, he instructed another Tajik to come to Wikipedia to revert pages for him. He may also be borrowing his account/passwords and using it. Tajik is engaged in ethnic war, he's obessesed with hating Pashtuns and he should be banned so Wikipedia can improve. Everything he edits is about ethnicity, he should be at least be restricted from editing Pashtun related articles.--119.73.4.170 (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

119.73.4.170 is the IP of banned User:NisarKand. This has been confirmed by admin User:Alison here: [335]. However, it's not really a surprise that this banned user is coming to support User:Ketabtoon. He did the same in Ghurids and Muhammad of Ghor (and of course vice versa). Tajik (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have fully protected Afghan Mellat for one week whilst you are both edit-warring over the content of the article. I have also reverted the obvious new vandal edits by IP 166.205.131.88 at that page. I have ignored the comments of the suddenly arrived 119.73.4.170 who does appear to be here only to disrupt. I will be watching the talk page for any supported consensual requests for addition/deletion of material to the article. I ask that you either reach agreement of NPOV content which does not provide UNDUE coverage of any particular area - or you walk away from each other to edit at articles with a different theme.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 21:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me for being disruptive. You're helping a racist editor to spread his racism. All I did was comment on Tajik and his actions here, this was not directed only to you but to all editors. Racism is just going to eat you live, it'll make your life very short.--119.73.6.149 (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

As a passer-by without any knowledge of the article itself: Firstly, "Social democrat" is not necessarily the same as "socialist", nor is there any guarantee that a legitimate social democratic party is a member of the socialist international. Secondly, a mere fascination with a certain ideology does not equal support for that ideology. The claims made by Tajik may or may not be correct, but the reasoning used in his comment is definitely faulty.88.77.186.196 (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Editors PhilthyBear and ScottRios being disruptive at Toronto

After a lengthy (2+ month) discussion involving pretty much every editor that showed on the talk page, a new skyline photo was chosen by an almost unanimous consensus (Though few editors participated, there was plenty of time to do so for those who chose not to). Upon attempting to change it, two editors (User:PhilthyBear and User:ScottRios have repeatedly undone the edit claiming it against consensus (which they did not participate in). I have reverted twice, and am temporarily withholding a third at this point until I get a go-ahead (Though I feel strongly that this should count as vandalism and not 3RR). The editors have failed to even comment on the talk page, and only revert the edits despite both my edit summaries mentioning the talk page discussion.

Diffs

• [336] My addition of consensus per talk page discussion
• [337] first revert by PhilthyBear with summary of "No one agreed to this picture. It's terrible"
• [338] first revert by myself with summary of "Actually all but one person in the talk page did. Please take comments there."
• [339] second revert by PhilthyBear with summary of "Actually it was only 3 people discussing the change. Hardly a consensus." (and continued to not participate in the discussion)
• [340] second revert by myself with summary of "Stop reverting against CURRENT consensus and take this to the talk page please. You don't discuss, you don't get your say." (which is true, if they will not discuss on the talk page then their say should be ignored as undemocratic)
• [341] revert by ScottRios with summary of "This is not a dictatorship User:Floydian. You have been reported for 3R's" (a rather snappy summary, without any comments on the talk page (the user did not report me for my 2 reverts)

• User:PhilthyBear has not participated at Talk:Toronto, and very few other talk pages, which shows a lack of cooperation with other editors
• User:ScottRios has only participated in discussion at Gangs in Canada, and never at Talk:Toronto

I am notifying these users now. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• • User:Floydian has committed 3R's and is disrespectful to other users. The Toronto page main image has been used for some time and is perfectly good. User:Floydian removed the picture after a lengthy incoherent discussion with 3 other editors most of which was personal chat. The image which he replaced the good quality image looks of poor quality and resembles a 1982 family photo quality. A coherent conversation on the talk page should take place and not personal chat with dozens of images posted. PhilthyBear (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

After having a quick look through the talk page I'd like to say that it appears that User:Floydian is in the right here. There is clear consensus (it's not his fault only a few users took part in the discussion) and despite anything else, that trumps all. There's no point in coming on to this noticeboard and saying he engaged in 'personal chat' when one can go to the discussion and see that is simply not true, I think there was a good quality, in-depth discussion about the subject in hand between editors that seem to take a keen interest in it, I think if anything it is one of the better talk exchanges I have seen. Also, if User:Floydian did revert the 3rr rule (I would argue he didn't, he was combatting vandalism, i.e. editors going against consensus) or was disrespectful then don't simply make that your response to this post because it simply looks like you're grabbing at straws, if he has played unfairly then start a new thread about his conduct. In summary, there is concensus to change the picture and what it should be changed to and therefore PhilthyBear and ScottRios should accept that and take any concerns to the talk page. RaseaC (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The point was also to draw more conversation in to the talk page, a point which PhilthyBear clearly missed (and given the quick removal of my post from his talk page (which is technically against policy I believe), has no interest in persuing). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It is (although this is a source of controversy) acceptable to users to do anything they like with their talk pages, there's not much that can be done about it. However, it is gernally the sign of a poor editor. The user in question seems to have a history of clearing his talkpage due mostly, it would appear, to other users raising concerns about his questionable behaviour, so I wouldn't worry about it too much. RaseaC (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Also possibly not entirely relevant to this discussion, but are users ScottRios and PhilthyBear the same user using sock accounts to get around the three revert rule? Yes they are both Canadian editors so do share some article editing history, but their manners and turns of phrase sound identical, especially when it comes to mistakes. For instance ScottRios's edit summary here [342] is more than a little similar to Philthy's edit [343] here where they both accuse him of 3R's (erroneously I must add.) I think this bears looking into, though I'm willing to admit I could be wrong and go with AGF. Canterbury Tail talk 01:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• • Try to keep your points clear, the issue is disruption through multiple reverts and apparent refusal to discuss. Consensus can and does change and the fact that a perceived consensus existed is only important for supporting the need to discuss; in other words "we've had a discussion, so BRD isn't an appropriate method for editing here". A discussion between a small number of people does not "trump all". Also removal of comments on the user's talk page merely means that the user has read them.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I personally feel that if you don't speak, you don't get your say. Reverting is not a method of communication, and trying to have your say through reversion summaries is totally inappropriate behavior. I also feel I was pretty clear as I make the claim of vandalism and lack of communication in the first paragraph, before the diffs. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me just clarify two of my points you raised. Firstly WP works on consensus, and therefore if a group of people reach a consensus, then we work with what that group decides (in most cases). Simple. Secondly, an established, respected editor blanking their talk page of valid comments (lets forget vandalism here) is one thing (I personally would still consider that person a poor editor and not give them the time of day, but I would bare in mind their experience) an editor who devotes most of his time on WP to be disruptive and incivil who then goes on to blank their talk page is obviosuly a different matter alltogether. RaseaC (talk) 10:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

While it would have been perfectly legitimate for PhilthyBear and ScottRios to question the consensus that had been reached, they instead took the bully approach with unilateral reverts and unfortunate came-out-of-left-field name calling (both of them throwing around the word "dictator"). They both clearly had things to say, but acted on them in a really inappropriate manner. Until they choose to become involved in the manner in which they did, the discussion on the talk page had been lengthy, with some differences of opinion, but had remained civil the entire time - sadly, now we've ended up in this forum, which is really disappointing. Ironically, had they both bothered to chime in on the talk page (assuming for a moment that one of them isn't a sock puppet), I don't think there would have been consensus for the change that so infuriated them. But while consensus is not immutable, it doesn't get changed through actions like those of PhilthyBear and ScottRios in this particular case. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 01:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on English Defense League

Resolved

 – Discussion returned to talk pages Leaky Caldron 22:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I am reporting this here based on my understanding of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and in particular Dealing with disruptive editors.

In the English Defense League article a consensus was reached yesterday on the lead sentence in which the previously disputed use of the word “political” was agreed to be dropped. Consensus and reasoning are here: [344]. There were clear issues concerning WP:NOR, WP:Weight, WP:Synth & WP:Verifiability relating the insistence that this group is, in its present form and structure, a political group.

Verbal has strenuously argued against this in the past but did not participate in the most recent consensus discussion. Nevertheless, a previously strong supporter of the word (Snowded) did agree to drop his opposition in the discussion referenced above. Only following that agreement with a previous antagonist was the disputed phrase modified (by Snowded himself) clearly reflecting the revised consensus [345]. The previous consensus had been weak and was confused by the use of the expression "far right" which is no longer at issue. The latest consesus is strong - especially as it is backed by a previous opponent.

Today Verbal maintains that the use of political is “factual and well supported content” in this dif. [346] and maybe had not read the amended consensus before reverting what he judged to be an unapproved change. I therefore changed it back per consensus here [347] pointing out the new consensus. However, he has since changed the lead back at this dif: [348] claiming consensus, RS and bizarrely, “dictionary definition and the fact this is an encyclopaedia,”

He has strenuously argued about this previously. Without providing a source he has relied upon the interpretation that political is inferred in the use of “right wing”. That in itself is a taut rendering the use of the word “political” redundant. However, the main argument against using “political” remains most importantly the lack of any source. Given what is reliably sourced about EDL it would currently be unduly prominent in the lead for an organisation characterised as a street-based, football hooligan-based mob.

If there is a more suitable venue for this please advise.

Leaky Caldron 12:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, so this is the wrong venue. Also, it is not my editing that is disruptive and there was no attempt at following WP:DR before bringing this to ANI. A "new consensus" has not yet been established. For these two reasons at least it is premature to bring this here, especially as there has been no edit warring. However, I would welcome the input of more editors at the article and would hope more people get involved and add it to their watch lists. Verbal chat 12:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Verbal, this is edit warring [349] but I'll not revert it until guided. However, the consensus (even without you) is very clear. I've played everything by the book here. The content dispute was resolved by consensus and your edits were therefore out of line. Dealing with disruptive editors point to here and I cannot find a more suitable forum unless the NPOV noticeboard is preferable. This would have degenerated into 3RR in a matter of minutes. Making false claims of a personal attack does nothing to help either. Leaky Caldron 12:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Two reliable sources (Reuters and tv press gazette) have been added, many many more could be added - but that would be pointless, and this discussion should return to the article talk - where people are still trying to get "far right" removed despite nearly every report describing them as such! See also recent attempts to get the BNP labelled "left wing". This area needs a lot more eyes. PS that isn't edit warring for technical (not more than 3 in 24hrs) and practical reasons - I added the requested RS in a two edit block. Please report me to WP:AN3 if you disagree, but I'd ask you bring it up on my talk page to see if we can reach a compromise first. Thanks, Verbal chat 13:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Neither of the sources verify that EDL is a political group. I have brought it here because you are insisting that your consensus of last week cannot be replaced by a fresh consensus in which you did not participate and you will not allow the revised consensus to stand. If you accept the new consensus and are willing to discuss on the talk page then that is clearly the right place, but you cannot keep restoring "your" particular consensus - especially in view of the strength of the new one. Leaky Caldron 13:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Please take your concerns to the article talk page. Verbal chat 13:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem in doing so if the article is returned to the consensus. The new material which was requested last week and not provided, still fails to advance your opinion that EDL is political and needs wider discussion before being accepted. As will the obvious taut. The status quo is the concensus version. You insisted on reversion to consensus last week regarding "far right" and I agreed. I am asking you to show those of us who disagree with you (about "political" in the lead) the same courtesy. Leaky Caldron 13:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Following your suggestion to discuss on your talk page you have advised that if I revert the article to consensus you would “think if you reverted again without discussion, you may well be blocked. Consider this your edit warring notification. Wikipedia doesn't take kindly to people setting conditions for debate, and promising future disruptive behaviour”.

Anyone reading this, together with the article talk page and yours, will see that what you accuse me of is completely without substance. Your allegation (that I am promising future disruptive behaviour) is reprehensible. I think you are stepping close to breaching policy on conduct and would urge you to stop and ideally retract that statement. Leaky Caldron 15:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect and misleading. The other editor has stated he wont debate the issue until I remove sourced information. There is also not a consensus for his version, even before the new sources were added. I reverted him once and then added sources and started a discussion on the talk page. I don't see why you have to reply to a post made on my talk page here. Reverting without discussion now sources have been added and a discussion added would be disruptive. I just counted up the opinions on the talk page, and didn't get a majority for removing political. I saw a few "don't care", some "remove right wing" and only two "remove political" - before the sources were added. Now sources have been added that changes the debate again, and discussion should continue. You boldly removed the phrase you are objecting to, for reasons I still don't understand, and I reverted and added new sources. I also started a discussion. Following the WP:BRD process, that discussion should continue. I has been my experiance that Wikipedia doesn't take kindly to people setting conditions for debate, and promising future disruptive behaviour (I stated this as the other editor stated they would only return to the debate if I restored his preferred version, and he asked what I would do if he did that himself). Please engage on the article talk page and show a clear consensus there to remove well sourced factual information. Verbal chat 15:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For the benefit of doubt I have refactored the section concerned. It is here [350]. In that section 5 editors concluded that “political” should be dropped. They are: Gabagool, Ghmyrtle, BritishWatcher,Snowded and me. Each one made the comment “support” or “agree”. No editors joined to say they did not agree. You obviously would have and have now done so. 5 editors supported the change which Snowed then implemented, not me.

The new material is not supportive and I’m not obliged to discuss it at anytime, much less when there is a dispute bordering on incivility. Last week you forced a reversion to consensus during the “far right” dispute. I agreed and eventually supported the consensus. Why am I in error following your good example and insisting that the new consensus should be adopted while discussion takes place? Snowded has just made a commendable suggestion and you should consider it. Leaky Caldron 16:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

⬅Its a content dispute and should not be at ANI. The EDL page is controversial and for some time Leaky C attempted to argue against both the right-wing and the political labels. The claim has not been reduced a bit to accept right-wing but avoid political. Some of us think that the political label is not the most important - it self evidently is political but its not vital to state it. If a direct citation can be found then its use is uncontroversial, for the moment organisation should be good enough. However the history of this article is not good, and Leaky C has been edit warring and using drive by tagging at times. Best to cancel this thing from ANI all together, issue an RFC and let everyone calm down a bit. Its meaningless and unnecessary escalation to bring it here. Oh and Verbal is not edit warring against consensus. I made the change based on a talk page discussion before he had a chance to get involved. He is thus fully entitled to revert it - I was being bold. Leaky C is just wrong there and the blocking threats are silly and provaocative--Snowded ^TALK 16:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you meant "now" not "not" (4th sentence). I haven't made block threats - the other user has against me - let's just be clear here. As for consensus - how is 5 editors agreeing something not a consensus? I have not edit warred. I have made 13 edits including tags and have reverted the other user 3 times over 2 separate aspects. Lets not throw stuff around not supported by the facts. I'm no bandit. The other editor has done many more reverts than I have. Leaky Caldron 16:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually its two editors (of that 5) being prepared to accept a compromise but not agreeing with you, now with some new editors its changing. Whatever, you should not bring basic content disputes to ANI against another editor who acted properly. I was bold (in support of a compromise) they reverted. That is fine, they are allowed to do that. I meant "not", he is not edit warring against consensus he has restored it, as he was not happy with my compromise edit. --Snowded ^TALK 17:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

User:TJ Spyke using wikicleaner to bypass redirects contrary to WP:R2D

TJ Spyke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've brought this up with the user directly and was seemingly unable to successfully explain to them why it is generally unhelpful to "fix" redirects that are not broken (especially en masse and without regard as to whether the redirect might one day become an article - this is explained at the WP:R2D guideline). However, they continue, and often use a misleading edit summary of "Repairing link to disambiguation page". I invite additional scrutiny and comments as to how best to proceed. –xeno^talk 14:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Using misleading edit summaries is disruptive. Can you provides diffs where the user has done so?--Crossmr (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[351] as an example, but pretty much every edit they make with this edit summary: WikiCleaner 0.96 - Repairing link to disambiguation page - You can help! - as they are bypassing redirects, not doing WP:DPWL work. They are also bypassing redirects on talk pages and in archives (e.g.) which should really never be done. –xeno^talk 14:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Example: [352]

There is at least one actual disambiguation fix (South Park Elementary), though it's questionable whether it should have been fixed like this, in addition to the redirect bypasses (some just useless like Earshot (Buffy episode) to Earshot (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), some actively harmful like Lunchlady Doris to Springfield Elementary School). If he continues, block him. If this "WikiCleaner" is unable to be set up to not bypass redirects, it needs to be fixed or banned. Popups is a nice replacement that will disambiguate links, and bypass individual redirects when desired, such as on navboxes.

If the triviality of this pop culture example disinterests you, imagine one like Brattleboro and Whitehall Railroad to Central Vermont Railway, where the former is definitely a valid topic for a separate article ([353][354]). --NE2 14:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your bypassing in this very thread. --NE2 16:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't use misleading edit summaries on purpose, I just sometimes forget to change the default edit summary (the majority of times my summaries are correct). I don't get Xeno's problem, I am not doing anything wrong. Instead of wasting time attacking me and going around reverting my edits for no reason (which is NOT acceptable, reverting valid edits that improve an article), maybe he could be constructive for once. TJ Spyke 15:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no vengeance here. You are making edits contrary to the WP:R2D guideline. If these edits have consensus, then the guideline should be changed. –xeno^talk 15:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not like it's a policy, just a guideline. I see plenty of other people fixing redirects as well, so why you seem to focus on me makes no sense. Even if you disagree with my edits, you have no rights to revert them (and if you do, I have the same right to revert right back, although I have not done this for articles). The only reason you seem to be going after me is because once in awhile I will fix a bunch of articles in a row. As for your earlier comment, the majority of the links won't get separate articles (for example, changing [[Duff Beer (The Simpsons)]] to [[Duff Beer]] or [[Mr. Burns]] to [[Montgomery Burns|Mr. Burns]]. Even though it's just a guideline, I do agree it should be changed so that you would stop complaining. TJ Spyke 15:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines should still be followed absent a good reason not to. To do otherwise is disruptive.

FYI it's never a good idea to continue with edits under dispute while they're being discussed at ANI.

The Duff beer change is ok (actually beneficial) but these Superintendent Chalmers changes are not. These are exactly the kind of redirects you should not be fixing. Why do you feel redirects need to be fixed in the first place? –xeno^talk 15:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Those 2 examples are moot as the guideline you love some much specifically says that templates are exempt from it (and userboxes are considered templates). As for redirect fixing, it depends on the specific link being fixes. It could be something like making sure it's spelled correctly (fixing Super Mario RPG so that the link goes to Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars) or episode names (like $pringfield to it's full name). The vast majority of those Simpsons minor characters have consensus to be merged into one article (do you see Scott Christian ever having a article? He's had speaking parts in 2 episodes and both combined are about 6 lines, he hasn't even appeared on-screen in over 10 years). TJ Spyke 16:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The guideline speaks to navigational templates. Userboxes are not, and users may have linked to the redirect for a reason, you should not change it. –xeno^talk 16:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is not with the edit summaries; it is with the bypassing of redirects. Stop. --NE2 15:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Do NOT delete my comments like you just did, that is vandalism. TJ Spyke 16:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism is deliberate. You're 0 for 2. --NE2 16:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and the fact that you may have read WP:R2D but you don't seem to understand it. "That GUIDELINE says templates ARE allowed to have redirects fix (and userboxes are considered templates)" gives this away; please read it again and understand why bypassing redirects on some templates can be beneficial. --NE2 15:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not doing anything wrong. At least while this is still a issue, I will not edit a article just to fix redirects. If I need to edit the article anyways (like to revert vandalism or add to the article), I don't see the harm in doing some other fixes at the same time. As for your last comment, fixing links on templates is allowed, so I will continue on that (especially fixing "D'oh" to "D'oh!". TJ Spyke 16:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The title of the section at WP:R2D, "Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken" makes it plain by using quotes around fix that what you consider beneficial fixing is not actually beneficial, so as long as you claim you aren't doing anything wrong by "fixing" things, there is a problem. Sswonk (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not enough. Unless you understand why redirect bypassing is normally bad, do not do any. --NE2 16:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You are doing something wrong and you've got several users here telling you that. You haven't given any legitimate reason to ignore the guideline other than you want to. In addition you're using misleading edit summaries and editing other people's talk comments and archives which you have no business editing ever, except in a few rare circumstances for things like vandalism, personal attacks, or perhaps someone putting a fair use image on a talk page. The fact that you're continuing with disputed work while a discussion is on-going is rather disconcerting.--Crossmr (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Boovaloo

Please ban this user indefinitely. It is a vandal. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Boovaloo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made 3 edits. After the third edit he recieved a level 2 warning. I don't see any edits after that. With a few exceptions we usually give users a chance to respond to warnings. If he continues he should get a at least a final warning, if not a level 3 warning first. Then if he continues WP:AIV would be the best spot to report.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And as I post that he earns himself a final warning...---Cube lurker (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I blocked by accident, thinking there had been another edit past the final warning, but unblocked when I saw that wasn't the case. The autoblock is still active -- I figured if they wanted to get in that badly, they could follow the instructions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad-faith AfD nomination by User:FunnyDuckIsFunny

Resolved

 – Speedy kept. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2012_(film)_(2nd_nomination) is a bad-faith repost of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2012_(film), possibly by a long-term abuser. At any rate, this confirms the editor's intent to use the account for abuse only. --Rrburke^(talk) 23:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Up from the dead...

Resolved

 – Users blocked in both cases. — Jake Wartenberg 01:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll be brief: could someone block this guy's new sock? Apparently his first account was named "Prvi zdrug" [355], and when he got banned he immediately created a new account called "Prvi zdrug uskrsnuće" [356] ("Prvi zdrug: Resurrection" :). Creative, no? Perhaps an IP range block as well? I think its very likely he'll just create a new sock. ("Night of the Living Prvi zdrug"? ;) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, one more thing: the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia article infobox is being constantly "vandalized" by User:Barlo7 for days and days. I don't know what to do with the guy... at one point I even lost my temper trying to explain how the infobox works. He keeps removing Italy and Germany as predecessor states because he thinks its "insulting to the dead". He also apparently thinks I'm a fascist... :). Anywayz, I tried my best to explain everything [357], didn't work... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing of Outlaw motorcycle club

Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) is repeatedly reverting legitimate edits to Outlaw motorcycle club on the flimsy excuse of some unspecified "formatting" problem.[358], [359], and [360]. After long discussions at the article's talk page (and more), the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and then here at ANI (for outrageously deleting talk comments), several editors agreed that this information belongs in the article, and that the only question was one of what the wording ought to be.[361], [362], [363], [364], [365], [366].

Delicious carbuncle ignored every request to offer any compromise wording or to collaborate in any way, Instead, they stonewall. Today, Delicious carbuncle is simply reverting edits, and has refused multiple requests to specify what the formatting errors are, or to simply go ahead and fix the supposed formatting problem.

What this comes down to is an editor who refuses to get the point. Bluffing about formatting errors is silly, childish, and disruptive. I'm requesting that this user be banned from Outlaw motorcycle club for a reasonable period of time as a means of encouraging Delicious carbuncle to edit constructively and to respect the consensus reached by other editors.--Dbratland (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

And can this be reverted back to the way I left it without me also being dinged for a 3RR violation? Thanks.--Dbratland (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

A quick glance at the recent history of the article and talk page will show that Dbratland has completely misrepresented the situation in his comments above. Formatting is not the issue, as Dbratland should be very well aware at this point. This diff and this diff should shed some light what is really happening. I've grown rather tired of Dbratland's tendentious methods, so I'll likely not comment further unless compelled to defend myself. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Four separate statements about formatting problems: Here it says that my edit made"...no attempt to format them correctly." Then here you called my edit a "text dump;" i.e. there was some phantom problem with the of raw, unformatted text? Note that the edit summary says they don't wish to edit war; within an hour they violate 3RR. Again "text dump." That was a reference to my fifth offer of a new revision, and Delicious carbuncle again did not try to constructively offer any changes. Here, for the fourth time they said "There is somewhat more to this than the formatting..."

But now formatting is not the issue? You can't collaborate with an editor whose bluffs have be called on the Administrators' noticeboard just to get them to take half a step towards working constructively. --Dbratland (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be continued differing opinions over sources. Disruptive is a mischaracterization, though both editors need not edit war. Consensus (if there is any) isn't justification for warring. Grsz¹¹ 21:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a reading comprehension problem.

Delicious carbuncle read WP:TALK and apparently believes somewhere in there it says he is allowed to delete talk page comments. It makes no impression how many editors tell him you can't do that, and WP:TALK does not say what he thinks it says.

When told these three edits [367], [368], and [369] are a violation of 3RR, he simply denies and denies.

It goes a long way to explaining why he clings to the belief that I'm biased and trying to slant articles to make motorcycle gangs look good. I have this editor disputing with me what sources say, but this person will not listen to anyone who points out his reading of the words is mistaken. He decides it means what he wants, and then digs in and will not listen to anyone else.

That is why a ban is called for. Discussion does not work with Delicious carbuncle and consensus means nothing if it doesn't agree with him.--Dbratland (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Dbratland, I suggest you drop the whole "deleting talk page comments" accusations. There are legitimate reasons to remove other users' edits on a talk page, I've done it multiple times. DC thought that he was right to do so on that talk page, others disagreed, and he hasn't done it since. Bringing it up over and over again makes it look like you're just stirring up trouble to punish him, which isn't going to strengthen your claims. You're both edit-warring, and the way to resolve this is not through administrator action, but dispute resolution. -- Atama頭 22:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm bringing it up to point out how many times he had to be told he was wrong about WP:TALK. I can put up a half dozen diffs of how many different editors it took if that will help. My point is that I'm being told to work out my differences with a person who does not listen to sense. What am I supposed to do with him? I offered many variations on how to word the article, and it made no impression. I went ahead and made my changes without his input, and he reverted. We've had 3rd opinions five or six times. What's left? Can you talk to him? If you or anyone can make him be reasonable, I'll be happy. But again and again and again he has shown that he won't listen.--Dbratland (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'll get involved, I was going to suggest you take it up with WP:MEDCAB but since I volunteer there anyway I guess I can just give it a try. I can't help but feel there's a way to compromise without having to escalate this further. -- Atama頭 23:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC

I would appreciate it if you would like to try.--Dbratland (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Dbratland has evidently decided to continue to edit war even while this is at ANI and no further discussion has taken place on the talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? Even replacing one fact tag with three solid citations is a problem for you? Have you even looked up "Hollister riot" at Google books or the Google news archive? Ever? Books, articles and documentaries that say the so-called riot was sensationalized are a cottage industry. They quote a half dozen living eyewitnesses who say it was not a riot. Would you like 20 citations to support this single statement? I can do 20. Can you find even one source willing to defend the reporting of the incident? Even the SF Chronicle and Life magazine don't even try to make excuses for their abysmal coverage back then. I'm beginning to think you are totally unfamiliar with this subject and have not read the sources that go with it, which calls into question what business you have accusing me of bias or making blanket revisions to sections of this article. This is going beyond absurd.--Dbratland (talk) 04:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Dbratland, I owe you an aoplogy - I saw the edit summary of "replacing deleted citations, adding Yates1999" and didn't look closely enough at the diff. I assumed you had made yet another attempt to revert. I have no problem with your additions other than to suggest that it might be better use of your time to improve the main article at Hollister riot and direct readers there. Your tendency to include long quoted passages in citations is unusual and, given that I have already noted your tendency to selectively quote references, probably not a good idea. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Your complaints are the only reason for the quotes.--Dbratland (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you were doing that well before I arrived on the talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that the "disruptive editing" of this particular article has been going on for quite some time. Anyone can skim over the history of the article and see a slow pattern of Dbratland pushing a POV of his onto this article. Slowly removing or altering sections dealing with the criminal aspect of the content, while selectively and misleadingly using references to push a pro image. Hooper (talk) 05:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And you are selectively ignoring all of my edits on many articles dealing with outlaw motorcycle clubs that do the reverse of what you accuse. Stop repeating this rubbish unless you are prepared to back it up. Find the diffs that prove your accusation and I will then proceed to bury them in diffs that show the opposite. You don't get to just go around making accusations against people without proving it.--Dbratland (talk) 05:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yawn. That article's entire history is my proof. Hooper (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF does not work that way. You are blatantly, repeatedly violating the policy of AGF, and it needs to stop.--Dbratland (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, AGF states that it is fine with proof. This article is my proof. Hooper (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, thousands of editors were putting quotes in {{Citation}}'s quote= field long before I came along. But the set of citations you were complaining about had no quotes until you decided to make an issue of them. The quotes in this case were for Delicious carbuncle's benefit.--Dbratland (talk) 05:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What to do about a cut & paste page copy

Recently Monk415 (talk · contribs) made a cut & paste copy of Falls in Karnataka into a new page that was ultimately moved to Hogenakalu Falls. Except for spelling, the pages are identical. Assuming that the user does not demonstrate goo reason for this, I would expect that the desired resolution for this would be to delete the duplicate and replace it with a redirect to the original. What is the proper procedure for this? Can this be handled as a CSD or AfD? If a CSD, what category? -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 03:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Having taken a look at the two of them, I would suggest keeping Hogenakalu Falls and re-directing Falls in Karnataka (and any other spelling of these falls) to the new page. Frmatt (talk) 03:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Well, lets just handle it here. Which name is "correct" or "most used" (to the best of our understanding)? If it is the original, we can delete the page, restore it as a redirect and then be on our way (I would prefer that we engage w/ the editor who made the move first). If it is the new name, then we do the reverse. Generally, requests go to Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen where the required deleting and moving and merging happens.
• Have you spoken to the editor that made the cut and paste move? Protonk (talk) 03:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I dropped the user a note, but am not sure if that user is still online. Assuming that we do not need both pages, I expect that we will delete the copy, possibly move the original (if need to conform to the most-use name), and repair redirects all-around. My real question is a procedural one regarding the delete action. As a (new) administrator, I know I can just delete it, but I am not sure if I should run it through the CSD or AfD process first. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 03:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

My understanding of CSD/AFD would lead me to believe that this could be deleted as per CSD:G6...but I'm just a lowly editor, so I will defer to the knowledge of the admins! Frmatt (talk) 03:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

If all you are going to do is redirect, there is no need to delete at all... just remove the text, and replace with a redirect... no need to worry about CSD or AfD at all... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That's correct. I was mistaken when I was describing the process if we found the new name was the incorrect one. If the new name was correct, we would still need to delete the target page to move the old page over it. Protonk (talk) 03:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

But niether article needs to be deleted... one or the other needs to have it's content replaced with a redirect... my point being, deletion (as in CSD or AfD) has nothing to do with this situation... only that the content needs to be replaced... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Well technically doesn't the target article have to be deleted in order to have the old one moved over to it? In other words, if we determine that the new name is the correct one, we want the edit history at that name. And we can't move over the page without deleting it. Protonk (talk) 05:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Notice - Monk415 was not notified about this post, I have corrected this. Exxolon (talk) 04:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Exxolon! Adolphus, if I understand you correctly, no deletion needs to be made, just a simple re-direct to whatever name we decide is accurate? Frmatt (talk) 04:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Correct... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The only issue at that point is a history merge, but that can be taken care of with {{db-histmerge}}... more info on that can be found at WP:SPLICE... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for your input. I am presently restoring a single copy of the article (with history) now. And changing the copy to a redirect. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 04:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Please note that this was never intended to be a report about user Monk415. Only a question of how to fix the article. In any case, it's all fixed now. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 04:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hogenakalu Falls (now redirected) begins with an exact copy of a revision of Hogenakkal Falls, which I've attributed with a dummy edit. Aside from the redirect by Tcncv, the history consists solely of Monk415 changing occurrences of the Falls' name. Flatscan (talk) 03:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Being harrassed by a user

Resolved

 – no evidence of misconduct by Tvoz. User:PresChicago blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of Dereks1x Toddst1 (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

A user has been harrassing me and wikihouding me, in violation of WP:HOUND. Here's what happened:

1. I edited a ping pong player's article adding the woman's new baby's name. I didn't know of WP:BLPNAME which says that kids' names shouldn't be mentioned in articles unless they are notable. Another editor corrected it leaving the BLPNAME reason. In the process, I learned of the WP:BLPNAME policy! Thank you!

2. I've edited Family of Barack Obama before. So I went there and told people about the WP:BLPNAME rule. It seems that User:Tvoz is angry for mention of this rule because this editor seems to be opposed to Malia and Shasa Obama having their own article. I am not interested in writing such an article. BLPNAME says that if children must not be mentioned unless they are notable and Tvoz may be afraid that if they are mentioned, then that may imply notability.

3. In retaliation, Tvoz wikihounds me to the Derek Jeter article. Tvoz lies, attacks me and violates 3RR.

Major violation: Proof Tvoz is wikihounding me

a. Tvoz never edited Derek Jeter until after getting mad over Family of Barack Obama. Proof http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikifam=.wikipedia.org&wikilang=en&order=-edit_count&page=Derek+Jeter&max=100&grouped=on&ofs=100&max=100

Major violation: Proof Tvoz lies about not wikihounding me

a. Tvoz says "First, I've been editing Yankees pages since I got here in 2006 (check the stats and my user page) and have been a fan since the days of Maris and Mantle, so no, I didn't follow you to Derek Jeter" See below where Tvoz has never edited Derek Jeter (first edited 2009-10-16)

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APresChicago&action=historysubmit&diff=320545891&oldid=320534661

and then see

http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikifam=.wikipedia.org&wikilang=en&order=-edit_count&page=Derek+Jeter&max=100&grouped=on&ofs=100&max=100

Other Tvoz actions

I wrote a draft of the Family of Barack Obama article without the children's names as a sample. Tvoz moved it to my page. I moved it to Tvoz' page. Tvoz is mad saying "it was out of line for you to move your page, which never should have been created, to my space", lying again because it is not MY page, just a sample text of the article. If Tvoz thinks that sample text should not be moved to "my space (Tvoz space)" then this editor is knowingly acting improperly by moving it to my user pages. Or being hypocritical.

Major violation: Tvoz 3RR violation

• 1RR: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Derek_Jeter&action=historysubmit&diff=320551902&oldid=320537703
• 2RR: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Derek_Jeter&action=historysubmit&diff=320357117&oldid=320350880
• 3RR: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Derek_Jeter&action=historysubmit&diff=320172832&oldid=320172545

Yep, that's 3, but not a violation of 3RR. Have you even read the rule? Toddst1 (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Tvoz incivility

Tvoz is hounding me but making up facts saying that I should stay away from him. Tvoz followed me to Derek Jeter not vice versa. His message sound threatening.

This hounding must stop. 3RR is another violation. Tvoz is also removing accurate information and replacing it with inaccurate information (Jeter's parents met in West Germany, just as Prime Minister Timoshenko was born in Ukranian SSR (now Ukraine) and Jose Molina played for then-Anaheim Angels). Judging from Tvoz' aggressiveness, I anticipate this person to keep attacking me and hounding me and making up complaints so Tvoz should be blocked. PresChicago (talk) 07:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

PresChicago, you created the draft of this article here - it belongs to you, and therefore belongs in your own userspace. Tvoz merely moved it to your userspace, as per policy. For you to move it to their userspace, claiming it wasn't yours was not correct. It looks like some of this escalated from there. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Add...I have advised Tvoz of this thread, and have attempted to engage PresChicago on this. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw no anger in Tvoz's responses to you; please correct me if I missed it. Also, one article is not sufficient evidence of wikihounding. Tvoz and another user had what appears to be a legitimate objection to your edit on Derek Jeter. 3RR isn't usually enforced unless there are three reverts in a 24-hour period. The reverts you cite occur over a period of three days. As to the draft you created, it doesn't belong in Tvoz's userspace or the userspace of a non-existent user. Where it is located now, at User:;lkasdalsdkjf;/Family of Barack Obama/draft following WP:BLPNAME, it could be speedy deleted. Evil saltine (talk) 10:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I see more some sort of veiled threat from Tvoz which is not clearly written. Maybe Tvoz thinks that I am a meatpuppet of someone but that makes no sense since Tvoz started to pick on me and hound me, not vice versa. I never heard of the user before being hounded.

As far as the draft, I should have put it in the talk page. See what happens when being nice?

This should be sufficient warning that Tvoz must stay away from any article I edit (and vice versa). Tvoz must stay away from Derek Jeter. I must stay away from Cat Stephens (which I have not edit). The only exception would be the Family of Obama, which we have both edited before Tvoz started this trouble. With this, this matter could be considered resolved. PresChicago (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

No warning to Tvoz. No evidence of misconduct. No restriction placed on Tvoz. No issue here. Toddst1 (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean "should be" - I tried to tag it CSD, and supposedly the tag was already there. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I see no incivility. I'm marking this frivolous accusation resolved. Please don't bring frivolous issues here. Toddst1 (talk) 15:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

See above, ec

Wikihounding and personal attacks

Combined to this section by Toddst1 (talk) 05:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC) to keep things together

What is the best way to stop another editor from wikihounding you and planning personal attacks? I give no specifics because I am only asking for general advice. This particular person followed me to an article but now is making it look like vice versa. 04:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PresChicago (talk • contribs)

Stop hounding them and look at your own actions, both with your present account and your previous one. Toddst1 (talk) 05:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Spectacular!Boy

Spectacular!Boy (talk · contribs) seems headed for a block. He created Friday the 13th Part 2: Jason Returns and My Bloody Valentine 2 - 3D, both of which are copies of the original films' articles with misleading info added to give the false impression of a (nonexistant) sequel. He added incoming links from other articles, including one diff where he (accidentally?) removed some sourced info and removed a listing from a filmography. This user has no good faith edits to his credit. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Errr, yes, I was just waiting for a few more edits from that account - waiting for the other shoe to drop, so to speak - before going to SPI (for the umpteenth time), but the account is almost certainly another Alexcas11 (talk · contribs) sock account. Creating phony articles about rebooted horror franchise films (which are usually copies of real articles) is a trademark; I also saw the deleted articles and they had cast lists that featured some of Alexcas' favourite actor targets. It might be time to consider a rangeblock if that is at all possible without collateral damage. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat

Please see the edit summary at this edit. I've issued the editor a uw-nlt warning. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Watching. Master of Puppets 23:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

"Watching" doesn't do it. If the editor starts editing again, he must be blocked under WP:NLT until he rescinds the legal threat. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Warriorboy85 (talk · contribs) has edited since receiving the NLT warning and has not reverted the legal threat. By policy, he must now be blocked. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

While that seems like pretty clear legal threats there may be a point here that shouldn't get lost. Warriorboy is claiming that Kimball Dean Richards who has a long criminal record is not the same person as Kim Dean Richards. There could be a serious BLP problem here. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked for threatening to take legal action. MuZemike 23:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I've salted Kimball Dean Richards for 3 days until the identity issue can be sorted out. The accusations were recreated there as well.. --Versageek 02:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

AIV Backlog

A small backlog has popped up on AIV. If an admin could take a look, it would be appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

•  Done I didn't help clear it any, but it's no longer backlogged. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • It is clogged back up again :( Seems like it is always backlogged anymore. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Michael Johnson

• Edit warring at the Pacific War article. Reverting possible Good faith contributions. Doesn't follow the BRD policy.--119.95.11.202 (talk) 05:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me. Edit warring? This anon is reversing against consensus in line with a POV editor. Please investigate this anon as a possible sock for blocked user 23prootie. --Michael Johnson (talk) 05:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Ckatz

Removal of edits with false accusations of self promotion. This administrator clearly is a rogue as I can see from other complaints aginst them. clearly has an interest in protecting a page that is very local and niche. Half of notable entries are not truly notable. CKatz is the one guilty of promotion of friends. Also sent nast letter to me warning of being banned. 2009-10-27T23:31:45