Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive511

User:ADM a Single-purpose account?

Would somebody take a look at this fellow? He seems to have some peculiar obsessions, such as editing the bio of every single person he can find who has ever criticised the Mel Gibson film, The Passion of the Christ, and adding in that fact. He also seems to have a thing about Jews. --TS 11:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This comment in particular seems more than a little troubling. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I removed that because it just looked like somebody being silly, but then I examined his other edits (many of them very recent) and decided it was worth raising the problem here. --TS 12:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Dutch conversation at User talk:Daveneijsen (restored from archive for context)

Would someone have a quick look at User talk:Daveneijsen (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Daveneijsen|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) especially the history. Probably a quick block/protect and delete is needed. Thanks --triwbe (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Uhh, why does this bother you? What do you care if someone speaks Dutch? Posting a xenophobic warning tag on that editor's talk page was rude but then to follow it up with a complaint at this page is the height of chutzpah. L0b0t (talk) 14:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's simply the fact that they communicate in Dutch, but that they aren't here to build an encyclopedia. User:Onsjoe, User:Daveneijsen, User:Leonieeshuis, and their various IPs are using Wikipedia as a chat service. --Onorem♠Dil 14:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If that is the case then I stand corrected. However, that was not made clear by the poster, and the placement of a warning message admonishing the target to speak English was something I found rude. It seemed to me to be a case of Waah...I can't read it even though it it doesn't concern me, wasn't written to me, and is in someone else's user space. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Onorem, you got it exactly. Applying wikipeida policies is not xenophobic, neither is bringing up the case here. Please stop with the personal comments L0b0t. --triwbe (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

As they say, it's not that it's Dutch, it's that they are using the talkpage for chatting in Dutch, and those are the only edits that any of those editors are making. Delete the pages, and put a notice each of them explaining why.—Kww(talk) 14:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have placed a warning (in Dutch) about Wikipedia not being a webhost. I have placed the same warning on User talk:Onsjoe and User talk:Leonieeshuis. The IPs used seem pretty static (User talk:80.127.156.245,User talk:81.204.77.234, User talk:85.159.97.1) so if the same behaviour continues on other pages, they should be warned and eventually blocked. Fram (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the above remarks, I would point out that communicating in languages other than English on talk pages is distinctly frowned upon. See Wikipedia:TALK#Good_practice. Cheers, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

And I would have to add that there is NOTHING xenophobic about asking people to use English on the English Wikipedia. See Xenophobia and explain how it applies to asking users to post in English. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I find it kind of sad that so much of that sophomoric discussion was actually in English...nice, very good, gefixed, but especially "chill." Brr. Spreek je moerstaal! [That is, 'speak your mother's tongue.'] Yes, WP is not a chatroom. (And I'm going to clean up the Dutch messages I've left on talk pages...) Drmies (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Conversely, I find it handy. When I break down and cheat by inserting an English word, a lot of time no one seems to notice at all.—Kww(talk) 00:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

One of the IPs has responded by vandalising Fram's warning. I would suggest deletion of the page, and short blocks against

• 81.204.77.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 85.159.97.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 80.127.156.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Daveneijsen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Leonieeshuis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It may seem like an overreaction, but take a look at the contribution histories. Not a single useful contribution from the lot.—Kww(talk) 14:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I know that most IPs are not static and so on, but I wonder if it is a coincidence that the two last IPs to visit the Daveneijsen talk page both have old Adsense spam warnings on their talk page as well (User talk:85.159.97.1 and User talk:85.159.97.4)... Anyway, I presume that shourt blocks for further IP infractions are the best way to proceed here. Fram (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't see their deleted contributions, but considering that both IPs are related today, and both IPs were warned for identical AdSense spam on March 12, 2008, I think coincidence can be ruled out.—Kww(talk) 16:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Caution to anyone that blocks the IP addresses: 85.159.97.* belongs to belastingdienst.nl, which is the Dutch equivalent of the Internal Revenue Service. I think a blocking admin would have to notify the foundation.—Kww(talk) 17:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a certain leedvermaak in knowing that. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

User Fabartus - Administrator Intervention Possibly Needed

Resolved

I am bringing this one over from WP:WQA#Fabartus simply due to the user in question's apparent disdain and disregard for multiple Wikipedia policies and procedures regarding civility and personal attacks. Please see the afore-mentioned link for a complete picture of what has transpired thus far. I did not copy-paste those entries here, for the sake of saving space on this page and the server. Edit Centric (talk) 05:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked. In the future please place specific diffs on this page outlining the incident in question. A short, neutral summary with diffs is not an undue load on the server or on administrators reviewing this thread. Protonk (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Will do, and thank you for your prompt attention to this issue. Edit Centric (talk) 05:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

further intervention?

I don't know if it warrants any further intervention or comment from administration, but Fabartus (talk · contribs) has clarified his position in reply to his or her block: "Also, [I] didn't threaten violence, I promised it. See, I'm not liberal, so don't make threats." [1] — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'll chalk it up to blowing off steam. If he wants to come back at the end of the block and behave like he's a member of a community, bully for him. If not, I suspect he'll get reblocked in short order. As for the "promise, not threat", that's just some schoolboy bullshit. Chest-pounding, as it were. Protonk (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Sounds like someone is begging to be tased by screaming out "DON'T TASE ME, BRO!" at the top of their lungs. MuZemike 17:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Squeezety again

Backstory here. In brief, Squeezety is slow speed edit-warring and refusing to engage in conversation despite several attempts. In response to my last ANI posting, MBisanz blocked him for 31 hours. Squeezety remains undeterred, and has added incivility to the mix. Given that his contribution record shows nothing but this edit-warring, I would suggest an indefinite block to either make him go away or force him to participate in discussion, but I'm also involved. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked for 72 hours, and left a note with some advice. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not optimistic he'll take your advice, but I've been wrong about such things before. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Belmont Abbey College article

74.218.161.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - has twice now blanked a section of the Belmont Abbey College article without explanation. As you can see on his talk page (and on the article talk page) I have made an effort to have him discuss the issue before he just removes it which was subsequently ignored. Is there anything that can be done about this or must I watch the page continually to ensure it isn't just erased? Thanks. Chris M. (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that there might be a problem of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT here. Without more evidence of how this controversy affected the college or set precedent for later decisions, that's way too much info. The IP might not be incorrect to remove it. I agree that the decision stinks to high heaven, but it's not really an administrator problem at this point. For now, either watch it, or trim it down to the basics and see if that's enough to get the IP to leave it alone.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

IP creating a page?

Resolved

This page Talk:Dommari is a copyvio which I have tagged as such, and is also an isolated talk page: but... how has an IP been able to create a page? JohnCD (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

IPs can create talk pages to express concerns about articles, but cannot create content pages. MBisanz ^talk 15:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know that. I'll explain to him that if he wants to contribute, as he clearly does, he'll need to get an account. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Unban proposal for [email protected] / User:Robert Sieger

Moved from WP:AN to here for greater visibility - Alison ^❤ 00:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Back last summer when this editor came up for a possible unban, I vowed that if he went six months without socking I'd open a new unban proposal on him myself. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive451#Proposed_conditional_unban_of_User:Rms125a.40hotmail.com Looks like he's held up his end of the bargain: see User:Alison/RMS log. Eliz81 has a set of conditions at User:Eliz81/RMS and has promised via e-mail that she'd support this proposal. She'll probably endorse shortly. Rms has waited on the sidelines as we've asked; let's give him another fair try. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 02:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

What got him banned in the first place? Was it behavioral or what?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

More socks than Sock Shop. There are 340 listed, and probably a lot that were missed, not flagged, or not associated. Black Kite 02:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

There are waaay more than that. RMS' socks go easily into the thousand - I, and others, just stopped logging them after a while - Alison ^❤ 05:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The links Durova provided say it all. RMS has quite a...colorful history, but he's really worked hard to hold up his end of the bargain since July. Let's give him another chance to be a member of the community, under the provisions laid out in my userspace. Though maybe this request belongs in WP:ANI? ~Eliz81^(C) 05:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops - I wasn't aware that this has started already, and I'm caught a little unawares. Let me just say that RMS promised both Eliz81 and myself that after the last unsuccessful unban request, he's stay clear of Wikipedia and his notorious cadre of sock accounts. Well, he's done exactly that and I've been checking up on him regularly using checkuser. His IP and other tech info makes him instantly spottable. In short, he's kept up his side of the bargain. I have a pmail here from Jimmy that I was CCd on stating that he'd "support [rms125a] on general principles, if [he has] not been sockpuppeting in the meantime.", when 6 months has passed. I can't believe he lasted this long without socking, but he kept up his side of the deal. BTW - I've been dealing with RMS for ... what ... over three years now, and know his ways very well indeed. I've blocked more of his socks than any other admin and indeed, was vilified on-line and in the letters page of a newspaper by Robert, back in 2006 - and yes, I'd still support his unban 100%.

Having said all that, if he's to be unbanned by the community, I'd like it to be on condition that he be placed on probation for 3-6 months under the Troubles Arbitration conditions. After a while, that can be reviewed. But yes, he's been out in the cold way too long and I believe that everyone (well, almost!) is entitled to redemption. RMS, while socking, has spent most of the year keeping out of his 'hot button' articles, and had spent a lot of time wikignoming on biographical articles, and on early movie actors, etc. Time to bring him back in out of the cold! - Alison ^❤ 05:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Eliz81's conditions are more appropriate than just Troubles Probation. I'd like to endorse that plan - Alison ^❤ 05:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support unban; if they kept to the conditions, and Durova and Alison confirm they have, then we should keep to ours. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - although the conditions (specifically #4 and #9) should be written in such a way as to allow an account name change. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• The restrictions look pretty weasel-proof but I think three months probation is too short. A review after three months may be appropriate, but the probation should be in place for at least six and preferably twelve months - a year would be normal if ArbCom sanctioned someone whose history of disruption is of this magnitude. 80.176.82.42 (talk) 12:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• I see little point in parole; a violation of the conditions is going to result in a block, likely indefinite and therefore a resumption of the ban, no matter if the editor is on parole or not. With their history this account does not need the stigma of parolee to ensure severe repercussions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Call it probation, parole, agreed conditions, whatever - if there is no violation before everyone has forgotten the specifics then I think it won't be a problem. I just think that implying a three month limit to these restrictions is unhelpful in this case. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to have a whole lot of visibility here. Mind if I move the thread to ANI? - Alison ^❤ 04:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Last time I checked email adresses were not suitable account names... - Mgm|^(talk) 12:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

RMS's account was created before the September watershed, so he's okay there. That comes up all the time on WP:UAA. If needs be, he also has an account in his real name - Alison ^❤ 14:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The only issues are that we cannot grant userrights to accounts with an @ sign and afaik, they cannot SUL. MBisanz ^talk 15:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really an issue; this was one of the accounts that got grandfathered in before the change. BTW no objection if the thread moves to ANI, Allie. Durova^Charge! 21:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Durova, I am thinking more along the lines that if he ever wants any userright like Rollback or ever wants to SUL, he'll need to be renamed, which some people will claim he is doing to hide his past. But you are correct that it does not matter if he wants to keep the account. MBisanz ^talk 23:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we're already into worrying about this stuff, does that mean he's unbanned? ^_^ Seriously, though, he also has User:Robert Sieger, which may well be the account that gets unblocked, all going well - Alison ^❤ 23:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why he was banned, what he has done since then, or if he should be unbanned, I'm just trying to head off the picky technical bickering that will ensue if the point is reached where a large number of people want to unban him and a large number of people want to prevent unbanning by arguing over details. Yes, I am jaded, but only because I've seen it so many times before. MBisanz ^talk 23:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

All bans should be publically reviewed after a certain period of time, if requested by the banned editor. Wikipedia risk being guilty of incivility if we don't because administrators can be quite rude by email. I have experience of being mistreated at by an administrator and even told threatened with gang rape by another Wikipedian. (Ryulong and Durova both posted here, Durova was nice. No comment about Ryulong, he'll probably block me if I say anything less than stellar). What would be a suitable period of time? 1 year? 18 months? This would encourage good behavior and not using sockpuppetry. Chergles (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

That's more appropriate to bring up at WP:VPP. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

With respect for Chergles's input I've created a new essay about lifting community bans. Wikipedia:Standard offer contains the standards I've practiced for over two years. Shortcut WP:SO. Durova^Charge! 04:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW - Robert emailed me to say that he's dealing with a family issue right now and won't really be able to participate (on or off-wiki) in discussions here for the moment - Alison ^❤ 15:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• No. I've gone back over this guy's record - old blocks, old RFCs, etc - and it's quite clear he's a lunatic bigot. We have enough of these on Wikipedia without letting another one from the past back into the fold. Troubles article have plenty of nutters editing them without another one being throw in. I don't care if he's been a good little boy and avoided socking for six pathetic months - ooh, well done, would you like some chocolate cake now? Leopards spots change do not. What do you think he wants to come back for? To carry on wikignoming on movie bio articles? I really don't think so. Moreschi (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I found this in my plague archives: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/[email protected]. Do we really think that any...person...capable of writing this revolting bile should be allowed near Wikipedia? Do we really? Moreschi (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Keeping him from Wikipedia isn't actually feasible, but genuine reform may be. He has refrained from socking for half a year. Okay, let's give him a try. He'll be on the short leash and there isn't likely to be any opposition to a renewed ban if problems return. There's little to lose by giving banned users an incentive to turn over a new leaf, as long as the parameters are fair and reasonable to both sides. Not too lenient, but not impossible either. Durova^Charge! 04:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support unban per Eliz81's substantive conditions although I would go along with the suggestions that a new name is used. At a guess, I think I must have unwittingly welcomed almost a dozen of RMS's sock accounts during routine work at Recent Changes. You can add quite a few welcomes later, after I became aware of the history involved and where I had a gut feeling from editing patterns that it was RMS, but there was no legitimate reason not to assume good faith. I've knocked off a couple of socks along the way :). The events that led to his banning happened before I was active on Wikipedia, so I wasn't involved, but they clearly and unambigiously fall into the category of "things-up-with-which-Wikipedia-cannot-put" if the system is to work; perhaps if I had been involved then, I probably would be reluctant to support an unban now. But the question seems to me to be: has the situation, or more accurately, has RMS moved on from 2006 and would unbanning him compromise the encyclopaedia? He has kept to his agreement not to sock. From the few interactions I have had with RMS - although granted those were with sock accounts - and from reading his edits over the course of late 2007 and early 2008, my opinion is that he has moved a long way from the RMS of 2006. And, perhaps this isn't really relevant, but the fact that he is agreeing to go through this process earns a few points from me, if only on grounds of "intestinal fortitude". FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Without going into too much detail, Robert had some personal issues back in 2006 that would certainly have caused problems, especially those outbursts that Moreschi noted above. That's all been resolved now and is in the past, and he's unlikely to go back to that behaviour. That's all I can say, really - Alison ^❤ 09:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    • And you believe him when he says this? "Oh, sorry, I couldn't help all the xenophobia and racism, I was a bit stressed at the time"? Do we have any proof of this? These conditions are incredibly generous. I could maybe support if the topic ban from Troubles articles was lifetime, but 6 months? You must be joking. Moreschi (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure that belief is an issue here; it's actions subsequent to any unbanning that are going to be the issue, and any edits on Troubles-related articles are inevitably going to scrutinized. Of course, anything along the lines of the events that got him banned are going to result in a reban, simple as that. If he makes edits that, if made by any other editor without any baggage, would be considered legitimate and constructive, then they should be treated on their merits as such; however, if there is a pattern of edits where he "plays the player, not the ball", where there is good reason to believe he is editing against another editor or editors rather than on the point, they aren't going to escape notice. There are enough neutral editors involved in the Troubles articles nowadays that someone is going to call him on them; even in six months, a year or two years from now, because of the history of the Trouble-related articles, it's highly unlikely that there won't be more than enough neutral editors who could easily - and quickly - come to a reasonable conclusion. Hey, even bleeding-heart liberals like me sometimes take comfort in knowing there's a Big Stick around the place somewhere :). People might be willing to let his past stay in the past and if things go to plan, the past can be forgotten, but he will still be subject to the rules on neutrality and personal attacks that all the rest of us have to work with. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 15:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• While I have some of the same reservations and Moreschi, if durova, alison, and eliz all think rms has gotten past the rediculous behavior; I would support a short leased unbann (following eliz's conditions). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocking request User:LincolnSt

The user is making a large number of changes to articles not in accordance with WP policies and which deplete the usefulness of the encyclopedia to its users.

The account was created about a week ago and, inspite of a break in editing for 3 days, the editor has made over 400 article changes in the namespace. As far as I can see the editor has made all of these changes without reference to the rest of the editing community. See http://toolserver.org/~sql/sqlbot.php?user=LincolnSt&auto=auto.

The speed with which changes are made to various articles indicates that the user is working to an agenda and using a pre-planned list of changes he wishes to make. As a result it is almost impossible to keep up with these changes or understand why they are done.

Edit summaries usually explain what has been done but mostly not why they have been done. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/LincolnSt. Often the reasons are spurious.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_health_care&diff=prev&oldid=267150282

Some of the edits show subtle and sometimes extreme bias. For instance the article Health Care Systems, before the editor started making changes was an honest attempt to describe the different health care systems around the world, of which there are many, but most having minor variations in the the way they work. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Health_care_systems&oldid=262189507 (I cannot explain the bizzare picture but the rest of the article is fine). The editor User:LincolnSt has now stripped out the international countries list on the spurious grounds that there are too many countries in the world to list. The editor has also created many new articles called "Health care in Xcountry" and put links in the Health Care Systems article. But then he has created "Health in Xcountry" and pasted in some statistics about health care outcomes in those countries and further down information about the health care system in that country. The net effect of these changes is to change the bias from giving information about health care systems and pushing the reader towards ubformation on health statistics and not health care organization. The article [[Health care systems] now mostly discussing financing systems and not health care systems at all! (Postscipt: I have since added the national examples back - User:LincolnSt's argument that examples should not be included is spurious... it does not have to be an exhaustive list.--Hauskalainen (talk) 08:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC))

A more blatant example of bias occured in the Socialized medicine article. Socialized medicine article describes a pejorative term which in the U.S. is often associated with the health care systems in the UK and in Canada which are often accused of not delivering effective health care, especially timely health care. User:LincolnSt cut an entire section from the article which gave a summarised picture of the UK health service and statistics about choice and waiting.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialized_medicine&diff=266596725&oldid=266594495 and pasted (without any attempt to integrate the information into another artice http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Healthcare_in_the_United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=266597646. The user also made a similar change to the section on Finland's socialized health care system and that of Israel. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialized_medicine&diff=266444342&oldid=266436619 These and many other examples lead me to believe that this user has a connection to the health care industry and in particular to a certain institute that actively advocates maintaining the status quo in US health care policy. He clearly does not want WP readers to discover the truth about different health care systems in other countries where costs are contained by government action. For example the user has deleted links to certain healthcare reform articles and external links.

The user also deleted links in Universal health care to other WP articles and external links from certain groups, most those in the US advocating a switch to Universal Health care and also to some that do not. These links would have allowed the arguments to be read if the reader wishes to do so. The removal of these links on the grounds that they are US based is frankly ridiculous as the US is the only major western industrial country that does not have universal health care. The arguments are bound to be heard mainly in the US.

Today the user has been busily changing article categories of long standing. The reason for this is not clear and I have yet to look at the possible intent of these actions. Some though are frankly absurd. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Healthcare_in_Europe&diff=prev&oldid=267141244.

In summary, the user is not following two of the key guidlines for editing. NPOV and editing in a spirit of co-operation with other users. Also the rapid nature of these edits franks smells of a concerted campaign to radically alter WP's articles on healthcare and makes it hard for other editors to keep up.--Hauskalainen (talk) 08:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This user's attack on me was apparently sparked by "citation needed" templates (which he tried to remove) and my criticism of spreading articles such as Healthcare in the United Kingdom over a dozen articles (oddly, he argued that Healthcare in the United Kingdom does not "suit" for information about the UK health care system[2]). What comes to removing inappropriate links in articles which are not directly related, cleaning up linkfarms to American health care companies / lobby groups was strongly supported by administrators at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#American health care lobby related spam.

Cosmic Cowboy (talk · contribs) and his other accounts, who appears to be "teamed" with this user, was identified as a possible spammer account. However, I do not believe this user is.LincolnSt (talk) 08:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The motive attributed is untrue. I leave the administrators to check what I am saying and the examples I have given. I have no desire to get into any personal spat with this user about motives. I will say though that the user is ignoring what I have already said to him here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam&diff=prev&oldid=266752323. I am not "teamed" in any way to Cosmic though we did have a brief discussion about this users edits and possible motives. Cosmic has asked me to patrol LincolnSt's changes but I am short of time and cannot do this. It seems more sensible to demonstrate the size of the problem to the Administrator community and leave it with them to judge whether the user's activities should be curtailed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hauskalainen (talk • contribs)

Your links seem to be related to the main article question. It is a highly appropriate to suggest that each country's health care system does not need to be detailed in every health care related article, and instead, articles should focus on the subject suggested by their title. The article can link to the country's article (some 60 articles in the category) For some reason, you have argued that "The English NHS was the first G8 country to fully implement a digital Picture Archiving Communications System (PACS) to store and retrieve x-ray and other scans in all of its hospitals nationally." needs to be copied in all those articles (and for some incomprehensible reason, you tried to delete it from the article Health care in the United Kingdom).

If you can show me a single mistake made in recategorizing, please share it with us.LincolnSt (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly there are a lot of problems here. There might, as you say be more to this, but given that LincolnSt is a new user & this is a contentious topic cld we please remember WP:BITE & WP:AGF? Misarxist 09:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The widespread use of specialist tools in his editing and quick refrences to WP policies and use of templates seems to indicate that this user is NOT a new user at all but more likely to be a sockpuppet. User:Freedomwarrior for example had a similar style of editing. There are others but I'd prefer if we focus on the evidence I have laid down.--80.221.152.186 (talk) 10:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You seem to repeat the same pattern of Cosmic Cowboy (talk · contribs), accusing other editors of being enemies from "American health care companies" and accusing me, Freedomwarrior (talk · contribs), Doopdoop (talk · contribs) of all kinds of things (and now even the administrator Hu12 (talk · contribs)). You should ask how constructive such behavior is. For constructive behavior, you could help by adding citations instead of always attacking other editors. Leaving citations needed templates does not mean anyone is attacking you.LincolnSt (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Please withdraw that last remark. I have made no accusations about the administrator Hu12 (talk · contribs) nor would I wish to.--Hauskalainen (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hauskalainen, could you make a short summary of your points in the article's talk page? I have told you before that you can go ahead with including every country as long as you know that it will be long (what you did, was that you removed Elizabeth Docteur and Howard Oxley (2003). "Health-Care Systems: Lessons from the Reform Experience" (PDF). OECD. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)).

The proposal for huge articles covering every country in details is contrary to articles such as "education", which does not try to cover Education in Nigeria, Education in France, etc. in the same article. However, your argument is valid and you should argue in the talk page of healthcare, healthcare system, etc. As for your accusation that other users are, "NPOV" or "have conflict of interest", you could try be more detailed. Expansions I have done are sourced from World Health Organization, Health Affairs journal, etc.

As notified in the lead, "this page is not part of our dispute resolution process for content issues".LincolnSt (talk) 10:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed the diffs provided and looked at other User:LincolnSt's contribs. Essentially this is a content dispute, but User:Hauskalainen has apparently not tried to discuss anything with User:LincolnSt, but has run here instead. None of the diffs shows vandalism, some may be controversial (but the material being edited is somewhat inherently so - governmentally funded health care in the US and the tagging of other countries' health care systems as "socialized medicine", which some perceive as a perjorative term). That said, I see no reason to block User:LincolnSt but strongly advise both users to try to talk it through either at the article talk pages or with each other. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not per se a content dispute and I have tried to discuss matters with this user but he ignores the issues. Consider this reversion requesting that a major change be discussed first on Talk. The user reverted the change here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialized_medicine&diff=266596725&oldid=266594495 and did not make any attempt to discuss this with other editors or rationalize his arguments except with a rather spurious argument in the Edit Summary about relevance (which another user had to correct him on when reverting the article back again). And I have had to discuss other changes at length on the Talk page e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASocialized_medicine&diff=266715270&oldid=266434936. My record on using talk extensively stands out. Only 3% of User:LincolnSt's edits have been in the Talk namespace (see http://toolserver.org/~sql/sqlbot.php?user=LincolnSt) whereas my track record is quite different having ten times as much edit in the talk namespace (see http://toolserver.org/~sql/sqlbot.php?user=Hauskalainen). Problems areise because this user does not respond rationally to argument or use the Talk space and continues to edit at a frantic pace. His edits have been over mostly 4 active days in the last 7 and comprises over 600 edits... that is an average of 150 per day or 20 edits per hour in a 7.5 hour a day. That is a phenominal number of edits to follow up on if one suspects (as I do) that the editor is not always editing with the best of intents. For instance this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Health_Organization&diff=next&oldid=267171741 has made an earlier valuable but imperfect edit by other user(s) completely devoid of content. Of course it can be reversed, and will be, but because these changes are going on so fast and apparently in a pre-planned manner it is not being done in the proper WP spirit. Hence I ask again that the user be restrained in the speed and scope of his edits. It is not so much the content (though some of it of course is) but the lack of consultation and the pre-planned nature of these edits that I object to.--Hauskalainen (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Swift or pre-planned editing is not inherently bad, we should all think first and edit second. Much of these edits are of the repetitive type - I see a lot of adding categories which seem to be appropriate from my rough sampling. I also note that the editor often does in multiple edits what could be done in fewer like removing Category:Healthcare from Continuity of Care Record separately from adding Category:Healthcare in the United States to the article, which is specifically about an American topic, but that's no crime either. Please WP:AGF - out of 600 edits, you point to a few which you consider problematic. Most of the edits seem to be adding or removing various categories: if someone would explain to him/her the subtle differences between Category:Healthcare in Foo and Category:Health in Foo, and similarly named articles, that may be a step in the right direction. The editor's talk page is an excellent place to begin those conversations as they seem to cross many articles. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfair block of someone? Fair block of someone, ok

Resolved

I saw this in the block log.

The person is blocked for vandalism but it doesn't look like vandalism. Actually, it is very hard to understand but it doesn't look like vandalism to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:208.89.102.31 Proof of blocking reason: vandalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/208.89.102.31 Contributions

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cold_fusion&diff=prev&oldid=267319546 Doesn't look like vandalism to me. It's just very hard to understand.

Request administrator translate the edit into understandable English and also comment if administrators can block anyone they want using the vandalism excuse. This doesn't look like vandalism to me, just some person who is mad. Anger is not vandalism.

Ipromise (talk) 06:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The possibility is that other of the user's contributions have been deleted and so do not show up in the contributions log. You'd be best off talking to User:VirtualSteve, the blocking admin. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No deleted contribs. From the comment on Talk:Cold fusion, though, it looks like that editor was already blocked at least once, recently, under another account or IP. Possibly the block summary referred to the original block, and not the content of the edits under the current IP? Agree that talking to the blocking admin is the sensible thing to do. -- Vary Talk 06:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No way am I going to talk with the blocking administrator because I could be blocked as a sock. The excuse would be that only a sock would "defend" a blocked user. It just looked like anger and difficult to understand English, not vandalism. Now we know that there were no deleted contributions. It's just a mad admin blocking a mad user. We should strive for justice and not just let unjustice get away with it. However, it's just 31 hours, not permanent. Ipromise (talk) 06:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I very much doubt that you'd be blocked as a sock for simply asking in good faith why an IP that did not appear to be vandalizing was blocked as a vandal: if you were, it would be a clearly bad block and you'd have no problem getting an {{unblock}} granted. You should always talk directly (and calmly) to the person you have an issue with before going to any dispute resolution venue. Failing to do so only tends to increase drama.

Read the comment again; he specifically admits to using his dynamic IP to evade a block. VirtualSteve's actions were pretty clearly not abusive. Assuming the original block was good (I see no reason to believe it wasn't) there's no injustice to fight here. -- Vary Talk 07:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) You can find the explanation three sections up, at WP:ANI#need IP block for ban-evading editor. Not vandalism, but a valid block anyway. Looie496 (talk) 07:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

IP shows up with a rant which mostly foresees breaking the rules and socking. A warning could have been given but this was quite over the top, a threat to disrupt. The short block looks ok to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

And note that the talk page comment referred to initially here was deleted with the edit summary that states the talk page comment was from a banned user - and it's obvious the IP is familiar with the article and has interacted with it in the past. [3] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, since the post outlined plans for clearly bad faith edits, it's also ok to call it vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The user who brought this up appears to be a new user ID for an old user, as suggested by its user page note - getting a fresh start or something. It would be interesting to find out why the complaining user even brought all this up, especially as he has not edited the one page that the IP edited. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

See, I am THIS close to being accused of being a sock. I have not edited the page that the IP edited...you are right. I can't even understand completely what the person is trying to say because it is so wordy. Let's drop it. Pepole are thinking of all kinds of excuses. The honorable response would be to say "the blocked IP user demonstrates hate so will remain blocked but the excuse of vandalism is not right" Let's drop this. Ipromise (talk) 07:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a reasonable question to ask, and your answer on my talk page [4] makes some logical sense, although I'll let other possibly interested parties make their own judgements. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are a sock you are an interesting one, with the topless woman on your userpage. This does seem a little fishy though, of course people are going to wonder why you are out of the blue defending the IP. By the way, are we allowed to put nude pictures on our userpages? Landon1980 (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

As a third-party editor who mainly sticks to the Wikiquette Alerts side, I'm raising an eyebrow at this one. I too am wondering what exactly are the motivations for Ipromise bringing this up, the apparent freshness of his profile, oh, and that bit about page content.

I'd like to comment on something that Gwen Gale said above, that concerns me a bit; "Also, since the post outlined plans for clearly bad faith edits, it's also ok to call it vandalism." Plans for vandalism do not necessarily constitute vandalism per se. I could sit here and say, "I'm planning to vandalise the article on Anti-disestablishmentarianism!" (and no, I did not use spell-check for that :-), but never actually do that. (Not that I would ever vandalise any article on Wikipedia, it goes against my principles!) To block me for the plan or going to would be a bit preemptive, wouldn't you say?

In short, the IP block was justified. Mis-characterised? Maybe. Mislabeled? Sure. But still justified. Edit Centric (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, blocks are preventative. If you state that you plan to vandalize "Anti-disestablishmentarianism", a block to prevent vandalism wouldn't be out of the question.--Atlan (talk) 08:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

And did you type that, or just do a copy-paste? ;-) Edit Centric (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus could sway me otherwise, but if someone says they're going to vandalize/sock, that's nothing but bad faith and since blocks are only meant to be preventative, at least a short vandalism block would be canny called for. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

When you put it that way, I find myself nodding my head here. (And no, it's not to the beat of what's playing in iTunes...) Good on ya. Edit Centric (talk) 08:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I did indeed copy-paste. ;-) --Atlan (talk) 08:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Work smart, not hard! :-D Edit Centric (talk) 08:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious! Typed by hand, spot on, first try :P Gwen Gale (talk) 09:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No one answered my question, is there nothing prohibiting editors from putting nude pictures on their userpage? Such as the topless woman on this user's userpage? Landon1980 (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Not that I know of, not so long as its innocuous. See Wikipedia:Userpage#Images on user pages. Don't think that would bring us into disrepute. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Presumably it's approved by his mother [5] so perhaps it would be wise not to carp or criticise, for it's very evident these attentions are well meant. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Cruisin' for a blockin'

From the account name to the edit history, it seems that User:Page_vanda1iser is not interested in making constructive contributions to Wikipedia. Any thoughts? Malcolm XIV (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely about 5 minutes after they started. --Onorem♠Dil 18:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice work. Malcolm XIV (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

MODx canvassing

A week ago I listed MODx for deletion and today it started getting improper comments on the Afd one borderline WP:CIVIL. After the third random comment I checked and it was posted on the software companys forum [6]. There found the second post interesting because the same thing happened before [7] where the article was nominated for deletion and it was posted on their forum. The previous afd was under a different name Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MODx (software). There have been some updates to the article from Rthrash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who I have also listed at WP:COI. What can/should be done now? 16x9 (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

AFD are not votes. A good administrator will try to wisely decide on delete or keep. The decision, if not clear cut, should be explained in the AFD. A kind administrator might go the extra mile and make suggestions for article improvement or what could make the company article more notable, such as a breakthrough product introduced. For now, I would let it go and then have the AFD be decided in a few days. Unlike "murder of ----" articles, deciding on a company article is easier to do. Chergles (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

User:TCO

This user has been previously blocked three times for disruption and WP:POINT on Talk:Gadsby: Champion of Youth. He seems to have not gotten the point of the blocks, and is still saying odd things on the talk page, among other places. I honestly don't know what to do (ARV would be a bad place)...so I came here. Thanks everyone, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Pussy. TCO (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well that just won't do, will it? A Train^talk 03:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked for three months. Protonk (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

A block seems warranted, but my guess (and this is only my opinion) is that this account might be one of those good guy\bad guy sockpuppets. He didn't seem too alarmed that he might be blocked, but who knows.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

nah, I know of them from elsewhere. They go through stages of needing a break from the internet. I imagine they are just looking for an enforced break. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of dispute/NPOV tags

There is a dispute on article Dunmanway_Massacre. A user has taken this to ask for 3rd opinions. I first added a NPOV tag which was removed twice by User:BigDunc,[8], I then added a 3O|article tag which has been removed twice by user:Domer [[9]]. I have confirmed with User:Jdorney that he feels this is an NPOV dispute. The article has been substantially re-written by user:Domer and I would like the article tagged until this dispute has been resolved. I would like some admin help here as the article has a 1RR applied to it 12:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This is purely disruptive, and I should explain why. Kernel Saunters has only commented five times to the discussion over a number of days. The first is an accusation, on both the talk page and the edit summary. I asked them to show were I omitted information, and he ignored my request. The next was to question a source, suggesting he knew something, but no engagement in the discussion. He then answered a question for another editor and comes back with another unsupported comment. They suggested that by including attributions to sourced and referenced text I one way of adding POV?

Having suggested you need consensus to edit an article they then suggest all my edits be reverted. To this I asked him to explain why which he again ignore. Requests have been made to show examples of POV, [10] and [11]. Their edits to the article have been few and very minor, except for the reverts that is. So having shown not one example to illustrate POV, and ignoring questions they come here. There was a request for a third opinion, in addition to editors being canvassed and an opinion was given. The WP:3 request was addressed and was removed from the notice board, and the tag was still added back. I would not have know about this post only it was brought to my attention on the talk page. I've tried to have a reasonable discussion, been meet with incivility and now this, it's a bit much. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

User:FadulJoseArabe

Isn't this guy banned/indef blocked as User:FadulJoseA? He just created a new account, and is editing Usog, which is bad enough of an article already. Xasodfuih (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fadulj. Either an admin or checkuser will pick it up and act accordingly. Grsz¹¹ 02:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Bundle of Open Proxies

Keeping in mind that ProcseeBot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (operated by User:slakr) is already doing a so far-so good smooth job of blocking several IP addresses, there are still several lists out there. For the moment, although there are many others, I will point to this trouble-maker: Mr. "HinkyDink's" proxy list, ie: the "Dinkster" (ridiculous as it sounds, this guy is desperate). He (or she) even has a Blog where there is talk of where the IPs are based or how the compilations have been going - like this blog about proxy lists or this load of junk about sock puppetry.

As for the proxy list ...it's apparently refreshed at a rate of every two hours or so. Having said that, my major concern would be this: while ProcseeBot has blocked a few of them [12], many have been left out for the taking: [13], [14], [15]. Depending on how admins search the lists or how the bot blocks, I'm suggesting that there should be some sort of (automatic) detection while the lists are updated (don't ask me how; I'm not a tech expert) via the scripts-if that can be done or is forthcoming. ~ Troy (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Misusing Twinkle

I'm just reading what WP:TW actually is and I quote: "several new options to assist them in common Wikipedia maintenance tasks and to help them deal with acts of vandalism." That seems fair when there's a lot of obvious vandalism going on. What I'm not aware of is that Twinkle can be used to revert 6 individual valid edits, which each are open for debate on the Talk page, which some other editors are actually doing. This is not what Twinkle is intended to be used for and it's a misuse of a privilege by editors who have a high Wikipedia status such as user:orangemarlin here at 15:52, 30 January 2009. Why do I get a warning when I reverted a while ago 3 edits and someone else uses Twinkle and get away with reverting 6 edits? Can a neutral administrator look into this. Immortale (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, he reverted 6 edits, but they were consecutive and he gave a valid edit summary reason ("POV" - not "vandalism") for doing so. Thus the fact he used Twinkle to do so is somewhat irrelevant. You received a warning because you were edit-warring - repeatedly reverting on the article (also, since it appears that your account is used to do nothing else but edit this article, this would suggest that you do indeed have a single POV). Black Kite 21:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

They are not POV, but that's open for debate. I don't see anywhere at WP:TW that POV argument is reason enough to use Twinkle. Someone should edit the Twinkle article for that. And yes, I do prefer working on one article at the time because it takes involvement and concentration to read up on all the references and scientific literature. The article isn't finished and in my opinion is not describing and explaining the controversy well. Where does it say that editors have to work on multiple articles at the same time? So next time I can also revert 6 consecutive edits and claim they're POV? Probably not. But hey, you're the boss. Immortale (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read what Black Kite said. There is no misuse of Twinkle here because he provided a valid edit summary. If you disagree with Orangemarlin's assessment about the edits being POV, talk to him about it on the talk page. » \ / (⁂) 22:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a misunderstanding. Any editor can revert six consecutive edits, from the History page, using no special tools whatsoever, and that would count as a single revert for the purposes of WP:3RR. This isn't abuse of Twinkle. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There is belief that using twinkle is an de facto accusation of vandalism. In fact, it has keys to state that, but I rarely use it, unless it's obvious vandalism. One of the keys is even "Good faith reversion" for someone who made an obvious error. Twinkle makes it easier to move the editing back to the last NPOV edit. Immortale's edits were strongly POV, and I decided reverting them all was the best for the article while stating that it is POV. Immortale has been edit warring for a week or so, and this is the result of it. Hopefully he can slow down and build consensus on the discussion page. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been sorely tempted to start blocking people who use that "good faith revert" button for gross incivility: the edit summary it leaves is about as good-faith as a slap in the face. --Carnildo (talk) 09:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That's why I rarely use that button, unless it's a really good faith issue like accidentally removing a section while editing, or a grammar error which needs to be reverted and rewritten. Otherwise, I just revert, and explain in the edit summary. Hell, I even use the edit summary for good faith reversions. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Orangemarlin, I'm not denying that I've put a lot of work in the article but your statement that I've been edit warring for a week or so is false. Besides the 6 mentioned above, I only made 3 edits in the last week or so, all of them valid and accepted by every other editor. In the past I had to get a third neutral opinion (got 2 actually) that my edits were completely valid. I don't have the time to fight every single edit I make. And there is a debate right now from another editor without me being involved about one of my six edits being valid and your revert being invalid. You don't debate with him or her, you just revert. I appreciate the remark by Carnildo, which shows that there are some common sense people at Wikipedia after all. Immortale (talk) 11:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Jofakēt

I apologize in advance if I am wasting anyone's time here, but I noticed something ... funny, and would appreciate the views of other experienced editors. The above named user is (at least as named) new, appearing here three days ago. Since then, he has made some reasonable edits. However, the vast majority of his edits divide into two types. First, adding weird alternate pronunciations to a cluster of family/sexuality related articles, all of which have been reverted (from 8:54 today to 9:10 today) and a host of votes to delete specific articles (from 16:12 to 18:25 today). Of the few remaining, several are also anomalous, like this one. I am concerned s/he is a disruptive editor ... or maybe playing some very specific gamge ... or maybe just a newbie, except if I were new I wouldn't start off putting templates up and voting on deletions. It's just ... well, funny. I'd value others looking at the users edit history and checking out examples of what I am talking about and weighing in. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has ruled that familiarity with WP and editing does not constitute proof of sockpuppetry. Perhaps someone could guide this person as far as good editing or direct them to the sandbox (such as User talk:Chergles/vandal sandbox if they want to type something and have it appear. I am not ready to adopt a person as I am an adoptee myself. Chergles (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere did I make an accusation of sockpuppetry. If you think that is what I meant by "(at least as named)" you have made a too-hasty inference. It is possible that this user has been active as an anonymous user, identifiable only by an IP address, long before taking a name, for example. I have no reason to believe this user is a sockpuppet. I did not mean what I did not write. I did however mean what I did write which is that I see a pattern of disruptive editing that is only noticable when you look at the users edits across many articles, rather than the history of one article. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The edit pattern looks sort of familiar to me, with a banned user, so I RFCU'ed. If they aren't who I thought then no big deal, if they are then good spot Slrubenstein. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks GWH - in general I am loathe to accuse someone of sockpuppetry or to block anyone, and can't just on the basis of this user's edit history. But for me this is one example of AN/I at its best - only consulting with other long-term users can we distinguish between highly suspicious patterns versus the sometimes ideosyncratic behavior of newbies. If Jokafet turns out to be the latter, I will put a welcome template on his/her talk page and offer some gentle advice. Thanks for looking into this, and I will wait to see what you conclude, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Gross incivility

Resolved

 – IslandShader was indef blocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise. EdJohnston (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

IslandShader (talk · contribs) I am bringing this here from WQA. Please check out the contributions here. Warned multiple times by different users and continuing with the uncivil edit summaries and personal attacks. Up to an admin of course, but I think a block is appropriate. At the least, maybe an admin giving a final warning could change this person's behavior. Diffs here: [16] [17] [18]. [19] [20] The Seeker 4 Talk 04:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

After viewing some of his edit summaries, he definately needs to tone down the vulgarity quite a lot, and take some civility classes. ArcAngel (talk) 04:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

An admin has issued a final warning. EdJohnston (talk) 06:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• comment This may be another sock of User:Historian19; he started editing right after the last sock of Historian19 got blocked and he seems attracted to work over some of same articles. All edits of User:IslandShader (first using 41.249.65.3 and then starting up IslandShader probably need to be rolled back. It is a mess already. Thanks Hmains (talk) 07:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

user:Aun mehdi

Resolved

Would someone with time, patience and kindness please help Aun mehdi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who keeps writing unreferenced articles about members of his family "by, Syed Mohammed Aun Mehdi". None of it remains in mainspace, and I don't know whether any of them would pass WP:N if they were referenced, neutrally written and not WP:COI - the guy is a n00b and I think he's a young man from India but I'm afraid I don't have time to pick it apart as I am singing in a concert this evening and leaving shortly for a rehearsal. Guy (Help!) 10:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a shot, good luck with your performance. --Tom 17:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I believe that your comment to their talkpage suffices for the time being, but I will watch the page in case they make any requests for help following on from that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I left a message about this thread and about Wiki polocies on this user's talk page and offered my assistance. I will mark this as resolved for now and see what develops. Cheers! --Tom 17:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks LessHeard, --Tom 17:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

ip 81.64.4.97

Resolved

 – Blocqué. Long live the entente cordiale..._Gb^T/c 17:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI : On the wp:an/i of wp:fr, sysops pointed out that this IP had been blocked for 1 year there and as a consequence had started to vandalize wp:en. Here is the link : [21] Ceedjee (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

To be precise, the message is : "Est-ce qu'une bonne âme anglophone pourrait prévenir les admins de WP-en du blocage d'un an infligé à cette IP chez nous afin de les inciter à en faire autant chez eux ? Voir ses contribs. Merci. DocteurCosmos (d) 31 janvier 2009 à 15:38 (CET)" Could a god English speaking guy warn the sysops of wp:en about the 1-year block inflicted to this IP on wp:fr in order to convince them to do the same on wp:en ? See his contribs. Thanks. DocteurCosmos."

Ceedjee (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Lucasbfr already got it [22]. Based on a short overview of the contributions, this looks like a good block. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Endless personal attacks from User:Xenos2008

Xenos2008 (talk · contribs) seems like he has not make a single edit the past few weeks without personally attacking someone (mostly me). There is a lot of censorship in his comments, too, which is very agressive. This is impressive for a user contributing exclusively to one article's talk page.

First edit that involves (to an extent) both censorship and personal attack:[23]

For a period after, he was civil enough (although still making bold comments about some sources and national institutions, that might seem offensive to some) but then a debate started about renaming the article. This user starting defend one version of it (although 2-3 days before he chose the other, but that is Ok) and that is when thiings started to get worse. From this point and forth, the user started some very offensive accusations of political motivation and POV (even if there had not been enough discussion prior to POV accusations to determine wether it is POV or not):[24],[25],[26],[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33],[34],[35],[36],[37],[38],[39],[40]

Deleting another user's comments:[41]

The peak:[42]

The warning:[43]

And the answer:[44] (malakia is a Greek word...)

Please check this out and act accordingly. Thank you.--Michael X the White (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a single-purpose, POV-pushing account who has made it clear that "truth" overrides "pedantic rules" of wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What does this say about my recent NPA fiasco but, I gotta be honest Bugs I don't see it. Which user do you think is POV pushing? I see heated exchanges but nothing I would construe as being a personal attack. Sure, calling the WP "wanking" is not the best attitude but I saw it as directed toward the process, not the people. Don't tell me I've become jaded? Oh, crap. Padillah (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The repeated accusations of "political motivation", the overall behaviour and this last "malakia" (after the civility notice) are enormously agressive. The accusations of political motivation are personal attacks, I think.--Michael X the White (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As is implying s/he is the only one on the article's talk page with a brain. Which can be seen here. Landon1980 (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Xenos2008, the edit-warrior prince. "malakia" is Greek for "bad kia". Hope that helps. The main problem is that SPA Xenos is apparently smack in the middle of the situation (literally) and that could tend to bias his approach to the subject. However, this appears to be more of a content dispute than anything - such as whether to call the riots "riots" or "civil unrest". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If you use "malakia" against a person who's not a friend of yours, the word is very agressive and is obviously disrespectful. This was once a content dispute but now Xenos has stepped out of it, "End of discussion, this guy is a government POV-pusher and we're losing our time with him.". He had had a notice for his agressive behavior yet replied with "malakia". It is no longer a content dispute, it has long ago escalated to a series of very negative personal attacks. This user believes he can judge who can edit and what editors believe, or which sources are reliable or not, without providing any reason for it. You first approach, Bugs, seems very accurate to me (the second one is good too).--Michael X the White (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Accusing other people of being POV may constitute a form of unconstructive participation in a discussion, but it doesn't violate any serious guideline, and it is not inherently disruptive by itself. It may be seen as a type of ad hominem argument, but the problem is merely related to a value of logic discussion. I understand that Xenos sometimes has a cynical way in responding to issues that are being discussed, but what do you call this: [45] Maziotis (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I had answered in every concern of yours before and "no" (my disagreement) was all that I felt I needed to reply, and not cynical in any way.--Michael X the White (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly what Xenos is doing. Just expressing himself the way "he felt he needed to reply". Don't think for a second I come here to get you into the same "trouble" as you are trying to get Xenos. Maziotis (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, you shouldn't rely on false quotes while pointing out someone's error. This can easily be construed has a question of putting someone's words out of context. He didn't directly described you with the adjective "POV-pusher". And it is not wrong for someone to believe that there are people who should be reminded of wikipedia:NPOV. This is what I mean by "calling someone POV...it is not inherently disruptive by itself". Maziotis (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've summarised the comment (to which you personally agreed). Are you saying that he never called me, Grk1011 and DerBlaueReiter pro-government POV-pushers?? Are you saying that that comment of his says/implies something else? Is "End of discussion" just cynical? It is not wrong to believe something is POV, yet it is wrong to be extremely agressive to others about it. "Political motivation" accusations (especially in the way Xenos made them) are personal attacks.--Michael X the White (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I believe people should be free to say in a discussion page that there is currently an issue of wikipedia:NPOV violation. That is not the same as directly calling someone a "POV-pusher". Just as it is not the same to discuss someone having a mother who works as a prostitute and calling someone a "son of a bitch". Maziotis (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't say that he has made settling the dispute easier. I set up a straw poll to check consensus, but was bombarded with responses about how we can't vote and this isn't a democracy. He, and another user, were unable to simply express their views on the topic and instead felt the need to bash everyone else who commented. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't you mean Michael IX the White, instead?

You just do not seem to get it, do you?? Wikipedia is not about democracy!! It is not about what most people want or care about!!--Michael X the White (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Maziotis (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll is not democracy or election voting. Grk1011 means that Xenos did not understand what the straw poll was about or pretended he did so because consensus would be against "civil unrest". Yourself Maziotis you start getting agressive now and it's just not worth it.

Well, this proves everything I've said so far, doesn't it??:[46] (check the diff summary: restored version prior to deletion of relevant material by a ND supporter)--Michael X the White (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have never disputed the fact that Xenos should have restrained himself in some situations, and I believe calling you a "nd supporter" in the summary edit is one of them. That still doesn't justify you making false quotes. Maziotis (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I did not.I have answered to that above.--Michael X the White (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

And I have responded to that. So, either you have something to say about that, or you just want to again state that you are right and I am wrong. Maziotis (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have answered fully to that and feel I have nothing more to say.

Why all these personal attacks and agressive stance towards me? Because I have opened the section and discussion to rename this back to "riots"? Is that what enerved people so much?--Michael X the White (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I interpret your playing of a victim as a form of passive-aggressive attack. I am perfectly calm. Please don't raise suspicions against me. I honestly believe you haven’t answered to the accusation of making a false quote. I find that extremely offensive. You made a sentence and put it in italic and quotes to portray it as an exact citation, when in fact it was not. You weren’t called a “Pov-pusher” after all. That is just what you believe he thinks you are. And there is nothing wrong with that. He is allowed to consider you to be in violation of [wikipedia:NPOV]]. So, I don’t think that is the same thing. Maziotis (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Where do I state this is a direct citation? [47],[48]--Michael X the White (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, this is not about you, nor should it be. You discuss as much as possible and that's fine. This is about Xenos and his enormously aggressive attitude and censorship. --Michael X the White (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I know this is not about me, but I think it should be about you! I stand by what I said. I don't understand why you provided those diffs. I still think that after such a display of contempt, I was well to invite you to read wikipedia:civil. I think you acuse Xenos of things that are a fault of your own as well. Maziotis (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It is his own responsibility if he started replying with personal attacks. The only thing I did was trying to reach consensus. Still, where did I mention this being a direct citation?--Michael X the White (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You wrote the sentence in "" and in italic. Don't play dumb. You know that most people would see this as a direct quote. If not, then I am sorry, and I hope that you understand that you shouldn't do that from now on. Also, I still think that he has not incurred in personal attacks more than you, and I still don't understand thos diffs with my edits. I stand by what I said. Maziotis (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how most people would see it, nor should it concern me. Admins (to which this is addressed) know to see the diffs and see what he said anyway. "Don't cast suspicions on me"? That's why I gave you the diffs. Did I repeatedly personally attack him? Did I have a warning? Can you provide some diffs?? If you want, you can open up a case for me. :) This here is about Xenos though.--Michael X the White (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The case about Xenos is a case about you. And I am choosing to envolve myself too, because I was a witness to most of the whole discussion. You raised suspicions about me when you talked about how this must be about you opening up a section in the discussion page. It seems you want to imply we are somewhat insecure about it. Also, your diffs only prove you cynicism towards me, and not any wrongdoing towards you. Maziotis (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think this section is full enough with information, concerns facts and evidence for the admins to judge and decide what to do.I am sure I have nothing more to add and I do not wish to repeat myself again.--Michael X the White (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Although some of my comments were obviously directed at one or two individuals, such as Michael X, the purpose is to challenge the clear POV pushing of those people. I do think that if you put on your personal page how much you admire the current prime minister and support the political party, then your actions will be scrutinised in that light. Therefore, removing references to Karamanlis from the article when it is relevant to the high profile of TV demonstrations, shows an agenda. The real problem is that certain people are trying to define reality, by limiting this article to a few riots in December. Having failed to block the name change, they are now determined to find any way possible to get it back. Why? There is no social science reason to support their claims (that riots do not signfy social unrest!), so I can only assume that there is a political reason. Riots are just random things, they dont show mass anger with a government, so the term is politically less damaging. Sorry not to assume good faith, but some of the users on the page have gone too far to be able to do that. Xenos2008 (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It is your own responsibility to assume good faith, no matter what the situations you might be in, and it was your choice not to. You've actually once more proven Bugs' first statement.--Michael X the White (talk) 08:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As an editor who has participated a lot in the 2008 riots in Greece Talk page i have to say that User:Xenos2008 behavior has been quite insulting especially against Michael IX the White it seems that this whole "insult" thing is politically motivated but that doesn't mean that it should pass unnoticed since there have been several offenses of WP:CIVIL, especially WP:No personal attacks, also WP:GOODFAITH and WP:Talk page guidelines seem to be completely ignored by the aforementioned user. So my opinion is that an admin's action is definitely required. Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, thank you very much for your brilliant insights. In fact, my comments have been precisely because I do not have any political affiliations or strong views, and I am very aware of certain people who do and also impose them without discussion. I do not see why I have to assume good faith when the evidence is VERY clear that certain edits and especially attempts to rename the page were not made in good faith. Xenos2008 (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It's good admitting that you do not assume good faith. And yet you're still in the same tone:[49]--Michael X the White (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

There you go again, putting things out of context. Is this a personal attack too? Because I also can't see how I can assume good faith with someone who doesn't seem to show it to me. Maziotis (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Violet Blue

Could somebody impartial take a look at the talk page for this article? I think that there are some serious BLP issues going on here. This edit, in particular [50] should probably be removed. I feel like I'm probably overly involved in the article, so I'd appreciate it if somebody else would take a look. Thanks. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales is quoted as saying "we must get it right". A cursory look at the article shows that the alleged BLP violations aren't present. The policy does include all pages, including talk pages. It depends on how carefully we want to follow BLP. Should it be permanently removed (oversighted in WP lingo)? Put into the archives right away? Put into the archives at the usual time? Crossed out? Removed with a notation that it has been removed? Removed with no explanation? Or simply a comment that the original comment does not have references and may be a BLP. Also most talk page comments do not have references so is that a problem? Chergles (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The talk page comment was removed. [51] Aside from the issue of BLP violations, the comment is just an editorial, with little chance of leading toward improvement of the article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

[ec] (response to Chergles) Let's stick with the issue at hand. The diff Chunky Rice posted is a blatant, serious BLP vio. The personal details (name, birthday) that the person in revealing are out there in seemingly reliable if minor / primary sources elsewhere on the web, and seem to be correct, so that isn't so urgent. But they are private details that the subject of the article has chosen not to publicize significantly, and I see no reason why we should here. The problem goes beyond the usual matter of poor sourcing, it's that there are direct accusations of a crime and of personal issues by a person claiming to be a witness. If untrue it is quite possibly libelous. Even if it is true, Wikipedia is not the place for this. I don't know the process but unless it involves great effort I hope the material can be completely excised from the record, and preferably made unavailable to admins too... if another lawsuit comes out of this, I hate to throw this on the Foundation but it's probably a matter for professionals rather than us volunteers. The only legitimate material on the article page is a fair, informative, biography of her. Anything else is pointless drama, and apparently deliberately so. This is the only edit from the account posting the info, so one can assume it's a WP:SPA created for the purpose. The person claims to be associated with a well-known organization for which she used to work, which introduces even more drama. That account should be indefinitely blocked and we ought to consider banning the editor behind it if there's any more of this... some of those people are technically savvy and probably know enough to troll Wikipedia and get around checkuser, so best to nip this in the bud rather than rewarding whoever it is with the satisfaction of having caused drama.Wikidemon (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

What? No. they made one edit. Plenty of people make an account to make one edit. My father didn't even know that you could edit without registering an account. There is no way I'm going to support an indefinite block on that basis. Send the edit to oversight if you feel it merits it (I don't). Otherwise, they edit was reverted and the talk page/article should be patrolled to make sure we are following WP:NPF. Protonk (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not aware of editors around here creating accounts to post in their first edit WP:BLP violation of the first order, against people they claim to know personally. The accusations, which I don't want to repeat because that would mean this page has to be scrubbed too, include the commission of a serious crime and um....issues... in both cases Defamation per se. They look actionable if they're not true. She has only recently filed police reports and restraining order requests [52] against another Wikipedian. Is this an editor here to improve the encyclopedia, or for his/her own reasons? quack quack. I don't think WP:BITE requires us to wait for more just to find out. Look at what we have to gain or lose. An unjustified block can always be appealed, and it's not as if the editor is in any position to complain they don't deserve it after that post. On the other hand, if the person is trolling or deliberately defaming a person known to be litigious, letting this continue could cause a heap of unpleasantness. Wikidemon (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If that's a socking attempt to disrupt wikipedia, it is about the crappiest one I have ever seen. Like I said, send the diff on to oversight if you like. But right now you and I have made 4 times as many edits on the subject as that person has. My point about the one off account is that it literally can be someone reading the article, seeing the talk page and making a comment, then never coming back to wikipedia ever again (as an editor). We have an astonishing number of 'one-off' accounts simply because it is so easy to try and people don't stick around. Blocking that editor for that comment is not only unjustified, it is pointless. Odds are they will never edit again. If they do, we can block them pretty easily. And, frankly, if the person is trolling, just ignore them. This is the lulz part of trolling, where their troll post causes us to treat this as "serious business" and we run around talking about defamation lawsuits and what not. The comment was reverted. It can be deleted if need be. If the account persists, they can be immediately blocked. There is no need for a three ring circus for one comment. Protonk (talk) 03:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

True...wait and see. That's why some cool heads are admins and others like me just make dire predictions from the peanut gallery. It looks like it'll probably go away on its own. Wikidemon (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Go to ANI...

So as a teenage idiot, I was asked to come here. You guys sort this out please, I'm sick of being civil where it's not appreciated.

Related discussion, I think I put it in the right place (link). --Anime Addict AA (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow. There's a contender for one of the lamest edit wars in recent months...! Anyway, I don't think it merits inclusion - yes, Dick has a disambig to Penis because that's the slang in English, but then again, this is the English wikipedia. Should we have a disambiguation page for Phallus to say that it means penis in German? Any number of english words have different meanings in other languages (as I found out the hard way when trying to simply use the english "mackerel" in french), but that's not to say that they are so significant that they merit mention on a disambiguation page. _Gb^T/c 12:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

...which gives the user involved in such edit war to call me a "teenage idiot"? --Anime Addict AA (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I could add that, as I mentioned at the other board where I made my opinion shown on the word, other good-faith users have added this definition as a worth-mentioning claim, dating years ago, and they're all being reverted. This is however the first case, from what I know, that anyone took steps to start a discussion on this, and the result was the obvious incivility and attack, and unfair labeling of an user that didn't even bother to give an opinion or reasons on the Geopolitical board. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 13:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't give anyone a right to be uncivil, nor did I say it did..._Gb^T/c 13:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding xD, are we now supposed to mention every single meaning of every single slang in every single language?! This is the English Wikipedia for pete's sake, and its and encyclopedia not a multi-language dictionary. I personally find AA's behavior here somewhat arrogant. Especially if we remember that certain Romanian users even tried to rename the Pula article to "Pola" because they felt the current name was too "obscene", and even got quite angry when this was refused, stating that "it is a disgrace for an encyclopedia to house such profanity" :P --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm affraid you seem a little more arogant than me. But I guess it's all about personal opinions here. And I'm affraid that by your English definition principle, the "Botswana pula, the currency of Botswana", shouldn't belong there either. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, please refrain from comparing me with cases I have no relation, nor any accord or knowledge of. You probably know better than me that partaining to a population of 22 milion people does not concern a reason for comparison. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ignorance is no excuse for violations of the law. Further, the Botswanan Pula is a measure of currency, having real, important, tangible effects on how the Botswanan economy and society operate and work. The Botswanan economy is notable. It's far from the slang of a non-english speaking nation, which is rarely notable here on EN.wiki. He's not arrogant at all, you don't understand the policy and views of a vast majority on en.wiki. Not our problem. ThuranX (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't excuse the incivility, but disambiguation pages on en.wikipedia exist for the technical reason that some terms have several meanings that could plausibly serve as titles of an English-language encyclopedia. This is not the case for this specific meaning of "pula". The right place to discuss this meaning would be under penis, but even there this Romanian term is probably no more worth mentioning than similar words in most other languages. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I mostly added it here for the incivility, with the main discussion on the Geopolitical board, where it belonged. Just that the original notice got derailed badly... --Anime Addict AA (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't belong on the page, edit warring to keep it is stupid, calling people obsessed with penis words 'teenage idiots' may be wrong, but only in regards to incivility, not in regard to facts. teenagers like dick jokes, this is just another. Move on. ThuranX (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Calling people "obsessed with penis words" is also wrong. Also, I made my views as not being a joke, it just got derailed as that (and most people start at that premise, as the one that started the incivility, the reverts and obviously, you, with reasons yet unknown to me). As I asked on the Geopolitical board, and on the Romanian word talk page, established Romanian users from both sites should give their opinion there, according to Wikipedia policies. There could be, indeed, many reasons for not adding it, but the most widely spread is also the wrongest assumption - that it is just a joke entry, when there are evidence repeated efforts have been made to introduce it a professional way in conformance with even the Wikipedia Manual of Style. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

And here, NON-Romanian users, who are aware of editing guidelines and policies and unlikely to work from nationalistic biases, can make it clear for you. Foreign words for dick, tits, twat, and chocolate starfish don't belong on disambig pages, or have articles, unless there's a broad body of sources establishing the notability in english-speaking nations. Alternately, we can ask Serbs, Croats, Bulgarians, Albanians, and others from that corner of Europe to create articles for every slang derisive word they have for Romanians, since slang related to Romania matters so much.ThuranX (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

So...

This is going off-topic too much, is anyone going to do anything about that incivility attack? --Anime Addict AA (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As many others have said above, the Romanian slang word should not be on the disambiguation page. Removal of it by non-bot editors could have been handled without comments on the age or cognitive status of the editors adding it; but in all honesty, it's quite minor in the grand scheme of things, and my suggestion to AA is to move on from this issue. -- Samir 16:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"An idiot" is a cognitive status? Wow, when you put it like that, I don't feel insulted anymore at all. I'm pretty sure others won't if I call them idiots either.</sarcasm, btw> As for the disambig page, I myself removed any links with the previous line of discussion by making this sub-discussion excluslivly, so your observation is, I dare to say, bad-mannered at best. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, gosh, I think I'll stop here, I realise now that being called an idiot for no good reason isn't going to get anyone any warn, if I keep this up I might be even baited in a situation when one will probably use the policies to give me a ban. Happy swearing without consequences, ppl. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let me be blunt: AA, repeated addition of penis-slang in another languages to a disambiguation page is one of the stupidest things I have ever seen. Coming to ANI to complain about being reverted (albeit being reverted with a rude edit summary) is a waste of everyone's time. Continuing the discussion here despite everyone telling you that you are wrong boggles the mind. You screwed up, someone was mean to you, get over it. -- Samir 16:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Bait level increasing :-) Sorry, not getting banned for ya, mate. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Not baiting you. Don't expect an administrative response or warning when someone is mildly incivil out of frustration. Just ignore, and move on, unless it becomes a disruptive pattern. Read Slrubenstein's post below, which is excellent advice -- Samir 21:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Dude, a lot of incivility occurs at Wikipedia and while it is not nice, anyone who has been around long enough gets a thicker skin. In most cases someone just loses their temper. My advice is: keep a record of this person's incivility towards you and if there is a persistent pattern of incivility take it to the appropriate board (which is not this one). With several examples, I am sure someone there will post a warning; if it keeps happening and the warnings pile up, then someone will take more severe action. In the meantime, and this is sincere, constructive, good faith advice, do you think there is anything that you can do to diffuse the situation? Since you have not attacked him/her personally, presumably you are more mature. Maybe this means you can also find a way to effectively encourage him/her to lay off the personal attacks and focus on the issues. This does not always work, but sometimes it does and it is worth trying. Also, if you demonstrably try to cool him/her down, difuse conflicts, go out of your way not to be provocative, that will provide you with even more evidence to support your case if you seek mediation. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've dropped a note on his user talk. No, I don't want our friend here to leave here with the impression that he can have a similar go at someone else thinking that he can get away with it. Civility standards on Wikipedia are already low enough these days. - Mailer Diablo 21:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

User TCO

TCO (talk · contribs · logs · block log) has been repeatedly blocked for violations of WP:Civil, most recently for 3 months by Protonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). After the latest block, I protected the user talk page for the duration of the block for this edit while blocked. Is it time to indef block TCO? Toddst1 (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Naw. Not worth the effort. either protect the page or adjust the block to stop him from posting there and move a long. 3 months is a lifetime on wikipedia. If he comes back and decides to continue to be a jerk, we can indef him. Protonk (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Need help reverting page moves

A vandal (I blocked the account) moved numerous pages:

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

I don't have any scripts or such to move them back quickly. If anyone can help, that would be appreciated. --Aude (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think they are all moved back. --Aude (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

In the case that you do need to revert page move vandalism, you can try adding User:Mr.Z-man's move-revert script to your monobook.js: importScript('User:Mr.Z-man/moverevert.js'); ~ Troy (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I reverted them all manually this time. I will certainly look at the script, so I have it for next time. --Aude (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Supparluca

I would like an admin to take a close look at Supparluca's overall editing pattern. It amounts to Disruptive editing. Supparluca's history reveals that for weeks, even months he has almost exclusively confined his edits to the Italianization of place names in South Tyrol, the German-speaking area in Italy, despite opposition from several other editors. Hereby, he seems to be guided by the belief that in any given context, the word "South Tyrol" and its derivants, as generally all English place names based on the German and the Ladin language are to be removed from Wikipedia.

(Important background information: Note that WP:placename conflicts (--> Multiple local names) stipulates that, other in the few cases where there is a widely used English name, names in South Tyrol "are placed according to the language of the linguistic majority", which in 111 out of 116 municipalities are German or Ladin.)

His actions include: He persistently changes the names and urls of references, although these reflect the true title of the refence respectively the original place where the source was retrieved (see Oscar Benvenuto (ed.): "South Tyrol in Figures 2008", Provincial Statistics Institute of the Autonomous Province of South Tyrol, Bozen/Bolzano 2007). Notably, he continued his disruptive actions in the face of repeated requests to refrain from this:

• 22 January: 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 6, 7
• First request: B
• 23 January: 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
• Second warning: C
• 30 January: 13 - see revert again to "provincia"

He systematically replaced the name "South Tyrol" (since 1919) with the anochronistic "Province of Bolzano-Bozen (only since 1948), although the General guidelines makes it clear that in historical contexts the historical names are to be preferred:

• 25 January: 13, 14, 15
• 30 January: 14

Moreover, he moves pages (see here) against the clear outcome of discussions and votes on the talk page (5.5-1 for Eisack; 2.5-1 against Isarco) (in April 2007). Note that he had already moved the page for the first time in (August 2007), that time directly against the actions of an admin.

It also does not raise faith in his good faith that he currently nominates categories for change without notifying other users, even though the same topic has just been discussed a few days ago.

I feel that his destructive reverts now put into danger the work on the articles related to "South Tyrol", since it increasingly disrupts the efforts of other users to improve these articles, and forces them into petty quarrels about names. Since his history of Supparluca shows him to do little else than "fixing wikilinks", that is Italianizing names, or moving pages to Italian names, since he joined Wikipedia, his overall behaviour is congruent with long-time Tendentious editing as per sentences 2-4). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

John254 and Kristen Eriksen

This case goes back a few months, and has left some of us scratching our heads, but I think I've come to a conclusion. There is extremely strong evidence that John254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been abusively sockpuppeting with the account Kristen Eriksen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for the past several months.

User:Kristen Eriksen joined on 2008-08-14, and immediately started editing like a seasoned user: her first edit was to add Lupin's tool to her monobook.js, and within her first day started fighting vandalism with automated tools, requesting permissions, and adding userboxes to her userpage; within two days of registration, she was commenting on ongoing arbitration cases. All not exactly hallmarks of a new user.

A couple weeks after this, an account was created impersonating yours truly - Crimp It! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - who tried to MfD "Kristen's" userpage on mock puritanical grounds. A private checkuser inquiry found that Crimp It! was a confirmed sockpuppet of Kristen, though there was no clear connection to another master account at the time. Thus while I blocked Kristen at the time as another sockpuppet, it was decided to unblock as no clear evidence as to who the master was.

But since then, I've found many instances of evidence identifying Kristen Eriksen as a sockpuppet of the user John254.

• From August 12-14, John254 commented many times on a deletion review over some userboxes I'd deleted ("this user loves shemales," "this user loves blondes," etc.). One of his comments:

Furthermore, even if the "female editors' objections" inverse ad hominem argument against these userboxes were deductively valid (which it isn't), the fact that some female editors have placed these userboxes on their own userpages undermines its central premise (see, for example, [53] and [54]). While the fact that female editors have employed these userboxes does not, by itself, establish that the userboxes aren't "sexist, divisive, and pointless", it serious weakens an argument for deletion that is predicated entirely upon the gender of the editors criticizing the userboxes. John254 18:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• A couple hours after John254's last comment at the DRV, User:Kristen Eriksen was created. As mentioned above, one of the account's first edits was to create a userpage, claiming to be an eighteen-year-old female editor and adding userboxes claiming to enjoy nudity and body painting, as if to validate John254's assertion that "some female editors have placed these userboxes on their own userpages."
• While the two had never interacted on the project in the past, six days after Kristen had joined, after returning from a 24-hour "extended wikibreak" John254 presents Kristen a barnstar out of the blue "for your kindness in helping me to resolve Wikipedia-related stress." He also created a monobook.js for her.
• When the Kristen account was questioned about the confirmed sockpuppet Crimp It!, John254 immediately sprung to her defense and refactored her talk page. The Kristen account only responded several days later, on the 29th - a day that John254 did not edit at all, but at a time around when he would normally.
• Expanding on this last point, John254's contributions and Kristen Eriksen's contributions fit the classic pattern of sockpuppets, in that the periods of editing are constantly interwoven but never actually overlap. For example, John edited on the 18th of August, Kristen on the 19th, John on the 20th, etc... sometimes replying to each other's comments or giving each other a barnstar. On the few days where they both edit, their bursts of editing are still separated. (See November 23, for example, when both edited Covert incest, but at different times of day; or January 10.) This pattern seems very consistent with use of multiple computers, which would explain the inconclusive checkuser results back in August.
• But the final nail in the coffin: John254 stopped editing January 11th. The very next day, Kristen Eriksen copied his monobook.js and continued editing where he left off in the same times, in the same areas.

The evidence that John254 and Kristen Eriksen are one in the same seems extremely strong. What is the community's opinion? krimpet✽ 09:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Looks like it is. Maybe a trip to WP:SSP will do. However as per her edits are concerned, looks like it is constructive. Also, from this user's edits as User:Kristen Eriksen, it looks like that there is an another account (probably the master account also with the Lupin's Anti-Vandal tool) that can justify this user's edits. I'd say make a note on her talkpage and block the puppets. E Wing (talk) 10:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

These are some pretty strong accusations, and I think it may be worth hearing some explanation from the users mentioned; I notice this has come up for discussion before, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive164#Accusation of abusive sockpuppetry and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive177#Inappropriate block (both threads started by John254, looks like). As far as checkuser goes, I'm not finding any direct overlap, but the IPs involved geolocate similarly. The behavioral cues Krimpet's mentioned here do seem to suggest some connection between these accounts exists, regardless of whether the nature of that connection is malicious. Could be that someone's editing with one account from Location A, and the other account from Location B; could be that they're friends offline; could be something else entirely. Whatever the case, I hope we can see some productive discussion here with a minimum of drama. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Certain aspects of the evidence I provided lead me to believe they are the same person, rather than two people who are acquaintances offline: it seems a bit improbable, for example, that the same day John254 was protesting the deletion of several sexual userboxes, that he convinced his eighteen-year-old nudist female friend to join Wikipedia and add those userboxes to her userpage. That he managed to explain to her the workings of ArbCom cases within the next few days seems only more puzzling. krimpet✽ 10:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That does seem pretty remarkable. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have thought there was something up with KE since (s)he? arrived. No strong comment on whether it is the same person, but it certainly looks suspicious. Viridae^Talk 10:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • OK having read the evidence through properly now I agree with Krimpet that the evidence seems strong. One thing that eluded me was a reason for the noob mistake of having the sock appear out of nowhere and suddenly participate like an old hand. But as we have seen in the past, sometimes these things HAVE no good, well thought out reasoning. Viridae^Talk 10:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Well, one thing that I note is the common habit of doing Non-admin closings on AfD at the same time of the day in the 00.00 - 01:00 UTC range, and more significantly almost always early on the fourth day of the listing[55][56]. Now, to hear their point it is necessary to notify in any case KE as well. If they are the same, which seems at least possible, we would certainly have to look into the resulting disruption and deception, but the actual amount of abuse isn't obvious to me. One 'double' vote I came across was on a DRV, incidentally regarding a deletion by Krimpet, and endorsed by both. In other cases they qualify each other.[57]. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: This is being investigated by various CUs. I ran some checks back in the Crimp It time period as did other CUs. That's all I am prepared to say at this time. ++Lar: t/c 13:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

i actuall dealt with this user briefly while we were both editng acovert incest. she Seemed capable, thoug her userpage made it hard to communicate (all those increadably large image slow up my computer a lot!) but now that i have ereviwed User Crimpits evidence i can see that, even if kristen and john231 are different peple, kristens acctions re: the fake account user: Crimp It merit some action since that cna possibly have a negative aimpact on another innocent user:crimpit. kristens insisted on inserting himself or herself into major dbates could be also a clue of either meatpuppetry or suckputtering. Smith Jones (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Please define "suckputtering." Edison (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Erm, is it something from one of Kristen's movies? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Last time I suckputtered myself, it made me go blind. – iridescent 19:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Golf course sex? Edison (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably related to token sucking. --NE2 22:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No, its something that kiss-up caddies do. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

however, due to kristens lack of vandalism (appearant), iw ould like to present this WP:SOCK#LEGIT link. in it postulates that sometimes sockpopers are allowed in certain cirucmstances such as to avoid scrutiny or perform security agaginst the main accont. krimpet mentioned that htis user seemed to be operating from different computers; perhaps the acocunt User:Kristen Eriksen was devleoped for editing when at a public computer where it is probable that htis accounts informatinoa could be stealed. in this case thaen this mightbe a legit use of a sockpuppet, or although i understand if this iseems impalausible. Smith Jones (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

To veer straight off the topic, your new terminology has me grinning madly. I hope there are more opportunities in the future to refer to suckputtering sockpopers. rspεεr (talk) 08:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think everyone who has interacted with Kristen Eriksen has come to the conclusion that the person operating the account is not new to Wikipedia. I had hoped to research their edit history to try and figure out who they were, but it appears Krimpet already did it for me. After reviewing the evidence and hearing Luna-San's negative assurance (there is no evidence that indicates Kristen Eriksen and John254 are not the same person), I would agree with the conclusion that for Wikipedia's purposes, Kristen Eriksen and John254 should be treated as the same person. MBisanz ^talk 13:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If they are the same person, it is likely that the checkuser result will be inconclusive, unless he has slipped up recently. It would be useful to have someone independently analyze their edit times. Assume that they are the same person, and that he travels to a particular location to edit as KE so that there will be no IP connections between KE and himself. Can this hypothesis be disproved by an analysis of their edit times? Thatcher 14:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If he lived in an apartment/dorm building he could use one account from a wired connection and a second account piggybacked to a wireless connection that would route to a neighbor's wired connection, which could be on an entirely different ISP. And of course he could be using some for of VPN/secure proxy to come in through a hosting server, etc. Edit times are likely to be inconclusive at proving guilt or innocence IMO. MBisanz ^talk 14:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Bear in mind that I checkusered KE some time ago. I never had a reason to check John, but I know where KE edited from and that there are no other interesting editors at that location/IP range. Therefore, unless there is a recent slip, current CU results will also be inconclusive at best. Thatcher 16:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If you had all just listened to me and deleted userboxes when we had the chance, this wouldn't've happened. Just saying. --Cyde Weys 14:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should bring that up again??--Tom 19:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it - if this had not come up about userboxes it would have been something else. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher, if these are two different people editing from two different locations who tend to make similar edits at similar times, then it must be likely that on at least one day the two of them were online and editing at the same time. The sockpuppet theory is falsifiable, in other words. Reading the above analysis, I'm leaning towards sockpuppetry on the balance of probability, but I do not have enough time to examine their contribs in detail. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that it what I said. Unless there has been a recent slip-up, the technical evidence will be inconclusive as Luna said above. Therefore, the hypothesis that they are the same person is not provable but may be falsifiable. CHL has now made an attempt at doing so. Thatcher 16:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

i have refiewed Mr John's block log. he has an expired 24 hour block for inciviliy that was 2 years ago. is it possible that hei si sin fact relapsing into his old ways? some of us sohould ty and review his contribs to check for any vandlaism or inciviltiy connected with User:Krsten Eriksen and copared it to John's incvility. often sockpuppets have the same writing style or patter n of abuse as the sockmaster. Smith Jones (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

John254 and Kristen Eriksen

They never edit at the same time (no interleaving). I think they're socks. Cool Hand Luke 15:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Also see here. There are 451 pages that both accounts have edited. Take special notice to those edits in the Wikipedia namepace (i.e.: AfD, Featured Picture and other votes) where both accounts were used. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless a checkuser says otherwise (i.e. that they're unlikely to be the same user), I'm prepared to tag them and block them indefinitely, which appears to be the correct course given the nature of the socking. Objections? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

By all means block KE, but I don't think John should be blocked - see below. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Per what I interpret as consensus here (both as to the existence of sockpuppetry and the proper solution) I've blocked KE indefinitely. I still support a comparable remedy for John - when established contributors use sockpuppetry abusively and deliberately violate the community's trust, we should punt them - but won't take any action given the lack of consensus on the subject. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't block John indefinitely, but I'd definitely give him a lengthy block, as his socking violations were quite flagrant. Gaming the system by participating twice in many discussions? he doesn't have my sympathy. --Cyde Weys 17:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Note also that both accounts were posting to the workshop of the Scientology arbitration case, playing different sides of the fence and even arguing with each other. The space taken up by John254 in particular nearly made the page unreadable. He appeared to be highly partisan and aggressive for no apparent reason, but if both accounts are him that's outright trolling. See:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Workshop#Proposals_by_Kristen_Eriksen
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Workshop#Proposals_by_John254

Disrupting arbitration is a serious matter. Durova^Charge! 18:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Smacks of a Locke/Demosthenes powerplay. –xeno (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

For those of you less versed in great science fiction, Xeno is referring to manipulating a debate by becoming the figure head of two opposing sides, and then using your influence together later.--Tznkai (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Fooled me; I thought KE was a honeytrap of some other account, and that John254 was a potential victim (I have to say that I wasn't following the events too closely though). From the evidence of no overlapping, similar interests, and the matter of KE having the details of where that account and John254's disagreed so readily to hand does suggest a co-ordinated campaign... Anyone have any particular idea what the objective was, since there is an apparent divergence of intent between the two personae? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  See the diff posted by GTD above... –xeno (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  Am I the only one who finds anything ironic in the user warning Kristen against "erotophobic bigots" being the same user who wanted a health warning added to "Masturbation"? – iridescent 20:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's assume they are the same

If it acts like a duck ...

Let's assume it is the same person operating the accounts (the evidence looks strong to say the least, especially when you compare edit times). What sanctions to people actually think should be placed on the accounts? I think it's clear that the KE account should be blocked and John limited to one account, but does anyone believe John should be sanctioned? Now that it's been found out, John should be strongly cautioned about sockpuppeteering and that in the future he would be blocked for a long time should he caught using socks. John has an extensive editing history and most of his work is very much productive - I see this as a severe lack of judgement, but not something that should see him hang. In the mean time, I do suggest we look over discussions that both accounts have participated in to make sure that their comments haven't affected the outcome of them. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Per Rjd's evidence above, this is the kind of socking that I think merits (and usually gets, when engaged in by less established contributors) indef blocks all around. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Or at least a punishment that's very severe. --Cyde Weys 17:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Men pretending to be women and trying to sexually titillate other editors, we've been here before! As Sarcasticidealist, others would be blocked for this. At the time measures are being taken to make Wikipedia more respectable, we have editors on here making a joke of other editors. Disgraceful behaviour. GTD 17:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with GTD. This isn't by any stretch a legitimate alternative account, this is an established editor votestacking after already being caught socking once with the Crimp It! account. – iridescent 17:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Indef both accounts and formalise it with a ban. This was not harmless socking, it was entirely abusive including vote stacking etc. We have plenty enough users that we can do without those who so blatantly and wilfully flout our rules. Viridae^Talk 17:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I've checked the one AFDs and two DRVs where there was duplicate participation. In the AFD KE participated and John closed, but it was the only possible closure given the other participants opinions, so the right outcome resulted. One of the DRV's KE nominated, John participated, and the close would have been the same had John not participated. In the other DRV the close would have been the same had neither participated.

I don't much care about the two WP:RFAR Workshop pages where they both participated; the effect of their action their would have been at most minimal.

I am most concerned about the RFA, where both accounts were more vocal than the typical RFA supporter in their support of the candidate, and persuaded at least one opposer to remove their opposition, and who knows what the effect of the discussion was on later opiners. I'd suggest that be fully reviewed. GRBerry 17:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I would support an indef block, but saving that, at least 90 days block on John254 for deceiving the community, socking, etc. MBisanz ^talk 17:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

They both should be indefinitely blocked, per my comment above. It would be a different story if the two accounts did not edit the same pages, but voting the same way on RfA's, AfD's, Featured picture candidates, etc. is far too disruptive and a blatant abuse of alternate accounts. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

As has been noted elsewhere, this edit suggests serious foul play, if the two accounts are indeed the same. I would suggest a ban is considered. GTD 17:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have now blocked John254 indefinitely. I would be glad to be proven wrong here, but the evidence strongly and substantially suggests not only the use of alternate accounts in a deceptive manner (talking to each other, making political points, etc.), but also abusing multiple accounts in various on-wiki votes. This type of behavior is simply unacceptable, a principle that has been re-affirmed countless times over the past years. If significant evidence comes to light that disproves what has been said here, the indefinite block can be obviously be revisited. But, frankly, I doubt that will ever happen. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Vote stacking RFA, AFD, DRV, and featured processes is a standard cause for sitebanning. If there are reasons why this should be any exception, please bring them forward. So far I see none. Durova^Charge! 18:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If true, this was a pretty serious and pathetic abuse of trust + lying about themselves + sockpuppeting + occasional vote stacking + deliberately winding up Krimpet + attempts to get one to pass RFA + general patheticness, this isn't really some minor error Tombomp (talk/contribs) 18:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with above comments and support the indef blocks of John254 (talk · contribs) and Kristen Eriksen‎ (talk · contribs). Disruptive behavior at an active Arbitration Case, RFA, AFD, DRV, etc, is indeed cause for sitebanning. Cirt (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with indef of Kristen Eriksen - abstain on John254 for now except to say I find the deception inherent in sockpuppetry to be the problem, and a serious one. I'd like for a CU to weigh in.--Tznkai (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • What would you like a CU to weigh in on? If these two users are the same person, the things done (as Durova listed) are deceptive enough that an indef block/ban for both is warranted. In my considered judgment, having run checks here more than once over a period of time, a CU cannot at this time show they are the same, to the level of confidence used when CUs say  Confirmed. Nor can it show they are not the same, to the level of confidence used when CUs say  Unrelated (I'm not talking certainty here, CU never is certain/infallible). But the time based edit analysis is damning. ++Lar: t/c 20:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Good enough.--Tznkai (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I'll second that, for what it's worth. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Unless we see some clear evidence that these are different people, this looks like a conclusive demonstration of bad faith and as such, according to my understanding of policy, grounds for a ban. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Well if everyone else is in favor of an indefinite block/ban, I'm not one to argue. That's acceptable to me. --Cyde Weys 19:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• I concur with a block/ban for both IDs. I suspect I'm not the only CU that had suspected something all along. ++Lar: t/c 20:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• I support indef block or ban for both. This is pretty obvious, pretty extreme, an overall pretty clear-cut case. Really good work from all the investigators who gathered this strong evidence. delldot ∇. 20:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• KE is too obviously a false front (in a manner of speaking) and should be indeffed - I think we should wait for John254's response before making a decision on that account, but it would need to be pretty strong for a lengthy sanction not to be imposed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• I'd agree with delldot and preceding - asking oneself to run for RfA...the arguing etc. This is not impulsive nor is it brief, but sustained. I think indef block both is appropriate. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Casliber put his finger on the matter. I wouldn't have given two shakes of a USB cable about this sock puppeting, except that one account managed to get the Admin bit for the other. That indicates bad faith here. -- llywrch (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  Well they didn't manage to get it but they were making steps towards it. –xeno (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ban both. We don't tolerate screwing around like this. Plus, the John account was a habitual disruptor of arbitration and a vexatious litigator. He'll be little missed - or she? Ah, fond memories of the PoetBeast flood back...Moreschi (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Seems like there is community consensus for a ban, so I'm tagging. Secret ^account 22:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• This evidence while not nailing it to the wall is pretty conclusive. Especially the part about copying the monobook and continuing his edits.--Crossmr (talk) 01:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Too much here to ignore...I'm comfortable with an indef block+ban for both accounts. Proffered explanations to this point appear unsatisfactory. — Scientizzle 02:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• I oppose a ban on John254, who has done a lot of good work and should have a place here. The best outcome for the encyclopedia is not an outcome that bars this person from volunteering. Everyking (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• ahas john254 ben given a chance to respond this charges? has he ven loged in recently? this is a major deal and would benefit from at least gietng to here him speak. we have heard kristen eriksens defense on her talkapge but john254s silence as well as his history of having at last some contrustive editing makes me want to hold off un permanelty closing the case and indefinitely banning him until he at least says something about this crises. Smith Jones (talk) 13:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• I concur with the ban of KE. I currently have no opinion on what to do about John254. GRBerry 16:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• These things about not banning John254 don't make any sense. John254 and Kristen Eriksen are the same person. Blocks are a technical measure that apply to an account or an IP, while bans are a social measure that apply to the person behind each account. Therefore, banning Kristen Eriksen and banning John254 are exactly the same action.
  It sounds like what some people are advocating is not to ban this person, but just to stop him from using his Kristen Eriksen character. That's a huge underreaction. John (the person) was trying to manipulate Wikipedia, trying to make himself an admin in naked-chick form, stacking votes, disrupting discussions, and lying about it the whole time. He needs to be banned, not just prohibited from being "Kristen". rspεεr (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• the arguemnt is that while KE is aa abusive sockpuppet john234 has been considered a respected and competenti edtor who has contributed contempitly to this article for a long time and in his extensve career. some people thing that weven though he may have played a litle joke on us the comunity should only sanction him moderately for his behavior rather than remove from him from the project permanent-like. Can you you worked with me? Smith Jones (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • That approach was tried with Poetlister. The result was that a hardened troll grew more sophisticated and retaliated at the people who had blown the whistle. Durova^Charge! 06:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• In a similar like to what Durova says, I have no respect for sock puppeteers and I fear something similar to what Poetlister did. I would recommend a full Wikimedia ban. If someone is willing to pretend to be a female to use that to manipulate others to give them power positions or work with votes, that is very, very bad and must be dealt with in a strong manner. We cannot afford to give people like this any ground to work with. I would also suggest that any CU data be kept (if possible) for future reference if needed. 75.104.128.39 (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• i am not saying that tis user is worthy of being treated with such an pproach. i was merely attempting to clarify this for the help of User:Rspeer since he said that he did not understandt hat arguments being made against a fullbloc against User:John234. Personally, i feel that the ban should only be lifted in order to give john a chance to respond on his own talkpage. as far is i can tell, he has not been actually notifed of this. i believe that, for proper sake, he should be given a chance to respond. Its not fair for user:Kristen to get a hearing and user:John not to get one; even though i believe that in this case theyre are the same girl, the next people accused of sockpupeting might be innocent so we want to make sure that we take our time and keep John254 from editing indefinitely as per the administrators dicesion and the will of the Communtiy of Editors who comprise wikipedias workforce and editing base For EVEN when editors are good and helpful in the past any current abuses of trust (especially one as blatant and inflamationive) as his decision to persuade Kristen to become an administrator with full administratior privileges and tools/buttons, he should be blocked rater than risk a repeat of some sort of pointless drama or stress Smith Jones (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The ban doesn't need to be lifted in order for him to post at his user talk. Durova^Charge! 19:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's assume they're not the same

I'm not saying this to defend KE, or to spite the previous section. I just want to create a space where we can discuss this under the assumption that they're not the same. Please see my little stub of an essay for why I think this is helpful.

AFAIK, the alleged puppeteer has not been banned, so they is not evading a ban, which means we're not making a terrible mistake by assuming they're not the same. That leads us to the most important question: Did the account KE, by itself, do anything that needs to get banned? — Sebastian 18:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The obvious solution is to do exactly what John254 would do in a situation like this: file a request for arbitration . — CharlotteWebb 19:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

A valid question especially as this thread has now resulted in both accounts being blocked for which I'd have liked to have seem some more discussion of the impact, possible counter indication, their productive contributions as well as a stronger consensus before the second block. In case there was consensus for one indef block only, I'd have suggested to put it somewhat against usual procedure unto John254. If they are not the same he might be Gentleman enough to take the bullet or simply not care anymore while Kristen could resume editing once the community thinks there is no further danger and if she is still interested. Now both accounts are blocked, but the question remains the same as it is Kristen who asks for an unblock.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll bite here. If they're not the same, KE is obviously not on her first account. On her third day as an editor, she was already familiar with Esperanza and had a strong opinion as to its inappropriateness. If she isn't John254, perhaps she could disclose previous account(s) or IP(s) to a checkuser for examination? --B (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Quack. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

[EC] That doesn't matter. It is irrelevant for this section. Please read my essay, which explains why. (I probably should rename this section to "AGF still provides value here", or some such.) — Sebastian 22:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, the evidence is overwhelming and AGF only goes so far. AGF isn't a parachute for those who decide to blatantly abuse editing privileges. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"AGF only goes so far" - That's precisely the mindset that I'm trying to get out of your head. It's sad enough that you have no better reason than what amounts to "I don't want to". I actually made the experience that it can go a lot further than this! If you have any evidence against that, please show it to us. (Preferably at User talk:SebastianHelm/Sock hunt.) — Sebastian 01:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If you believe that a policy like AGF is completely impossible to abuse, then I'm not going to argue. Besides, this is going off-topic. I don't have the time nor motivation to explain these things to you. Regards, - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

   (I may not be watching this page anymore. If you would like to continue the conversation, please do so here and let me know.) — Sebastian 02:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone believes this nonsense

If it quacks like a duck ...

I do not know either John254 or Kristin Erikson and recently stumbled across this. But, I have to say this looks like a witch hunt with evidence that wouldn't even hold up as circumstantial. They can't prove they're not socks, so they must be. And any evidence to the contrary is more proof because it must have been deliberately planted. If we ban then and they drown, then they must have been innocent after all. Personally, I've been editing Wikipedia since the beginning (late 2001), both as an IP user and with an account that I have abandoned, so I fully understand KE appearing on Wikipedia knowing more than you think a new user ""should". I would bet that the vast majority (like 99%) of users spend some time editing as an IP user before they create an account -- the only question is how long they spend that way. It looks like KE didn't bother creating an account until she found a need to do so. That not only is not wrong, it should be encouraged.

Like KE, I have also edited extensively as an IP. For the most part, I found no reason to create an account, but I created a new account recently with my real name and, of course, my new account appeared to be an expert about Wikipedia immediately. Like KE, I also dive deeply into things. Were you to accuse me of being John254's sock puppet, I would do the same that she did -- dig into his edit history and compare it to mine to look for evidence to prove my innocence. Most of the contributors here have dug into KE's edit history and now may well know more about it than she does -- are you therefore sock puppets too?

Suggesting that defending herself with evidence, against people who are accusing her with flimsy evidence, is ridiculous. And, to argue that she would have deliberately created arguments with herself and other contrary evidence, over a long period of time, just in case anybody ever complained is hard to believe.

At best, the evidence here looks like collusion, not sock puppetry, and I don't even see that. But, even so, there is no rule against collusion on Wikipedia. And we see it all the time, with people cooperating on edits. I personally have emailed people I know to suggest that they edit pages in which I had an interest. Doing so does not make them my sock puppet or vice versa, whether they agree with me or disagree with me.

To me, this flimsy house of cards rush to judgment and assumption of guilt represents the very worst of Wikipedia, and I think that even if it turns out that they are witches (uh, sock puppets). And I, personally, do not believe it to be true after reading this and the information on KE's page.

RoyLeban (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:DUCK; the truth of the matter is that if the community is wrong (and that is entirely possible... theoretically) then the project suffers by the removal of two or more potentially useful members, but if the community is right - as it is by a huge percentage - then potential trouble is avoided. Please note that many commenting here are seasoned editors with experience of detecting socks and their masters - and even some who were unaware of the socking situation had concerns about the KE account from some time back. Two last points - don't. go. to. WP:SPI (you won't like it!), and, no relation to Judge Roy Leban then? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Then why would someone with sense or experience create this as a userpage? And use this as a signature? Real women on the Internet get more unwanted sexual attention from deviant males than anybody likes to deal with. And sometimes end up going to the police about it (possibly asking the advice of experienced female editors first). If this were an actual woman it's dubious she'd put up those boxes even if they were true, and she'd likely ask for the page to be deleted within a month. That 'she' kept it up until the sockpuppet template took its place today, and joined so soon after 'her friend' engaged in a dispute about that type of userbox, strains credibility. This is more characteristic of male sockpuppeteers, and a rather blatant example. Durova^Charge! 23:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Just reading her interactions, it's so obviously a parody it's hilarious. For some reason, I read the mutual gushing with John654 and think encouraging Norwegians love Emerald Nuts. --B (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

People are convicted of murder based on "circumstantial evidence." You don't understand what that term means. Here we're just trying to build an encyclopedia, and we make the best judgments we can. It seems likely that user has disrupted the project, and I can say this is not the only account apparently connected to these two to have done so. It's a pattern of abuse, and it needs to stop, so we're stopping it.

Incidentally, this certainly isn't collusion; the reason sock-puppetry has not previously been established is that the user has employed different computers at different times to edit Wikipedia. If they had edited in collusion, they might have once edited at the same time. But they don't; these edits sprang from a discrete human being. Cool Hand Luke 23:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me ask a really stupid question. I'm assuming that the checkusers have ascertained if, in fact, this person is editing from a university and what university that is. Have any checkusers checked that school's directory to see if someone with the name Kristen Eriksen exists? At Tech, we have what we jokingly call Hokie Stalker and I'm assuming most schools have something similar. If this is a real and not a made up persona, it should be that hard to verify. Personally, I think it stretches the imagination. She lives in the dorm, edits Wikipedia nude, is 18 (a freshman), and is a pornstar? I don't think so. But in the off chance it's true, a checkuser could confirm it by using the appropriate search engine or asking her to email you from a school-issued email address. --B (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This school does not produce a public student directory, but your email suggestion is a good idea. Cool Hand Luke 00:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I have plenty of other things to do, so I'm not planning on checking in on this in the future. Do what you will. But, I feel a couple of responses are useful:

1. I'm not new. I'm certainly familiar with WP:SPI and may other Wikipedia policies I disagree with. Just because a guideline exists doesn't mean that I agree with it. Just because mob rule is "legal" doesn't make it right. I see a lot of vitriol in discussions like this and it makes me sick. It is a duty of the citizenry (of Wikipedia or any community) to speak out against things they believe are wrong. Otherwise, I would have just let this pass.
2. I don't care what the guidelines say -- asking a friend of mine to weigh in on a discussion is not sock puppetry or meat puppetry or any other puppetry if I don't tell my friend what to say. Those who know me know are well aware that I solicit the opinions of people that I agree with as well as those that I disagree with so as to have more inclusive discussions and we all benefit from such discussions. Any guideline on Wikipedia that discourages inclusive discussions should be ignored. I don't like seeing one person take over an article because they have more time to edit. I don't like seeing AfDs that kill significant contributions to Wikipedia that only have three people voting on them (or many voters but no actual discussion whatsoever). Etc.
3. Yeah, I understand circumstantial evidence. Saying I don't turns this into a personal attack which is uncalled for (this is the tip of the iceberg of the vitriol I refer to above -- is it really necessary to attack me too?). Notice I said "that wouldn't even hold up as circumstantial", not that it was circumstantial. It's coincidental evidence. They're both in the same city of 2 million. Yeah, right. Kirsten has too much evidence for why she's not John, so she must be John. Yeah, right. I'm not saying that they are different people or that they are the same person. I have no insider knowledge. But, I'm certainly not convinced by the supposed evidence and I don't like this process.

RoyLeban (talk) 08:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review outed them as sockpuppets on August 26. The self-serving arguments with each other and effusive compliments have to be seen in that light. Then they mutually disappear for over a month (ie, enough time for any potential slipups a checkuser might detect to go away), then return. You're not going to get something more rock solid than this case. --B (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Circumstantial evidence is anything probative in the matter. Editing times are certainly probative into sockpuppetry. I inferred that you misunderstood the word—as most people in the popular press do—nothing personal. I'm sorry you felt that it was an attack. Incidentally, since you're opposed to vitriolic rhetoric, I hope that you abstain from claiming that Wikipedians are drowning accused witches in the future.

As for the case, I made similar inferences to User:B above. Cool Hand Luke 21:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

@Luke: I hadn't planned to come back, but someone told me you'd responded to me. So ... I accept your apology. I intended my own comments of drowning, etc., to simply be in the vein of the metaphor of a "witch hunt" that had been brought up by others, not to be literal, semi-literal, vitriolic or attacking. Sorry if it appeared that way to you or anybody else. And I'll be happy to debate circumstantial evidence with you on some other page :-)

From all that's on this page, it may well be the case that the accusations are true. As I said, I don't know, but I do know that when I see opinions stated as fact, when I see partial research claimed to be complete and unimpeachable research, etc., it makes me distrust the person who's saying/presenting it. When I served on a jury, the judge told us that if we believed a witness was not telling the truth in one area of their testimony, we were free to disregard all of their testimony (and that statement made a difference in the jury's verdict on two charges). No process is perfect, but I really wish this process was better. I do wonder if there is any evidence that Kristen and/or John could present that would be accepted. I suspect that even if they are innocent, no such uniformly acceptable evidence exists. There have certainly been cases of accused puppetry that turned out to be false. Is this one of them?

RoyLeban (talk) 07:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request

Kristen has complained that there's no link here to her defence of her actions on her talk. So posting a link. Make of it what you will. – iridescent 17:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting rebuttal [58]. If they are different people I would assert that she knows John better than John knows himself. — CharlotteWebb 18:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

i find it aht it does not beat hte laugh testthat htis user has so quickly acomplied a detailed set of dilinated separatives between herself and John. i am asssumin g good faith that kristen and john are not the same, but the style of which they argue seems increasingly simular -- i compared x here re: to y here (where x = john and y = kristen) and they are strikingly similar in connotative denunciation. Smith Jones (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

further more i declare this kristen eriksen as compared to john254. in this matter, you can see the striking similarities between their edit contributions ratio. kristen has like 46% article contribs to john's 38%, which is only a few percentage points off when revised with the standard mean in these types of cases.

none of this proves byon a shadow of a doubt that they are sockpuppets but it does estlabish a patern of strange and overlapping edits that should be discussed inf urther despite "Nordic goddes" Kristens objections to te contraire. Smith Jones (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I am confused by your x/y examples. Don't they look like standard rollbacks? Only neither of them seems to be rollbacker, and I couldn't find these strings in their monobook.js (note that Kristen simply imported John's). It seems unlikely that they were entered manually. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, satire, Hans. Cool Hand Luke 22:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they both had rollback, which I removed earlier. KE / J. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you for the response. that was weird for me since it impleid that kristen has an inaccurate tag on her account. Smith Jones (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not a statistically significant finding. The odds that any two random editors' article contribution ratios are within 8 percentage points of each other wouldn't even meet an 80% confidence interval, let alone a 95% one. There are many good pieces of evidence to suggest that these two accounts are the same person, but this isn't one of them. --Cyde Weys 22:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

i see your point, but it does bare scruitiny that a "new" user would spent so much time on non-article space. from my experience, most acutal new users turn up for the articles and only get involved with user:talk and other administrative space s as a result of their work on articles. users who spend most of thier time geting involved in major adminstratve functions as their first few edits is weird; not necesarily indictiave of sockpuppetry but demands scrutniy nontheless. Smith Jones (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

People. It's a joke. Cool Hand Luke 22:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you for speaking for me user:Cool Hand luke but i can speak for myself. your help is muh appreciated but its geting somewhat irksome. Smith Jones (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Chill out, SJ, it's all cool. There are many aficionados of your postings here. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Temp wikipedian category

I removed that one bit from John's talk page and notified the person who placed it. Revert at will, the cat with it's possible 30-day deletion just seemed premature. No opinion on the rest of this beyond that its really unfortunate. rootology (C)(T) 18:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, pages of users involved in sockpuppetry are kept regardless. There are details at the top of this page. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

what about User:Crimp It? Shhould he be tagged? iam thinkg yes but i dont want to potentially hurt User:Krimpet by assocation Smith Jones (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, tag it. Easy to note the distinction. Durova^Charge! 22:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Something else to consider

User:Crimp_It! == User:Kristen_Eriksen == User:John254

User:Krimpets Tasty Cake == User:Mike_Garcia == Prolific Vandal User:Johnny the Vandal

So does John254 == Johnny the Vandal?

I think the MO fits where he would have one good hand account and have other accounts vandalize the good hand account. Also, John254's contribution in the arbritations could possibly be seen as a form of trolling. Thoughts? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Unless we have good reason to, we shouldn't be assuming that one imposter == another. Protonk (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • No way. If I am remembering my (now deleted) CU emails correctly, JtV is not even on the same continent as Kristen Ericksen. Thatcher 03:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
    • A few weeks ago I initially made the mistake of suspecting "Tasty Cake" was another of Kristen's sockpuppets, which may have led to the confusion. CUs confirmed that it was instead a puppet of "Johnny," who is indeed completely unrelated to John254. krimpet✽ 03:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
      • It is all part of Hephaestos's plan of getting his revenge on the idiots who populate this website. John Guy Robinson, Michael and JtV are one and the same!!! Mike Garcia: Electric Boogaloo (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Of course, the editor here actually is JtV. And no - John254 is not JtV. JtV is also known as "The Italian Vandal", which should explain things :) - Alison ^❤ 21:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
          • He likes pizza? ;) --B (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
            • He's the Pope? Thatcher 19:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
              • That would explain the sockpopers Smith Jones mentioned earlier. Perhaps he's on to something. Kevin (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
              • Point of order: the current pope is Nabooean German. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
                • I do like pizza, i can spam Force Lightning with my hands, and additionally KE carries out my unspeakably evil biddings. Wthareyousaying (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

IP Sock?

139.84.82.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) left a trolling message on my talkpage in a thread concerning KE/John. The IP is from LaSalle University in Pennsylvania. If this is the same school that KE/John is coming from, would a checkuser like to do whatever they need to do with it? --B (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Have asked Alison to have a look. Viridae^Talk 20:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry,  Inconclusive - there are actually no accounts at all behind that iP - Alison ^❤ 07:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandal/activist/anti-Semite

Yes, this guy gets the 'slashie' award.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lapsed_Pacifist

Long term vandal/activist/anti-Semite. Has very recently been wiping out information on the War on Terrorism page that does not align with his world view. Openly deletes/suppresses information about Islamic terrorism.

At an absolute minimum, requires a temporary block or an administor warning to deter future behavior. Actually needs longer block.

Has long history of blocks and bans dating back to 2005 over topics pertaining to the IRA. Having been blocked out of that sector, he has now decided to 'champion' Islamic causes. Is highly 'interested' in Jewish topics.

This guy has been allowed to run amok for 4 years now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Lapsed_Pacifist

Bounce78 (talk) 08:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bounce78 (talk • contribs) 08:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Specific differences that illustrate your point would help. arimareiji (talk) 08:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

'Nazi tactics':

[[59]]

War on Terrorism:

[[60]]

[[61]]

[[62]]

[[63]]

[[64]]

Ethnic cleansing:

[[65]]

Iranian embassy siege:

[[66]]

'The Holocaust Industry':

[[67]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bounce78 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Bounce78 (talk) 09:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see anything meeting the definition "anti-Semitic", although clearly his edits are certainly pushing a particular POV. This is basically a content dispute; I don't see anything specifically requiring administrator intervention here. Black Kite 10:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, she is definitely a POV-pushing disruptive editor. I think it goes beyond a content dispute when there is a pattern of POV pushing across several articles. And many of the edits are pointless as well as unjustified; removing the Hamas and Hezbollah flags from the article on the war on terror for example.

I do think the first edit difference, on Nazi tactics, is anti-Semitic (to identify Israel with the Nazis in the context of a discussion of the Holocaust is a common anti-Semitic tactic. But this is an edit to a talk page and not evident in edits to articles. I would kep a record of edits that fall under WP:ED - edits to articles that is, not talk pages - and see if you can collect stronger evidence of POV-pushing disruptive editing. I think this guy falls short of the threshold, but you can post a notice at the NPOV noticeboard to see if others think she is a POV warrior. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your advice fellas. Bounce78 (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Ernest Peiris‎

Ernest Peiris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ernest Peiris is just shy of his eighth birthday and, while quite precocious for his age, has not made a single productive edit to Wikipedia, treating it like a sandbox, requiring regular resources for various CSDs and cleaning up after edits to Ernest. Admin with soft touch needed. THF (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

THF, I am probably one of the squishiest admins we've got, and having TRIED to deal with other precocious little darlings, I can tell you that most often, one of two things is the case: either a) they're not REALLY that young, thus chain-yankage is occurring, or b) they ARE that young, in which case only time--preferably "away from Wikipedia"--will result in better editing. You can't teach a two-month-old to cha-cha, and you can't teach an eight-year-old--even a precocious one--how to abide by WP policies. Having said that, someone else will have to block the little tyke, as blocking the younguns still feels like squishing kittens.GJC 21:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I will place a warning on their page (I think I will go for a personal one rather than a template) suggesting that this site is not suitable for their talents. If they don't get the hint then I am daddy enough to remove them for their own good. If anyone is keeping an eye on the userpage then let me know if they need "sending to their room" for a few months. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It's too bad nobody gave him hand-written warnings before. I have run into some really young editors editing children's TV show articles, etc., and sometimes even younger than him, and they can be productive editors if they know what the rules are. I also suspect it matters a lot whether they have a parent or teacher behind the screen helping them. Also, should we be worried that he's put his name, age, address, and whole family's names out in public? Should those edits be deleted? Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably concerned on their behalf. I will watchlist their page, and if there is any response I will suggest removing their details. If there is no response and the account does not edit (and my aged memory suffices) I will selectively remove details anyway. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Assistance with incivility

Resolved

 – Blocked for 48 hours — R² 05:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

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

I am currently having an issue with an editor displaying some serious civility issues and personal attacks, specifically directed at me. I feel that this issue may go beyond WQA as this user seems to feel it is his right to say whatever he wants about any editor, in any part of Wikipedia.

User:Tarysky began editing in December 2008. I first came across this user when I edited a page he created about an upcoming Erykah Badu album (New Amerykah Part Two (Return of the Ankh)). I removed some unsourced material and I was promptly confronted on my Talk Page. Tarysky then insisted on re-inserting the information that he claimed was properly sourced: [68] [69] [70] [71]. Note that the reverting and edits made by Tarysky to this article not only reinserted unsourced information but also re-added some other errors I had found within the article (such as an incorrect album title).

Tarysky's first interactions with me were to leave messages on my talk page referring to my edits as "sloppy" and that I shouldn't be editing the article anyway because I did not create it [72] [73]. When given warnings about inserting the unsourced information, edit warring and an uncivil attitude, I was "dismissed": [74].

I asked a trusted editor, User:Realist2, to please keep an eye on the article: [75]. Tarysky then jumped in and accused me of making personal attacks: [76] and demanded that I stay off his Talk Page [77] [78].

Similar unsourced edits were then made to the article by User:JC STARR729, and when I or Realist2 removed unsourced information, Tarysky left messages on our Talk Pages to stop "edit warring": [79] [80] [81]. Tarysky then reverted the article and stated that it "doesn't not need to be reverted anymore by no one" [82] and added a "source" that was nothing but an image of a magazine cover [83].

Tarysky then decided that Realist2 and I were sockpuppets [84] and proceeded to open a CheckUser request: [85] [86] [87]. As he waited for someone to address his request he continued to add comments and antagonize me and Realist2: [88] [89] [90]. Tarysky's innapropriate comments at Requests for Checkuer were deleted by User:Tiptoety and subsequently reverted by Tarysky [91] along with another accusation [92] and another rude comment [93]. When inappropriate comments were again removed, Tarysky reverted [94] twice [95].

Tarysky then accused User:Iridescent of being a sockpuppet when Iridescent asked for him to stop his behavior [96] and informed me that I should not be "following his edits" [97].

Yesterday, 30 January, I reverted some edits I thought (at the time) were without proper sources. This led to Tarysky attacking me on my Talk Page [98] and in an edit summary [99]. A comment pertaining to me was also left on an article Talk Page [100] and when removed by me, was reverted by Tarysky [101].

I reported yesterday's activity as it was occurring at WP:AIV because I felt that Tarysky should be blocked for his attacks, but did not want to do it as the attacks were directed at me. I was told that AIV was not the appropriate page to report such activity, which is why I am here. Note that Tarysky also had something to say at AIV, denying any wrongdoing [102] [103]. Tarysky then also dismissed a warning left for him by User:Daedalus969 as "personal attacks" [104] and denied that he attacked anyone [105].

I have not had further contact with Tarysky, although he has placed a "rule" on his Talk Page obviously directed at me [106] and he seems to be doing some damage control today: [107] [108].

Note that during this entire exchange, Tarysky has consistently denied attacking anyone, while accusing everyone else of attacking him. His claim is that he is "correcting" me [109].

Lastly, every single warning or attempt at discussion left on Tarysky's Talk Page is promptly removed by him, usually with a snide comment or accusation. This also includes warnings about uploading copyrighted images (which have nothing to do with me): [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123]

This is a User that has some serious issues with communicating with others and ignoring whichever policies he feels like sweeping aside. There really is no reason why there should be accusations of bad faith, sockpuppetry, vandalism or some kind of smearing of his character against anyone who disagrees with his edits. I feel that his actions and belligerence so far have been more than enough reason for a block but because I'm involved in the fracas I'd like some additional Administrator eyes on it, if possible. Far be it for me to bite a newcomer, but this is someone with only about 2 months of editing experience and this is not a helpful way to start out.

Thanks in advance. - eo (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Endorse Eo's analysis of the situation. I haven't interacted with this disruptive editor since the end of the checkuser case he filed against us both. I have my concerns he is socking as well. He repeatedly accused lied, saying Eo was making personal attacks, further from the truth. One big headache. Endorse block, maybe we should request a checkuser of our own too... — R² 19:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

In cases of incivility, it is tempting to give a final warning first. But what this editor is doing is so bizarre that it's hard to know what to tell him to stop doing. I suggest that a 24-hour block for disruption is justified, with the block reason pointing to this thread. It seems that any admin who visits his talk page will be accused of being a sock, so warnings may not get much traction. EdJohnston (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Endorse blocking untill he can learn to act like an adult. Wikipedia doesn't need people like this.--Patton^t/c 21:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been correcting his edits when he was wrong. If that's called a personal attacks then beep it. About the sockpuppetry case, him and Realist2 seem to have editted a lot of articles to together. I did a checkuser which was later declined. The only reason why he is doing what he's doing is because he still holds that grudge. Enlight of this, I was adding another album to Erykah Badu's page called "Badu". He later comes and erases it. I go his talk and show him the sources that the album has been released and put in stores. He goes stays "Stay Off My Page" after I have corrected him. And just that, he has been trying to start arguements of stupid stuff and contacting other Users when it really doesn't matter. From that time when I edited the New Amerykah Pt. 2, he tried to take over. Since I knew what was going to happen, I went to other articles. He later follows me to other articles like Storm. I went to his talk and told him to stop following edits and reverting them. The victim is me because everytime I edit some pages, he goes and reverts it. He done this to many other users that I just will not name. The fact is, if I edit a Erykah Badu, he will mess it up.

Now about the images, I was just trying to help. There were Users who was able to help me with these situations. We talked about it on our talk pages. After a while, I stopped adding images. So no matter how many links you put up against it, that was a case of "Trial and error". He acted like it's a big deal.

Now for the checkuser comment. How can you checkuser me when I am the only person doing my own edits. No one is backing me or adding the same thing I am. I going to various/random pages telling what I know and then uploading valid sources.

Now about personal attacks. I have made no personal attacks. However, since when does correcting someone by giving them sources a personal attack. If someone erased someone you added and you know what you added was right, wouldn't you go to that person and correct them. Not only that but in my case, Eo was following my edits to begin with when I claimed him to be a sockpuppet. Tarysky (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Tarysky for 48 hours for disruptive editing per the evidence of eo, above. In this case it was fair (I think) to let the editor respond before taking any action, but I find myself unable to make much sense of the response. User:Realist2 left a further comment on the situation at User talk:EdJohnston#The ANI thread. It is astounding that Tarysky has accused three different editors of being socks -- Eo, Iridescent and Realist2 -- who between them have about 150,000 edits. There is a disconnect between Tarysky and reality, in my opinion, and we need to let reality win. EdJohnston (talk) 04:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

American spider beetle

A template on the article says "Please note this page will be under revision by University of Toronto entomology students between 22/01/2009 and 12/02/2009. For more information about this project, please see [1]". The link is a blank user page. Is this allowed? Schuym1 (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Schools_and_universities_project#University_of_Toronto_.28Winter_2009.29_.28Ongoing.29. We also have a template, {{EducationalAssignment|date=YYYY-MM-DD|link=Wikipedia:School and university projects#PROJECT}}, which is meant for this (and supposed to go on the talk page, not the main article). -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• The watching and editing it allowed and invited. The template on the article is misplaced. Protonk (talk) 02:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• This is the first time that I have heard of that page. Schuym1 (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Are these templates permitted on the talk pages? If not, why not? Seems like a great template for reducing redundant questions, which is similar to the purpose of other templates. If it is permitted, it should probably be restored and moved there. ThuranX (talk) 06:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That's where they belong, and where they've already been moved to... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

My fault. Different colors, different templates, didn't see it. Why aren't we more clear in the one that IS there, which is quite vague? The misplaced one was far more informative. We ought to provide the basic formatting and code so that each project can tag their own, identifying who and what at a glance. ThuranX (talk) 06:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Alis.Payan is back again

Resolved

 – Dealt with by Black Kite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). — neuro^(talk) 09:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:Requests for checkuser/Case/Alis.Payan describes our problem child ... long-term anonymous and sockpuppeting vandalism, all from a subrange in the Dominican Republic which she is the only apparent editor using. Today I noticed her inserting herself into the cast of Camp Rock 2, which is one of her historic editing areas.

200.88.94.0/24 was hard-blocked for 90 days the last time, and that expired 11 days ago. I've gone through the last 100K edits and 200.88.94.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is her only case of anonymous editing. Can someone go ahead and reinstate the block? 6 months this time perhaps? It needs to be a hard block, because she is a dedicated puppeteer and checkuser has indicated that she is the only user of that range.—Kww(talk) 02:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've soft-blocked the range for six months - Without a CU confirming that there's socking or that there's no legitimate other user in that range a hardblock seems unjustified at this time. But six months seems appropriate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Filed at SPI to get checkuser confirmation.—Kww(talk) 12:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty clear from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katelyn Wyler:The Movie that at least one named account has been created. Anyone care to tell me who created Katelyn Wyler:The Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) so that I can look into it further?—Kww(talk) 18:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it was BreeHills12 (talk · contribs). No other edits from that account ... do I hear quacking? Blueboy96 18:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I certainly do. Either go ahead and indef it, or let me know that you don't think you have enough evidence and I'll add it to the SPI report.—Kww(talk) 18:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Black Kite took care of BreeHills12.—Kww(talk) 19:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Pokerhand

Resolved

 – Page deleted by Pascal.Tesson (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) — neuro^(talk) 09:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Is User:Pokerhand spam? The original version of the page included links to the pages, the User has removed the links, but the names of the pages are still there. AnyPerson (talk) 04:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like spam, quacks like spam. //roux   05:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like G11, deleted as G11. — neuro^(talk) 09:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Ninguém

 In progress

Once again the same user in the same article: White Brazilian. Last week, this user was blocked 2 times for disruption in this article. Now that his block expired, he is back again to the same article, wih the same useless discussion in the Talk:White Brazilian. He's flooding this talk page with his personal opinions and theories about the figures of the Embassies of Italy and Lebanon in Brazil (his theory is that the Embassies are lying). He is frequently changing the article with his own theories, with unsouced informations (he has a "pro-Portuguese" point of view of the subject, and tries to erase the informations about Germans, Italians, Arabs and other ethnic groups).[124]

WP:NOTFORUM -- Wikipedia is not forum, but Ninguém is ignoring this rule, trying to cause troubles, not only in White Brazilian but in other articles as well. Opinoso (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not "causing trouble", I am trying to discuss the problems with the article White Brazilians in its Talk Page. Opinoso is behaving as if he's the owner of the article. Ninguém (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oooooooooooooh, this guy is just trolling. See now the summary of his edit on Rio Grande do Sul: "nobody speaks 'gracias' in Rio Grande do Sul". Good grief. Ninguém (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This is just the usual sort of ethnic nonsense. Most people in Brazil have diverse ethnic backgrounds, and it's all just bickering about what labels to attach to them. Attitudes about this topic are different in Brazil than in the US, so one can't solve the problem the same way one would here---basically this is a content dispute between two parties neither of whom is clearly in the right, and both of whom have been blocked in the past for edit-warring. Looie496 (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems like Ninguém is a Single purpose account looking though the contribs, if I was still an admin, I would have blocked indef. Can someone do that for me. Thanks Secret ^account 17:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No, my account is not a single-purpose one. I have made edits in many other issues, including heavy contributions in the list of Brazilian writers. Ninguém (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing here is that User:Ninguém was blocked 2 times, in a short period of time (1 week) for disruption in the same article: White Brazilian. Just after his 1 week block expire, the first thing he did was to create another discussion in the same White Brazilian article, for what he was previously blocked. It seems he's not going to stop this. And, yes, he seems to have a Single purpose account, since almost all his contributions are dedicated to find troubles in this same article. Opinoso (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I was blocked for the first time for breaking the 3RR, which you also broke, using a sockpuppet.

I was blocked for the second time when trying to make what seemed to me common sence editions to the page, such as pointing that there were French and Dutch invasions in Brazil, the population of the towns in the Demography section, the fact that the "other source" that claims that there are 18 million people of German descent in Brazil is Dieter Böhnke, that the IBGE figures for immigration seem incompatible with the Embassies' claims, that most White Brazilians are of Portuguese descent. Frankly, I don't know why I was blocked, all those editions are factually true. The latter was even agreed by you.

Since my unblocking, I have avoided editing the article, and am trying to discuss the disagreements in the talk page. Which is what you are now trying to forbid me from doing. Ninguém (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have made editions to articles as varied as:

Maria Clara Machado Mayor of Porto Alegre National Renewal Alliance Party List of Political Parties in Brazil Carlos Lacerda Gramado Cristovam Buarque Candomblé Luís Fernando Veríssimo Workers' Party (Brazil) Belo Horizonte List of Brazilian Writers Literature of Brazil Acela Express List of Brazilians João do Rio Wladimir Herzog Fernando Gabeira Cipriano Barata Revolutionary Movement 8th of October List of active autonomist and secessionist movements 1960s in Brazil Roberto Burle Marx Serviços Aéreos Cruzeiro do Sul Portuguese language Lumpenproletariat Murphy's Law Dichotomy Eclipse Petroleum Jelly

Hardly a sole purpose account. Ninguém (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

On the last weeks, you are enterely dedicated with your disruption in the article White Brazilian. The first thing you did after your block period expired was to create another disruptive discussion in the same article you were previously blocked 2 times last week. It seems a Single purpose account. And there are no disagreements in that article, since you are the only person claiming the Embassies are lying about the figures, based on you unsourced opinion and your pro-Portuguese point of view.

Now you are even doing personal attacks, calling me "troll".

Since you were blocked 2 times last week for disruption in the same article and now that you are unblocked, you are once again in the same article repeating the same disruption, it's obvious you are enterely dedicated to it. And it's also obvious that you are not going to stop the disruption until you get blocked again. Opinoso (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a disruptive discussion at all. I have stated all the points of disagreement, in a polite and well-thought way, have made alternative proposals for some of the points, have brought new sources into discussion. You haven't answered to anything.

I have even started a new section proposing a single change: that the well known historical facts of Dutch Brazil and France Equinoxiale be included in the redaction of the page. It seems that you cannot bring any argumen on why it shouldn't, so you are trying to change the discussion from the content of the page into a discussion of Wikitiquette. Ninguém (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and please. Saying that nobody says "gracias" in Rio Grande do Sul can only be trolling. I'm gaúcho, I know what I am talking about. Do you want what? Just google for

• mario quintana gracias
• porto alegre gracias
• grêmio gracias
• tangos e tragédias gracias

selecting the "Páginas em Português" option, and you, and anyone interested, will see that yes, people do say "gracias" in Rio Grande do Sul.

Gracias. Ninguém (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

On the face of it, this looks like an edit war brewing between not one, but two editors with possible COI implications. I have yet to read through and evaluate all the recent chages to not only the article and it's associated talk page, but also related articles. It looks like all recent edits have to do with Brazil and / or Brazilian-related topics. Edit Centric (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime, while this discussion is happening, what I would suggest is for BOTH Ninguém and Opinoso avoid making ANY changes to this article, or any related. The first thing that stands out is Ninguém's statement that since his last block, he has avoided editing the article in question. This is false reporting, see here, here and here. The very next edit, Opinoso reverted Ninguém's edit, citing it as vandalism. (See this reference DIFF of edit.) Our FIRST aim should be to arrest the process of edit warring before it gets as far as before. Next, I would suggest formal mediation. Edit Centric (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm trying to adhere to Wikipedia's recommended line: if my edits get reversed, I go to the Talk Page and try to discuss them. Apparently Opinoso has a problem with that; he says that I am "flooding" the Talk Page. But if I can't edit and I can't discuss in the Talk Page, do then I have to accept Opinoso's "ownership" of the article?

I would ask you, if you are going to review those edits, to pay special attention to those of

• January 15, at 15:31,
• January 15, at 18:08,
• January 15, at 19:30,
• January 15, at 20:57.

Notice, please, how bad faith is assumed from the first reversal ("Undid vandalism"), and how two different posters make exactly the same edit, thus circumventing the 3RR.

Also, I think it would be a good idea to bring some Brazilian editors, not called by me or by Opinoso, to this discussion. Opinoso is taking advantage of editors and admins not speaking/reading Portuguese. Ninguém (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have mentioned those edits (I have been avoiding editing, except...).

One was a correction of a factual mistake; Pedras Grandes is a town in Santa Catarina, not in Rio Grande do Sul. Other was a mere attempt to include the population of those towns in the article. First time I tried to do it, including the population of two or three of them, Opinoso reverted, stating in the summary that if I was going to include such data, I should include them for all of the towns. So I took, perhaps naively, as granted that it wasn't a polemical edit (why would it be, if one thinks about it?) Finally, the third was the reinclusion of the "factual accuracy" banner, which seemed to me quite obvious: the factual accuracy of the article is in question.

The content of the article, of course, I have tried to not edit.

Thank you for your help and patience. Ninguém (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the set of Jan 15 edits goes to edit history and proving past issues, but these were taken care of with a block, if I'm not mistaken, and were part of the LAST edit war. What we are dealing with here is THIS instance, and the prevention of another edit war being taken out on the article, and ultimately proving to be yet another detriment to the community at large. Now a question, and this is for BOTH Ninguém and Opinoso; would you both be open to a formal mediation process? Edit Centric (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

On the Jan 15 edits, the problem - from my point-of-view, of course, is that I got blocked for breaking the 3RR rule, while Opinoso circumvented the same penalty by using a different IP.

On the mediation... Sure I am. Is it possible to include other Brazilian (or Portuguese, or Angolan, etc) editor in such process? Ninguém (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think you're asking a bit much there, insomuch as the mediation process is more about getting you two working together on the material, and aiding in a "meeting of the minds". As for the edits that you cited, all that this shows is that Opinoso edited while logged in, and then may have committed another edit after logging out of his user account. (Not sure about that one, I don't have access to do SOCK research. All I can evaluate as a "third set of eyes" is the appearance of this.) Again, that is then, this is now.

FOR THE ADMINS - What is the policy for discussions on en.wikipedia, inclusive of article talkspace and user talk pages, where language applys? IMHO, it makes situations like these MUCH easier to mediate / mitigate if English is used. I don't want to "speak out of turn" here, before I would cite that as a requirement within any mediation process... Edit Centric (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to hand this one back off to the admin-side now, there's a situation brewing in Alaska, and I have family in Anchorage. See Mount Redoubt Volcano, Alaska. Edit Centric (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Good luck; I hope everything goes OK for you and your people. Ninguém (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I already did a request for arbitration, but Ninguém was blocked during 1 week, then I don't what happened to it. I do not know if a formal mediation is the case here. A formal mediation is used when the two parties are neutral and have different point of views, based on reliable sources. However, Ninguém, since the beggining is not using reliable sources, but his own, non-neutral theories. The user has a clear pro-Portuguese point of view. He already reported, with pride, that his grandparents are of "colonial Portuguese" descent, and since then he is trying to claim, with no sources, that most White Brazilian are of colonial Portuguese descent, and that the latter immigrants are small minorities. For this, he uses no sources. He wants to claim that most Brazilians are "his own", which is not the case, since post-colonial European immigration outnumbered many times the pre-colonial settlers, and most of the colonial Portuguese settlers in Brazil mixed with Africans and Amerindians, so that most of their descendants are not part of the White Brazilian population.

See the differences between the original article, and Ninguém's edits: [125]

After the figures about Arabs and Italians in Brazil, he wrote the numbers are "incompatible with the official data on immigration by the IBGE". Then, he claim that the numbers of Arabs could not exceed 1 million, and of Italians 15 million and that the numbers are "inflate". However, this is his own theory, his own original resource. He probably found these numbers with his calculator at home. There are no souces on the Internet, or in books, to claim the figures are inflate, or that the Embassy is lying.

The point is: Ninguém, who seems to be very proud of his Portuguese grandparents (nobody asked him about it, but he posted this useless information) is trying to increase the Portuguese influence in Brazil and to diminish the Italian, Arab, German, among other. He is not being neutral.

In the Italian case, the user frequently claims that "only" 1.5 million Italians arrived to Brazil. Yes, that's true. But, with his calculator at home, he found a theory that the descendants of these 1.5 million Italians could not be 25 million, as the Embassy and many other sources claim, but "15 million". No sources on the Internet points the figure "15 million". All the sources point 25 million. I have to remember Ninguém that Wikipedia does not allowed him and any other users to make up theories. Ninguém got the number of 1.5 million and used his calculator to find his figure of 15 million, based only on a information of how many times the Brazilian population increased since a date that he randomly choose.

• First: to calculate the present Italian-descended population of Brazil, nobody can use the 1.5 million figure of Italians who came to Brazil, because this figure is counted from 1875 (when the first Italians arrived) until the 1930s, when the last significant groups arrived. Since 1875, Italians were having kids in Brazil (and many kids, because on that time people usually had several kids). Most Italians arrived in Brazil from 1880 to 1900, so there are over 120 years of the mass immigration to Brazil. In 120 years, there are many generations, maybe 6 or 7 and even higher. Then, to calculate the present-day population, the person must include no only the 1.5 million Italian immigrants, but also the children, grandchildren and the many other descendants since the year of 1875. Then, the person must know the periods that most Italians arrived, not only include the 1.5 million all together.

• Second: the person must know the rates of mortality among Italians in Brazil. Not all ethnic groups in Brazil had the same mortality rate. Everybody knows that African-Brazilians had high rates of mortality, because of slavery and poverty. Then, to include all ethnic groups of Brazil with the same mortaly rate is a big mistake.

And also you must know the birth rates among them. I mean, you must know how many kids the average Italian woman had in Rio Grande do Sul in the 1890s (3? 7? 9? 12?). The person also must know how many kids the average Italian man had in São Paulo in the 1920s (2? 5? 18? 20?). Moreover, the person must know the life expectancy of the Italians in each part of Brazil (12 years old? 48 years old? 78 years old).

• Third: Also, how many Italians returned to Italy after some years living in Brazil? How many Italians arrived from Argentina, Uruguay, Venezuela or even from the United States to Brazil during the emigration period? How many "Italians" arrived with non-Italian passports? How many arrived illegally? Also, the proportion of Italian males and females in Paraná, or the proportion of males and females in Minas Gerais.

All these informations are taken when a scholar wants to know how many people of the current days descend from a population of years, centuries ago. I'm pretty sure Ninguém does not have access to all these informations to calculate how many Brazilians have Italian roots nowadays.

However, I'm pretty sure the Italian Embassy does have access to all these informations, so they are able to calculate how many Brazilians have ancestors who immigrated from Italy. Then, Ninguém, you are not allowed to calculate yourself the figures, but the Italian Embassy is.

Different reliable sources claim the figure of 25 million "Italian Brazilians".

• Italiani nel mondo (claims 25 million)
• The President of Brazil, Lula (claims 30 million)
• Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Italy (claims from 23 to 25 million)
• Itália Nossa (claims 23.5 million)
• Memorial do Imigrante (from 22 to 25 million)

For Lebanese:

• Memorial do Imigrante (7 million)
• Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Brazil (7 million)
• Embassy of Lebanon (7 million)
• O Estado de S. Paulo Newspaper (6 million)

Then, Ninguém, stop with this useless discussion. You are not allowed to take your own conclusions here, not allowed to post your theories. You are not a scholar to determinate how many people of Italian or Arab descent live in Brazil. You are using sources that have nothing to do with the subject to make up theories and create fake figures. Stop it. Opinoso (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

So, what happens if I accept mediation but Opinoso does not? 189.114.16.212 (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the many ad hominems above, let me try a further step towards conciliation. I listed 12 points of contention in the article's Talk Page (under "What is wrong with this article"). I think Opinoso is disussing only one of them, exactly the one on which disagreement is stronger. I suggest that we start discussing the points where an agreement is easier to attain. I suggest, specifically, point 5, which I have further detailed under "French and Dutch Invasions". I think the edit I'm proposing is perfectly reasonable, and I am sure that Opinoso can easily accept it. If not, I am willing to listen to his reasons to reject the edit, and, if we can't reach an agreement, I'm also willing to accept a third party opinion, and to give up the edit if such third party opinion is against me.

Deal? Ninguém (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, in practice, the fact that I have accepted mediation and Opinoso has not seems to mean that he is free to continue editing, while I am not. Is this how it is supposed to be?

(Curiously, one of his recent reversals in the Russians in Brazil article. There he seems to be of the opposite opinion: "data" about people of Russian descent in Brazil are inflated. So he lowered the figures from 200,000 to 70,000. Regardless of the [Câmara de Comércio e Indústria Brazil-Rússia] stating that they "must be" about 200,000.)

(Notice: I actually agree with him in this one. It's just that it seems he has a double standard here.) Ninguém (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to ask someone to talk with Opinoso about things like these:

The point is: Ninguém, who seems to be very proud of his Portuguese grandparents (nobody asked him about it, but he posted this useless information)

This is a personal attack. I never said or implied that I am proud of my Portuguese descent. I said that I am of both Portuguese and Italian descent, responding to someone who questioned how could the sum of the diverse White ethnicities amount to more than the White population.

For this, he uses no sources. He wants to claim that most Brazilians are "his own"

This is also a personal attack. He can't know what my motivations are.

his theory is that the Embassies are lying

I never said, or implied, that they are lying, just that they are wrong.

The user has a clear pro-Portuguese point of view.

This is assuming bad faith, besides being a ridiculous claim. What would the Portuguese have to gain if most Brazilian people are of Portuguese descent? What would Italy have to lose if so? This isn't a war between Portugal and Italy, or some kind of contest to see who "owns" Brazil. It's a discussion about the ethnic composition of the Brazilian population, just that. Ninguém (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As of now, I would say that Opinoso is testing limits, gaming the system. What he wants to do is to have a final word regarding the subject of Brazilian demography. If anyone disagrees with him, he makes personal attacks, and tries to make it impossible for them to edit the articles. It is not a new behaviour; in practice, he has already made most other Brazilian editors wary of discussing the subject. A quick look at his User Talk Page will show his many conflicts with Dantadd, Felipe C.S, Janiovj, Sparks1979, A.Z., Fsolda, Dali-Llama, SWik78, Domaleixo, Mhsb, Quissamã, Khoikhoi, and Crazyaboutlost.

His comment that "nobody speaks 'gracias' in Rio Grande do Sul is outrageous. It is almost like saying that no one says "y'all" in Texas. It shows his confidence that no Brazilians are even perusing these articles.

What he is doing is the following:

He has managed to make it impossible to me to edit the article. Then he managed to make it impossible to me to discuss in its Talk Page. And while the discussion here was about getting me blocked, he was posting extensively. As soon as the possibility of a mediation appeared, he stopped posting here, and went back to the Talk Page - where he has, among other personal attacks, accused me of "trying to open a mediation". By this means, he is also getting to make my posting here quite inconsequential.

What should I do?

Go back to editing the article, which is useless, since he will revert anything that I write, even common sence things like "the Dutch invaded Brazil in the XVII Century"?

Go back to the Talk Page and try to argue with his deafness?

Quit Wikipedia, and warn other people that it is an unreliable resource, because some people are able to establish de facto monopolies on editing some articles?

Call for arbitration? Will anyone hear me, or is it again going to be like talking to the walls?

I throw myself upon your mercy... Ninguém (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Stormfront

I bumped into the following thread on a certain rather distasteful site called Stormfront; it talks of attampts to move their agenda into WP. [<nowiki>http://www.stormfront.org</nowiki>/forum/showthread.php?t=562154 See here]. I doubt they can get anywhere but be aware and see if we can track any accounts down for blocking. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much, they think we have some sort of rep system, wherein above a certain percent or points one becomes an admin, and they think the American Economy is strong and healthy. When you're that out of touch, and provide a publicly accessible master plan, eventually you get stopped. ThuranX (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

They certainly want to disrupt the vote process by influencing via socks/forum discussion. Well, look no further. It looks to be UKHistorian (talk · contribs) - it's a definite looking at the posts now. See [<nowiki>http://www.stormfront.org</nowiki>/forum/showpost.php?s=7ab9e07df33c0ad3fc850132c73723cc&p=6385464&postcount=6 post # 6] and [<nowiki>http://www.stormfront.org</nowiki>/forum/showpost.php?s=7ab9e07df33c0ad3fc850132c73723cc&p=6385512&postcount=8 # 8]. He has been editing Gavin Hopley & Talk:Gavin Hopley - both of which were deleted but still may need to be creation-protected. Also, the user says [<nowiki>http://www.stormfront.org</nowiki>/forum/showpost.php?s=7ab9e07df33c0ad3fc850132c73723cc&p=6385547&postcount=9 he anonymously vandalized] Wikipedia before. I'm suggesting that there be a block on UKhistorian and perhaps even an checkuser SPI. ~ Troy (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it up, but in fact this is old news - they announced this at least four or five years ago. It means we always have to be vigilant with articles on race, racism, white people, the Holocaust, etc., but we'd have to be vigilent with these articles no matter what ... Slrubenstein | Talk 23:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

They can't of anounced it four or five years ago, because the timestamps for their bright idea are this month, as are the ones on the deleted edits. Maybe other Stormfront users have tried things with Wikipedia before - I would be surprised if they hadn't - but this one is new. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

In response to Slrubenstein, in terms of working out the articles, that's definitely the case, but ...what do you mean "four or five years ago"? This appears to be recent as far as I can tell. And it seems that more than one user has recreated Mary Ann Leneghan (User:TheHappyRampager and User:Realitarian). I don't know why they even bother, but I can't help but feel suspicious (again). ~ Troy (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstein is right: yes, it was four or five years ago that I first saw their thread declaring that they would infiltrate Wikipedia and start to slant our articles "their" way; they even discussed how to do it in some detail. Late 2004 or early 2005 I think. They were persistent for a while and we did not have as robust a defensive mechanism then. If I rememeber correctly it wasn't too difficult to associate particular Wiki users with Stormfront members. So they're trying it again: we can be vigilant and revert racist nonsense again. Antandrus (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn;t really look like a really serious effort and as far as I can find there is nothing else similar currently. That place is such an echo chamber, makes my skin crawl. Viridae^Talk 00:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too surprised by that, but you're going to have to get use to it. There are several of forums like that focussed on ...you probably don't even want to know. ~ Troy (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If anyone cares to write them, Mary Ann Leneghan and Gavin Hopley (or at least incidents involving them) both look notable. Based on the intelligence and nuance displayed in the linked thread, I don't think we have too much to worry about with this particular cadre of budding encyclopaedians. Skomorokh 02:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, we should protect the page. Yes, I know pre-emptive protection is frowned upon. But the article is already balancing on a razor's edge, and we need to keep it from falling off. While we can trust our established editors to work to keeping it balanced, we can't in hell trust Stormfront to. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Nyeh. It was delisted from GA, so poof goes the razor metaphor. I'm not surprised, really. The problem with articles like this is that the majority opinion of the subject is presented as fact because there is no proof of the obverse, and any attempts to quantify it as a majority opinion (in this case, 95-99.9%) are often shut out by allegations of adding undue weight. From an article reviewer stance, it breeds terrible prose and disjointed writing because of this partisan infighting, MOS breaches and issues about neutrality: whether we're too sympathetic, whether we're too hostile, whether it's scientific enough, whether it's too scientific (which can happen, say if creationism was described in the first paragraph as "unscientific" without qualification, as opposed to the currently neutral method of saying why it is and who thinks it). That's why we rarely see any articles like this at FA-level, or even GA-level. And the ones that are (for example, Intelligent design) still suffer the problem of bad (or at the very most, less-than-satisfactory) writing. But enough of my soapbox. My previous point still stands. :) Sceptre ^(talk) 03:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI I blocked UKHistorian (talk · contribs). Are there any others we can/should block? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Might Be A Problem

...then again it might not. I came across this piece of vandalism and while most of it was just babbling, the part that struck my attention was the part about "Imminent air plane crashes on commercial Boeing and Airbus jets". To me, that isn't something to be messed with or taken lightly. I did a TrustedSource search and the IP is out of Bangkok, Thailand. Not sure if anyone thinks this is worth reporting, but I will leave it up to you. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 1, 2009 @ 08:13

Will handle. Conferring with TSA and DHS. Edit Centric (talk) 09:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Formosa's Law may apply... 88.112.34.160 (talk) 10:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Anything like this is definitely worth reporting, and anyone can report it. What I did, and what you can do, is google Department of Homeland Security, and call the number on the Contact Us page. You may be asked for some basic info about yourself, but don't be hesitant to provide it. You never know, you might just be preventing another 9-11 from happening! Edit Centric (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Sexual orientation content dispute

Hi, I want to avoid 3rr here. A user is looking to insert content on this template which has seen similar issues prior of adding articles regarding sexuality to this template. I may have come across too strong so would like, presuming someone agrees that consensus should be sought here, if someone else would look at this and encourage discussion. -- Banjeboi 22:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Would I be correct in saying this is the diff and Perceived sexual orientation the "disputed" entry? Protonk (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Looks to me like Perceived sexual orientation belongs there, as it is a valid topic when discussing sexual orientation, and perception colours a lot of how sexual orientations are presented and received. //roux   22:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to avoid 3RR, don't revert. Seriously, this is a content dispute. You say so in your header, even. This is not the place for content disputes, please try dispute resolution. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have spelled out more. A user who has had a history of being extra bold and perhaps edit-warring in regards to this template is again adding content after it's been removed even though this scenario has been played out out a few times. I would rather not warn and revert them myself as I'm am involved in the issue. Here is the talk page discussion where you'll note a consensus of one. I am seeking that their addition simply be approved first before being re-added. The article in question, Perceived sexual orientation, sounds good but it needs a lot of work before its inclusion on the template, IMHO. This has been a similar concern with other articles that was the source of a long process to get the current template version. If concensus is that the article, as is, is perfect for the template, then great, if not, that's great too, but let's not edit war over it. -- Banjeboi 22:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't including the article on the template put more eyeballs on the article, thus driving more improvements? //roux   23:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

By that theory dozens of problematic articles would already be on that and every other template. I guess the closest concern from the guidelines is If the articles are not established as related by reliable sources in the actual articles, then it is probably not a good idea to interlink them. That particular article was created twenty days ago, and renamed since and is very much in need of notability and sourcing. It's got some fairly significant issues that, IMHO, preclude its inclusion at this time. That last articles added, Environment and sexual orientation and Non-heterosexual were both greatly improved before consensus was that they were reliably sourced. Templates could be used to drive traffic to articles in dire need but in this template i would certainly advise against it. -- Banjeboi 23:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's remember that this is an encyclopedic template and topics are not included on it based on their need for improvement. It's not a general-maintenance-consider-helping-out-on-these-pages thing. – Steel 23:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, yes, but this is hardly the first time Cooljuno's participation at the template has become problematic. Are administrators going to do something about it, or are editors who care for our content left with no option but screaming louder, reverting more often? – Luna Santin (talk) 09:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Pageban...?

Oh look, Cooljuno again. I think there is cause for a pageban here. Every time Cooljuno touches this template there's an edit war and an argument on the talk page. See the edit war in October (talk page discussion), this big one in July/August (talk page discussion), and another last March. This POV fork appeared in October when he didn't get his way on the main template. Two previous blocks haven't solved the problem.
The underlying issue is that Cooljuno has very strong views on this topic and how information relating to it should be presented - views which are frequently not shared by any other editor here, the media, or academia. His responses to objections exacerbate things since they're often irrelevant, flawed or just nonsensical [126] [127]. I invite discussion. – Steel 23:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I honestly think they mean well just mistake the whole working together thing as a mere suggestion rather than a core principle. I'd rather see a stern warning about edit-warring as that doesn't help thoughtful discussion. Sexuality issues, in general, seem to stir the passions in editors so extra caution would seem to make sense. Cooljuno, IMHO, has the markings of someone who's accustomed to more rough and tumble online venues and needs to dial down a bit when on wikipedia. I wonder if a restriction on reverting of some sort may be more helpful? -- Banjeboi 23:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What's the standard revert restriction? One revert per week? I wouldn't be against that. – Steel 00:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a limit to one revert on pages each day with the understanding that does not allow the same content to be reverted each time over multiple days and the goal is to improve dialog and working with other editors even if disagreements arise. They should also be given support or some way to sort out obvious vandalism and non-obvious vandalism. -- Banjeboi 00:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Revert restrictions never apply to reversions of obvious vandalism, from what little I know of them, since they're essentially extensions of the 3-Rev-rule. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 00:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree: after having worked with them before, Cooljuno's behavior around this template has consistently struck me as less than collaborative. Repeatedly inserting fringe opinions, such as the suggestion that pedophilia is on par with homosexuality, then cherry-picking references when several editors have patiently explained your error, is pretty disruptive. With this latest incident, waiting a few days for comments on a proposal does make sense; claiming other editors are "too late" to object after the change has been made is obvious nonsense. I'm sure that more than a few people have simply given up editing that template, given the constant combativeness. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I share the concern that a template talkpage was essentially a battleground repelling the very people who are needed. -- Banjeboi 11:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

COoljuno's behavior is some grand POV push, but I've never been sure if hes' a far right wing extremist, hoping to bring all forms of sexuality repugnant to the masses to an equality with homosexuality in that 'gay marriage leads to marrying dogs and raping kids' right wing meme, or some ultra leftist free love mindset, or he really just thinks all sexual congress is equal no matter what, but he's excessively disruptive, and ought not to be revert restricted, but topic banned from articles dealing with sexuality, interpreted liberally, for a period of not less than six months, to be reviewed then if he requests. ThuranX (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If their userpage is to be taken as is, they seem to be a young lefty of the ultra hippy (or your choice of broad characterization here) with a flair for anarchy. Having had a ban dropped on me like a house on my wicked sister, I'm willing to assume good faith they are trying to express some more radical views and need guidance that bold and civility need to co-exist; that revolutionary actions sometimes help but consensus is actually more radical than being hardnosed and agro about content issues. Also that wikipedia is, after all, an encyclopedia and not a social forum to work out contentious issues. I think they may specialize in sexuality issues here but, IMHO, basic working with other editors may be the underlying problem. Even the best editors don't work independent of everyone else in a vacuum. Are they editing in other areas with no issues? -- Banjeboi 13:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggest a conduct RFC on the editor before moving to restrictive sanctions? It certainly looks like the behavior is problematic, but if it isn't outright trolling a run through dispute resolution is worthwhile. If that solves the problem, great. And if it doesn't, consensus for community action would be easier to build afterward. Durova^Charge! 21:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestion, however, this would seem a furthering of community time documenting disruptive behaviour and basically airing it summary-style in one place. Their talkpage already seems to do that. I was in hope that this discussion would get them to chill but (sigh) here they are edit-warring about formatting talkpage comments. And an SPA has also made an appearance to !vote which perhaps shouldn't be attributed to them but it's all a bit of a replay from past discussions which became heated battles. I think it's time for a revert restriction, I'm tired of going in circular pattern on these issues. Perhaps others could offer input if their efforts on non-sexuality articles are constructive or if there is a better way to ease up on the disruptiveness? -- Banjeboi 10:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, dispute resolution isn't a license to misbehave without consequences. If you open RFC and the problem continues or worsens, it would serve as a reason to truncate RFC with a sanctions request. If you'd like, I could contact this editor at his/her user talk and attempt to resolve the problem. It's not very likely that'd change the behavior (although hope springs eternal), but if it doesn't then you'd have an uninvolved party who could certify the RFC. Fair enough? Durova^Charge! 06:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to open and run the RfC if you wish but I have spent far too much time trying to reason with this editor. I still AGF they mean well and am reticent to ban in any way but also wonder if investing a fair amount of time/energy into further documenting issues here is the best use of community resources. Undefined sexual orientation and Perceived sexual orientation are both messes that have no place on the template for now. They are some sort of split off Pomosexual which was the source of the first rounds of template warring. Pomosexaul, however, is a reasonably stable - if stubby - article with reliable sources and largely free of glaring problems. The other two aren't. I think their behaviour remains in the extra bold area which I will largely write off as youthful folly, read into that how you will. My hope is that they will be persuaded not to simply stop disruptiveness but instead will be won over to writing good content and building consensus. To me, an RfC would seem to build a scarlet letter for a somewhat young and newbie editor. I think they need edit coaching and revert restrictions instead. -- Banjeboi 22:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I stand corrected. I just saw on Talk:Pomosexual Cooljuno411's efforts Talk:Pomosexual#Split article?, Pomosexual & undefined sexual orientation that explains more of this. Pomosexual is the article they had tried, many times, to insert on the template, it seems undefined sexual orientation is the new host of some of this content so this is just the latest round of essentially the same issue. -- Banjeboi 13:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sock

I have this feeling that Ingopingo is a sock of Cooljuno411. Ingopingo's only edit at the time I post this, is a support !vote at Template talk:Sexual orientation - the edit war/consensus discussion at issue here - right under Cooljuno's support !vote. Within 2 hours of each other. 2 hours and 1 minute to be exact. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 08:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I found that troubling as well. -- Banjeboi 16:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

edit warring, and indirect language used to make blatant personal attacks and uncivil remarks

after i asked User:Nukes4Tots to provide a source for this, he reverted me without supplying a source. since we were both warned for edit warring 2 days ago, i did not want to edit war with him, so i went to his talk page, cited WP:PROVEIT and the reasons why his unsourced claim needs to be sourced, but had already decided to edit war to add back his own unencyclopedic, unsourced, misspelled POV statement. his explanation as to why a source was not necessary was because ANY retard should understand what he's talking about.

• (more "retard" talk!) i guess it's okay to remove sourced content without discussion because your edit summary clearly defines the sourced content as retarded
• he reverts me with "Listing every referenceable agency is a FOOL's errand. Are you for it?" i was for it, since i'm the one he reverted. does that mean i'm a fool?

• he admits, in reference to this nasty edit that "there were some strong words in there (carefully chosen to avoid a direct personal attack) and, yes, I might have been baiting"

• over here, he specifically went out his way to tell me that i'm not a fucking moron: "how the fuck am I attacking you? An attack would be me calling you a fucking moron. I do not believe you are either a moron or a fucking moron." oh good, that clarifies it. he was showing examples of what he wouldn't say.

• and this

• when 'apologising' to an admin for the 'incivility misunderstanding' from a few days ago, he clearly wasn't attacking my language skills personally when he said he would "intentionally avoid words and phrases that anyone without a firm grasp of the english language might misinterpret as a personal attack or incivility" implied personal attacks are only worth half credit, i guess.

in his defense, he claims that i am wikihounding him because i'm reverting unsourced additions to one article we both edit, Glock pistol. i am reverting unsourced/OR additions as per usual, but it's nothing personal about him. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This editor has been hounding me for some reason. I've been editing the Glock article over the long term and he pops in and disagrees with a mistake I made. I agreed with him and since he has been hounding me. I've use the "F" word on a few occasions, but have tried to keep it civil with him. It seems a clear case of WP:hounding as I've stated to him on several occassions. It's in his nature to hound other editors as he did with user:Svernon19 and was reported by Svernon19 in this thread: [128]. He also has a history of tedious editing as reported here: [129]. Not sure how civil I am required to be when I'm being hounded. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

here's the diff of svernon realizing he may have jumped to incorrect conclusions as the last message on that same ANI thread, which you forgot to include: [[130]] . and here is the diff from after the ANI thread, when he immediately went to my talk page and wrote In hindsight, I think you were probably right about this one -- I probably shouldn't have jumped to conclusions. Svernon19 (talk) 00:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC) Theserialcomma (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• quick summary of edit warring: this unsourced, misspelled statement needs to be removed or sourced. when i tried to remove it and asked for a source he reverted me without providing a source. not wanting to edit war, i took it to his talk page, where he called me a retard and said he didn't need to cite all his sources. then all the other stuff above. i presume that if i remove it again, he will continue to edit war. so hopefully someone else will fix it. Theserialcomma (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Then correct the spelling. I didn't NEED to provide a source when I entered it as it was obvious. A simple google search yielded hundreds of sources. Yet, instead of fact tagging as you should have done you chose to edit war. You're playing it really close to stalking on this one, again. You hound people until they back off a bit then you continue to hound the. I've checked your edit history and you're playing it close to your MO, buddy. It'd help if you had a tiny bit of an idea what you were talking about. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 04:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier to end all of this DRAMAHZ by just providing sources instead of requiring other editors to look for sources? AnyPerson (talk) 04:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, however then I get into phase 9 of a 15 phase harassment campaign. He questions the sources then baits, badgers, reports, misinterprets, ignores, and plays all kinds of games. I'll provide a source if he'll stop editing the article. However, the references are as easy as googling "Compensator" and "Perceived Recoil". He'd have known that if he'd tried. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 06:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeh but.. if an edit is challenged, it's incumbent upon you to provide the source for the edit. Unless it is blatant common knowledge ("the sky is blue" or "water is wet"), you need to back your stuff up. It costs you nothing to provide the source. So. Next time when someone asks you to provide your source, do so and head off these mindbogglingly stupid arguments before they can happen. Sources do in fact need to be cited for anything contentious. So do that. Thanks. Can we close this now? //roux   06:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but... that's my contention. It is blatant common knowledge. For instance, if I said that a screwdriver is for driving screws, does that mean that I then have to reference that fact? Nope. A compensator, by definition, compensates for percieved recoil, a fact that is blatant common knowledge in firearms circles to the point that it's comical to even ask for a reference. There is no point in filling the entire article with a reference for each and every word. No, it's a matter of principle. Do we put a reference that a bullet is the part of the cartridge that flies out the barrel? This is a 'fools errand' trying to reference each and every word. Had this particular editor come out of the blue and asked for a reference, I'd have provided it. However, this editor is playing a game that you're now deep into. He's been hounding me. This is the fourth argument he's picked with me. It's WP:Wikihounding that we should be discussiong rather than if the object of this editor's obsession is really contentions or just another game. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Why are you assuming that the only people reading or using the article are firearms enthusiasts? Common knowledge means common knowledge, not 'common knowledge within a specific subgroup'. Please provide references, stop edit-warring, and deal with the alleged wikihounding separately. Thanks. The thing about providing references is that if the other person keeps trying to tear them down no matter what you do (and believe me, I have been on the same side of this situation as you), you then have a really great leg to stand on when it comes to resolving the dispute. If, however, you don't provide any refs then anyone is justified in removing the content unless it truly is common knowledge outside firearms circles. //roux   17:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Marcus2

• Marcus2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I need admin eyes on this, because this has gone on long enough. User:Marcus2 has a serious issue with both WP:CIV and WP:NPA. I placed a non-templated message to the user warning him of his behaviour, to which he responded with seeming understanding. But apparently he doesn't get it. He does contribute with some level of value, but his negative behavior, to me, far outweighs any positive contributions. Please, to the admins, review the contribs with some level of depth, and don't just whitewash the issue; there are too many diffs for me to list here. At least one other user besides myself has tried to communicate, so now I would like an admin to attempt communication. Yngvarr (t) (c) 13:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As the other editor who has attempted to inform Marcus2 of these issues, most of it stems usually from his own POV-pushing methods where anyone who disagrees with his take on things is insulted in edit summaries and on talkpages. This isn't anything new but after several years of the same issues coming up time and again and being reminded of the policies he breaks in regards to his editing methods there's got to be a point where it becomes apparent Marcus2 cannot conduct himself on Wikipedia, that point was passed for me in early 2007. treelo _radda 14:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

More diffs of the uncivil behavior would help - the one that I followed showed that he was being uncivil, but the argument could be made from the immediately-preceding edit that he was being baited: "You don't act the fool in music articles, why is it that animation articles are fair game to go and be a dick? I'm going to be watching you and I reckon that I could actually get you topicbanned so cut the shitslinging in your edit summaries and talkpage contribs towards other editors who do not agree with you."

Please note that I'm not saying that I know enough context of the situation to assert anything more than a passing impression. I'm suggesting that you provide more diffs because if it's a nasty ongoing pattern, diffs will be easy to find. Without them, I doubt you'll get a serious hearing. arimareiji (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I looked on the links out of curiosity, and I have roughly the same impression. Frankly, I'd remove such battering on my talk page myself from people constantly attacking and bating me if I were in his shoes. Being a little hotheaded, especially when provoked, is not such an unexpected thing (nor does it prove "making harm", because I'm not sure he's the one starting it), and I myself experienced such situations, with diverse results. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Among the 50 or so recent edits made by the user, most seem to be useful to Wikipedia, from removing useless information, to reverting vandalisms and such. My 2 cents as long as I'm around here. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

These are from edit summaries:

1. calling good-faith nonsense
2. POV, who says "the network has gone downhill"?
3. fairly strong tone for an edit summary?
4. idiot?
5. is that an acceptable edit summary?
6. this one, too?

These are from talk pages:

1. is that appropriate?
2. or this?
3. does a disagreement rate this kind of behavior?

Yngvarr (t) (c) 16:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As it is ongoing and not just something recent, here's a few more from in the past regarding personal attacks either not specifically directed or towards other specific editors [131][132][133] and POV pushing [134][135][136]. For his extreme NPOV standpoint and attacking other editors, see this talkpage dicussion. treelo _radda 17:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Two of you guys (Treelo and Yngvarr) seem like worrywarts, because you don't seem to see the forest for the trees. Basically, I am trying to make Wikipedia more accurate and less based on things like fan fiction and cruft. For that, I agree with Anime Addict AA. Marcus2 (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like to me you're figuring as long as you're making something more accurate then gross incivility is alright by you. We just want to see what others have to say and preferably from more level heads than Anime Addict AA. treelo _radda 14:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• While I take no position as to anything else brought up here, the edit summary which is described above as "calling good-faith nonsense" involved reverting vandalism in which another person had added Mitt Romney as a producer of Who Let the Dogs Out (album). I don't see how such an addition could have been made in good faith; Romney is a politician and former organizer of the 2002 Winter Olympics, not a music producer or musician. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have reported Grawp to my police department

Resolved

 – Nothing we can do further. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This is because he is creating usernames with people's phone numbers in it see http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&offset=20090123234010&limit=500&type=globalauth and oversight-l has refused to delete them. This is not a legal threat, because I have already reported them. 78.145.227.16 (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Oversight can't kill usernames. You need to contact a bureaucrat thru IRC or email or other private means; the rename will remove the issues. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 05:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Go for it mate, good luck--Jac16888^Talk 23:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ha! Since the information about me, for example, is available on my website, they may decide not to throw away the key on this one. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Surely there's a few other things we could pick him up on? Defamation? Disrupting the work of a charity? Disobeying the explicit wishes of the owners and community of a privately-owned website in matters concerning them? I'm not sure how many of those are offences, but there's plenty of other things we could clock him for. We've put up with this for too long. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 23:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm sure racism's a crime, and he must have said something racist (or at least anti-semitic) at least once. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 23:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Racism isn't truly a crime, per se (IANAL). However, the harassment of volunteers via proxy would be. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 02:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• You can't really win against Anonymous. It's a hydra. Grawp is more of a concept or a legend than a real person. Reporting to the police is really wasting time. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• That may be, but JarlaxleArtemis, the original Grawp, can be prosecuted or sued. Frag, his RL name bounces about quite often. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 02:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oh good grief, what a load of bollocks! The police really have better things to do than process frivolous complaints. RMHED (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It's somewhat late where I am, but how about a little WP:AGF? We know a local police dept won't be interested, but that's no reason to insult the reporter, unless we want to assume the worst, which I don't see. --Rodhullandemu 23:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The police? An answer, but not the right answer. The right answer could be knowing somebody who knows somebody who knows a guy named Vito. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You never know... If you get a fortuitous combination of a state with a strong and untested anti-cyber-bullying law with a bored and/or fame-seeking prosecutor, you may get something going. Maybe we could see a Indiana v. Trolls article sometime soon. caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 19:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL — Kevin586 (talk) 03:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

@Sceptre: Hmm, yeah, but how come the cops who did Operation Buccaneer against warez groups pinned down an otherwise anonymous group of pirates? If the low lifes behind the Grawp mob are seen committing breach of privacy, then it might qualify as a criminal act, and we might have a good reason to put this Grawp menace to oblivion. Anonymous and/or ED sees Wikipedia as their nemesis, but what they're doing to us is obviously below the belt, right? Oh, and I suggest that you bring this to the FBI instead of the local police department. The Feds are more adept when it comes to cybercrime, I guess... Blake Gripling (talk) 03:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That isn't going to stop anything though, and you're deluded if you think it will. Too many copycats now. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. All it's going to do is delay it at best. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 21:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:84.9.144.107

Resolved

 – Block extended, talk page semi'd. — neuro^(talk) 18:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

A person on 84.9.144.107 has repeatedly posted harrassment and other personal attacks on their talk page User talk:84.9.144.107 despite being temporarily blocked. They should be permanently blocked.Smallman12q (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• We don't block IPs permanently except in very unusual cases. However, I have extended the block and semi-protected the talkpage for the same amount of time. Black Kite 14:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:124.124.44.194

Resolved

 – Wrong venue. — neuro^(talk) 18:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

A user on 124.124.44.194 has repeatedly vandalised pages despite being warned. WarrenA (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV. MuZemike 16:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Banned user

Resolved

 – User blocked indef, and page protected. — neuro^(talk) 19:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

User:TomPhan is evading his banning through the use of sockpuppets (User:TonPham)...again. Normally, I'd go to the WP:SSP board, but this kind of abuse really requires a more expedient approach. This time, he is taunting me over a fellow Wikipedian's death. This is in extremely bad taste and I request help with another block as soon as it can be done. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

On a related topic, could I have my talk page semi-protected to prevent the same kind of abuse for the near future? — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked and sprotected -- Samir 19:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Strange behaviour of Yearlytaxforms

Resolved

 – Salted by MzMcBride--Patton^t/c 21:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yearlytaxforms (talk · contribs) keeps recreating Bryant Ng with extracts from various books. I'm not sure what to make of it.--Patton^t/c 21:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Bryant Ng most recently was a copyvio of "Our Immigrant Stories: South Asians in Illinois, 1945-1965" ([137],[138], etc.), so it could be speedily deleted for being a copyright violation, among other reasons (edit: has been deleted now). I think delete and salt is the appropriate action. As for what's going on, my guess is that Yearlytaxforms is trying to use Wikipedia as a personal web host. Strange227 could be unrelated. -kotra (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That's just one version of it, he's recreated it about 7 times with extracts from various books.--Patton^t/c 21:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes he just keeps doing it done about 10 tiems in last ten mins.--Patton^t/c 21:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Odd. Judging by this, I'd say the user's name is Bryant Ng. Maybe he's copying the book text to "his" page in preparation for writing an article. Were all the books on the same topic? If not, maybe he's just trying to be disruptive... that's the best explanation I can offer. -kotra (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No they were on random things, he even copied and pasted the Einstein article into there.--Patton^t/c 22:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

*scratch head* I'd guess just disruption then, but whatever the reason, he'll be blocked if he continues. -kotra (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Editor creating unsourced BLPs, and tagging them as such

I've come across an odd situation; an editor is creating unsourced articles about various footballers, and tagging them as unsourced. See, for example, [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148]. I've asked him why he is doing this, but have received no response. I have no idea if the details given about these individuals is correct, or if they even exist, but I thought I'd bring the issue here for discussion. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What I do is do a Google search, and if I find nothing to establish notability, I usually speedy tag it A7. ArcAngel (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

After having thought about it, I think the correct course of action is to re-direct them to the pro league they play in, as there are few Ghits for each of them. ArcAngel (talk) 03:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Usually when I see that it's usually a recreation of a previously deleted article complete with the old tags, sometimes even DB and hangon tags. These articles have nothing in the deletion logs so it might be the creator is hoping new page patrollers will see the tags, assume the article has already been checked and move on. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• It may even be more mundane that that. People may just be pulling out the history an old article (from one of the many mirrors and forks) and copy-pasting from there. Protonk (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Before getting any wild ideas you should check and notice that none of these pages have existed before or been deleted. So why is somebody creating new articles with the "unreferenced" tag? I guess it spares you the work of adding the tag, but why not cite the sources and spare everyone the work? I mean unless the user is unabashedly making up names, they have to be using some kind of source (though I'll admit I can't find it). — CharlotteWebb 21:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I found this as at least a reference for Arian Jean Akassou (Which was the only one of the above diffs I sampled). Somebody with more knowledge of international football might be able to make something of it. Maybe he has a source which we would not class as WP:RS but he is absolutely sure and wants us to find the sources to match. Agathoclea (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

202.84.20.21

• 202.84.20.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) all entries, despite many warnings, have been vandalism, and limited blocks have not helped.Ethelh (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This report was originally placed at WP:AIV, where I noted that the last edits were 2 days ago. Is there any other response other than RBI for this vandal? The contrib history is little more than vandalism, but is there more than the expected Philippine orientated article editing that indicates that this is the one individual? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I say give him a chance, don't block untill he vandalises again.--Patton^t/c 23:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"All we are saying is give IP's a chance..." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Flags

Resolved

 – Being discussed elsewhere. — neuro^(talk) 01:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for Admin help please: Aidan Jennings (talk · contribs) has added those little flags icons to a load of ship articles. He's added them to the ship builder section of the infobox, two questions:

• Is this inline with WP:MOSFLAG?
• If not, damned if I'm reverting all of them ;) Is there some magic tool admins have to easily fix all of these please? Ryan4314 (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Seems harmless. I can see the editorial argument that flags in ship infoboxes should represent only the flag she flies under. But that's something to take up with him or her. Protonk (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Roger, you can close this if u like now. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Ah, we can keep it open. For all I know there is some super secret collection of editors who want flags just so and will be incensed when they see this. Maybe it is a problem. I was just giving my read. Protonk (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It's being discussed here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Flag icons for builders. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spies sappin my sentries

Resolved

 – Deleted. — neuro^(talk) 01:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

We need an admin to end this utter madness. A user is hurling insane accusations at half of Wikipedia, with little to no supporting evidence. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. BJ^Talk 00:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. ^Law _shoot! 00:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yea, thanks for ending that. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

And a few admins have scolded him already. Honestly, the fact that he apparently doesn't know where the IP editors come from kinda surprises me, but I gave him some info and asked him to avoid two other hotspot talkpages. I often enlist anon allies to help revert vandalism on my talkpage during a 4chan attack; I don't want them being called socks of anyone. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 00:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"And a few admins have scolded him already"... and non-admins, as well! Anyway, I gave him links to RBI and some other stuff, hopefully he will learn quickly. I do understand the desire of a new user to burn every IP address they ever see vandalizing (when I first started I used to keep a list of all IPs I had reverted), but eventually we all learn to RBI... Politizer ^talk/_contribs 00:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

My apologies guys and thanks a lot for the links politzer. I will certainly refere to them in the future!Smallman12q (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Minor edits

Please can someone speak to this user please: Raoulduke47 (talk · contribs)

He is marking all his edits as minor, I believe in an attempt to avoid them being seen on watchlists. I asked him to stop here and he replied on my talk page with a comment to the effect of "haven't you got something better to do". Ryan4314 (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• You mean he wouldn't comply with your request!!! Outrageous, ban him this instant. RMHED (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:Minor says; "The distinction between major and minor edits is significant because editors may choose to ignore minor edits when reviewing recent changes; logged-in users might even set their preferences to not display them. If there is any chance that another editor might dispute a change, it is best to not mark the edit as minor."

It then goes on to list to what is acceptable to mark as minor edit. His response states that he considers edits such as "adding pictures to FA class articles" as "minor", WP:Minor says otherwise and I worry that he will continue to do this. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If this really causes you "worry" then I urge you strongly not to watch any news broadcasts as they are likely to do irreparable damage to your mental wellbeing. RMHED (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

RHMED, if you don't have anything constructive to contribute please don't comment. Minor edits are exactly that - edits such as spelling mistakes, typos, whitespace removal etc - anything that substantially changes the article is not minor and should not be marked as such. Exxolon (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This whole complaint is frivolous. At most this user is sometimes going against a guideline. If their edits were bad then it would be a problem, as it is their edits seem to be good so why the fuss? RMHED (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

if m:Help:Minor Edit didn't exist, then you might have an argument for the complaint being frivolous. but it does exist. actually, what's frivolous is the idea of an editor arbitrarily deciding it's acceptable to pick and choose which wikipedia rules to follow or deem optional. the guide isn't that ambiguous. Theserialcomma (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I can agree that this is not the most important issue in the history of the wiki. Still, "a 'minor edit' is defined as one making only trivial or superficial changes between the current and previous versions of a page, such as typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, and the like. By clicking the "minor edit" box, an editor represents that the change would not call for review by other editors on the page and could never reasonably be the subject of a dispute. An edit summary should accompany each minor edit, although this can be brief (e.g., 'sp', 'punct', 'format'). Except for edits automatically marked as minor by automated tools, which themselves should be used only in accordance with policy, any change that affects the meaning of an article should not be designated as minor." (From a recent ArbCom decision.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou, I was not aware of that recent ArbCom decision. Would you mind notifying User:Raoulduke47 of the significance of it and WP:Minor please, as I don't think he'll take me seriously, cheers. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if it's relevant or not, but there is a check box in prefrences that when checked makes all edits minor edits. Perhaps the user has that checked, and isn't really familiar with the Help:Minor Edits read. To be honest, I really hope the next big argument in Wikipedia isn't going to be a huge debate over whether or not the edit itself is minor or not. There's plenty of drama to go around as it is. — Ched (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I've never understood why we have that switch in preferences - it seems that it would make it more likely that non-minor edits would be marked as minor. Has anyone undertook to eliminate it? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 03:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree it isn't the biggest deal ever (although the severity of an issue hardly acts to predict the intensity of response), but it is a trust and presentation problem. A lot of folks (not me, for this exact reason) leave edits marked as minor and edits by bots off their watchlist, on the presumption that they would never have to check up on edits like that. Marking edits as minor is a breech of that trust--a trust that is enforced only through social convention. When people violate those conventions, the response is usually disproportionate to the apparent offense. Sure, we are just talking about a little m, but the issue really is trust and observation. Protonk (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Another problem is because Wikipedians have their own language separate from the English language. In Wikipedian, minor means who is quoted above. In English, a minor edit is one that isn't major. Some may interpret major as significant re-writing and cutting things out and adding things in. So always take into consideration what you are thinking and what the other person is thinking may not be the same.

So don't just gang up on that other user. Ipromise (talk) 04:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Raoulduke47 (talk · contribs) is an experienced editor (Sept 06)
• I have shown him WP:Minor, so he now knows what edits should only be marked minor and why it is bad to mark all edits as minor. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible Wage Slavery sockpuppetry

Resolved

 – Semi'd for 1 month. — neuro^(talk) 09:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

On Wage Slavery, there appears to be something amiss. Multiple experienced editors are reverting a rather large chunk of text being added by two apparent SPAs (NeutralityForever (talk · contribs) and MethodstoMadness (talk · contribs)) and a whole host of IPs, all of whom have no other substantial edits other than to this article. The IPs seem to be being used to lure the other editors into edit wars and then turn them in ([149] and [150] in hopes of getting them blocked. I'm bringing this here in hopes an admin can straighten this out, or at least level the playing field. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• NeutralityForever (talk · contribs) is currently blocked for edit warring. Protonk (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sure there's a way to check this out with special software. I have no relation whatsoever to NeutralityForever or any of the other contributors. I've been following the wage slavery page closely for a long time. The large chunk of text is not "being added". A few editors decided to REMOVE that chunk of text that had been there for quite a long time. So I and other editors keep insisting that the burden of proof is on those wanting to remove such large chunks of text. It seems a consensus that it is legitimate to delete those sections IF they are not relevant to the definition of wage slavery and important facts associated with it that the VERY editors proposing the deletion have chosen to have in the lead paragraph. I think you'll find out if you examine the definition, that the the parts are very relevant. In any case, the parts should be analyzed and discussed in the discussion page before any such drastic changes. thanks for your attention MethodstoMadness (talk) 03:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

MethodstoMadness has reinstated the section here [151]. He also discusses his edits in terms of "our side." Dayewalker (talk) 04:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of NeutralityForever. Protonk (talk) 04:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

He's asking for an unblock. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 05:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Unblock declined. Mr.Z-man 06:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Due to the evident sockpuppetry by IPs, I have semiprotected Wage slavery for one month. Other admins may adjust this as they think appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 06:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If it's sockpuppetry on NeutFor's behalf, shouldn't his block be at the least extended? -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 03:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Tiptoety has granted him another 31 hours of time off. I've blocked Entresasix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for a week as a sock of NeutralityForever, whose block he is now evading. EdJohnston (talk) 06:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Richard Spalding vanity edits

User:R_spald01 has been editing himself into the List of Rollins College alumni for months. Lately his aggressiveness in this matter has increased [152]. I don't think he's a vandal, I think he's just mistaken about WP:NOTE. I told him on his talk page to provide source if he feels he is notable but he's just reverting.Yeago (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The editor has now been warned by several people. EdJohnston (talk) 06:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Interveinious,_intertwined

Resolved

 – Page deleted and block set to disallow him from editing his talk page. – wodup – 03:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Interveinious,_intertwined is editing his talk page with a bulky (1 MB) formatting filled with profanities and swearing which are clearly inadequate abuse of wikipedia resources. Please take proper action (adding a notice to his talk page in current situation looks unfeasible, given the disruptive nature of the current formatting). Fbergo (talk) 03:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandal SPA?

Something of note, that popped up on the radar at Super Bowl XLIII:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Newenglandsports11

Tends to be a WP:SPA editor that makes edits like the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Santonio_Holmes&diff=prev&oldid=267963380 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_New_York_Giants_season&diff=prev&oldid=263454544

Probably needs a look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.100.146 (talk) 04:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• May want to try WP:AIV in the future. Likely to get a faster response. Most of the edits seem fine, though those two are troublesome. Protonk (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Cactushead

Resolved

 – Not a legal threat, but blocked as a vandalism-only account. Next time just go with AIV. -- Vary Talk 06:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Cactushead (talk · contribs), a user that I've been stopping from using his/her talk page for disruption has made a potential legal threat against me [153]. His/her actions also indicate a vandalism-only account (see contributions). Previously, he demanded that I leave his "profile" alone [154] and I told him that I'll not leave it alone [155]. Before that I warned him not to revert my reverts to his talk page [156]. Can an admin take a look as to whether or not this is actually a legal threat?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm asking as to whether or not this is a legal threat or not, I might as well report him/her as a vandal too. Cactushead has also recently vandalized a page in my user space [157]. This shows some grudge being held. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

For goodness Sake Mythdon lighten up, there is no legal threat. I just don't appreciate you reverting edits on my own personal pages, which may be considered trespass were I to go to my lawyer Alan Shore. I am new to wikipedia and as such I am still learning the ropes. I make an undertaking to all wikipedia users that I will continue to try my best to become the best wikipedia user possible. I particularly think I can help cleaning up the Power Rangers articles, which are looking sorely delapeded.

If however the general consensus is that Wikipedia is not open to my types then I will happily leave Wikipedia without a fight. Just someone other than Mythdon let me know. Cactushead (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't read like a legal threat, just a dumb joke. On the other hand, many of these edits are disruptive. I'd advise you, Cactushead, to kindly cut it out. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Cactushead. Cut out the disruptive edits. If you continue to disruptively edit, WP:AIV will hear from me and that an administrator can stop at nothing to get rid of you. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(not an admin, just weighing in) I'd agree that it doesn't look like a serious legal threat, just a juvenile rant... but it looks like this editor has already done enough to be blocked for a long time. And even a joking legal threat is still concerning and might be worthy of some action. (What action, though, is a decision for someone with a lot more experience than me.) Politizer ^talk/_contribs 05:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Cactushead has done nothing but disrupt this project. If I were an admin, I would have blocked the user for disruption, and I do hope an admin blocks Cactushead for disruption, at least if he/she continues. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me be clear, I do not want this edit to be misconstrued as a disruptive edit. But I am concerned that the phrase "get rid of you" by User talk:Mythdon could potentially be a threat on my personal safety. As I am new I am unsure as to what to do about this. Should it be raised here, or should I create a separate sub-heading to check the veracity of this. Could someone provide insight on this? Cactushead (talk) 05:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

When I said "get rid of you", I meant that an admin would stop at nothing to block you. It has nothing to do with your personal safety, but your status on Wikipedia. That is clear by the fact that the phrase linked to WP:BLOCK. Read some of our policies and guidelines for information on contributing to this website. For instance, read WP:VANDALISM for what we are trying to get you to stop. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)

oh come on, legal threat? totally uninvolved party here - not an admin -but really, lighten up! here's the hubbub. "Brother, the size of my penis is the question here. Maybe you should tag it as "source needed" - that is fair enough. But you should not be reverting edits about this topic. I hope you have not been conducting independent research on this issue as this would cause me to go to the police."

obviously a joke (and kinda funny, too) but i dont see what the big deal is. you cant say the word penis? even if that is so, mythdon is taking this personally and engaging in battle. why didn't he go to the admins first? anyway, lets move on from that and look at his edits. if they are disruptive, warn him and then block him if he continues. Untwirl (talk) 05:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we can say the word penis. It is not the issue that the word "penis" is being used. The issue is that he/she is potentially making legal threats against me. I ask all admins to take a look at this case. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

friend, calm down, this so-called legal threat that you are worried about is that if you are doing independent research on the size of his wanker then he will go to the police. as long as you aren't doing that, i assure you you are safe from penetration, ahem, i mean prosecution. Untwirl (talk) 06:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This dispute has already been closed. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Mickproper

Resolved

 – Mickproper blocked; I've undone my erroneous block/autoblock already and apologized. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 04:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(I posted the text below to WP:Wikiquette alerts earlier today, and was told I should post here instead.)

After I AFDed one of his articles and reverted some of his edits, Mickproper seriously lost it and posted this to my talk page and sent me a personal threat in email, which I took seriously enough to report to my local police. ("just so you know you punk...when I find out your real identity, you're going to have a VERY bad day!") I don't wish to be involved with this guy anymore. Someone should keep an eye on him, though - I think he is well-intentioned, but his edits are frequently unsourced, unverifiable, and/or contain original research. And he has a temper. Brianyoumans (talk) 04:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeowch. I think this guy needs an indef but fast, sans email privs. Well-intentioned he may be, but threats like that are certainly NOT okay. Blocking now. Do not reply to his email; just killfile it. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 04:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

1) Kill his account

2) Bury the corpse

3) ??

4) Profit! HalfShadow 04:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

And blocked. I welcome other administrators to comment on the block on the chance I've cocked up. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 04:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You cocked up. HalfShadow 04:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

And I corrected it. (Hits self in face with shark). Correct account blocked now. -Jeremy ^{(v>_<v Dittobori)} 04:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with this ... I immediately recommended the WQA be brought here instead ... I would have brought it here myself, but I've been a tad busy lately. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked user using Talk page as venue for continuing attacks

Is there any remedy / applicable policy for this situation?

Posturewriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is on indefinite block as a "disruptive single-purpose account", but is continuing to use his Talk page as a venue for lengthy soapboxing and personal attacks on other editors including myself [158][159],[160] I've reverted per WP:NPA and WP:TALK, but I'm not clear if this is the correct action. Thoughts? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 09:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I reblocked them, removing the ability to edit their own talk page, but reversed myself as I think that's somewhat harsh. I have left them a warning to the effect of "request an unblock or shut up". If they continue then I'll reblock and stop them editing the talk page. _Gb^T/c 10:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew a formal unblock request was fine, but wasn't clear what the limits were otherwise. Is it within policy for me to remove existing personal attacks posted since the block? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

From a quick skim through (the diffs are bordering on TL, DR) I can't see any particularly egregious personal attacks..._Gb^T/c 10:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

User claiming he hacked another persons account.

The user is User:Curse_of_Fenric on Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy#Imposter account claims to have hacked User:Timelord69. How should this be reported if at all?Smallman12q (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punitive. This appears to have been in good faith, a severe slap on the wrist is needed, but not a block, in my opinion. — neuro^(talk) 19:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

he didn't hack anything. They signed up with an email address of his domain. He was sent the activation email.--Crossmr (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe what he means is 'gained access to the other user's account through questionable methods'. — neuro^(talk) 01:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes that it was I mean. You are correct that he didn't technically hack the account since he was sent the activation email, but I don't believe it was appropriate for him to take control of the account. Is there a policy regarding taking control of an account when you have the activation email?Smallman12q (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No, because it is an incredibly unusual situation, one which falls more within the realms of human judgment than policy and guideline. — neuro^(talk) 02:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What questionable methods? He was sent the activation e-mail. If this user genuinely uses this nickname in other venues and the email activation was sent to an address associated with his domain it is quite likely someone was setting up the account to target him. I see no problem with him changing the password and taking control of it, but if he doesn't get it blocked it should be identified as associated with his main account.--Crossmr (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there a particular policy link for this?(Regarding being sent an activation email purposely or erroneously Or is this simply based on someone's judgment?Smallman12q (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Mucoid plaque

Resolved

 – More pile-ons will add weight, but it's pretty clear that Tim is on the money here. Guy (Help!) 20:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

As per Talk:Mucoid_plaque#Pseudoscience_discretionary_sanctions and the general consensus of the editors of this article, could I ask another admin to step in and restrict User:Heelop from disrupting this article and its talkpage? Tim Vickers (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Structural Integration

Could someone else have a look over the external links section? I've reverted a massive addition of links once, but the IP added it back, and I think I'd like a couple more pairs of eyes before I revert it again. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Ugh, no. Reverted all except one, which looks to be the US overlook organisation and may be acceptable. Black Kite 18:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • By the way, is there a more appropriate noticeboard for things like this? WP:RSN and WP:FTN seemed a bit too specific to other problems, and WP:VP a little too general. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Reverted again, the IP and user seem to be the same. And doesn't appear to be the first time they are failing to understand what the project is about. Additinally one section of that article seems to be a copyvio, which they've also restored claming it be released, I've removed it again since the copyright status is still unclear. Maybe needs some more eyes. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Edward Moskal - legal action possible statement

Resolved

 – No action needed; not a threat. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this appropriate? diff I am happy to see the unsourced stuff whacked but the legal action thing is a bit spooky.sinneed (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not a legal threat. _Gb^T/c 19:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I would change the "a" to "an overt" ... but then the US legal system frightens me. Sorry if I am too easily spooked. I wanted people who know far more than I to get a chance to see it.sinneed (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. I think the distinction comes from saying "You could get sued" to "I am going to call my lawyer". One is a threat, one is a warning. If I tell you "Don't get close to the edge of a bridge, you might fall off", that's not a threat. I'm warning you of the danger (of gravity working). If I tell you "Come near me and I'll throw you off this bridge", that's a threat. Padillah (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Padillah has put it quite aptly; Carolmooredc is simply putting in nicer terms what this block template says in very stern bold print. It's not a legal threat, merely a good piece of advice about why it's a good idea to not be a dick. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. :) I had hacked out a lot of the simple nastiness, and was glad to see someone else with a sharp editorial hatchet, but the legal thing worried me. Glad to know it isn't a problem. Thanks all!sinneed (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Block required (BLP related)

Resolved

 – banhammer engaged

Personal attack, but more importantly he's using talk pages to disparage the subject of an article having had BLP violations reverted. I've warned him, but to little avail. Please can someone review recent contributions and block.[161].--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've indeffed the person since they're a new account, just openly vandalizing now, violating BLP, and launching personal attacks. Undo if needed. rootology (C)(T) 19:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have block-collided with me; I gave 24h for personal attacks without seeing the BLP issues. Feel free to extend. Stifle (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the indef stuck. That's what I was going to do if it wasn't there already. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Admin opinions needed

Saint Pancake has been speedied, undeleted, flagged for speedy again, had the flag removed, and had the flag reapplied all today. Can some more admins chime in and help develop consensus for what should be done?

Full disclosure: I was the one who flagged it for speedy deletion as a G10 first, and I believe it is a valid G10. After it was deleted and then undeleted, I tried to start a conversation about the situation—and about NPOV as it applies to redirects in general—at WP:NPOVN, but only 2 people have chimed in (one on each side).

Thanks, Mike R (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Deleted again. G10 doesn't only apply to living people (G10 quote: "it serves no purpose but to disparage or threaten its subject"), and this is a particularly unpleasant pejorative epithet - used practically only in blogs - the existence of which reflects really badly on Wikipedia. I actually don't understand why it was recreated, especially as the recreating admin said "the term is a disparaging name [162]" which is exactly what G10 actually says. Black Kite 21:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• While technically BLP does not apply we should rightly consider the feelings of her friends and family. Leave deleted and salt if required. Exxolon (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Indeed - and as said above, G10 doesn't only apply to living people anyway. It can also refer to groups, companies, organizations - in fact really anything that can be disparaged. Black Kite 22:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Per all of the above. This should not be a redirect; G10 applies. MastCell ^Talk 22:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, G10 certainly applies to the dead as well as the living. —Travis^talk 22:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• G10 does not apply, since the redirect does not "serve no purpose but to disparage or threaten their subject". Likewise per the examples at WP:REDIRECT "Butcher of Kurdistan redirects to Ali Hassan al-Majid" and al-Majid is a living person while Rachel Corrie is not. This is not as cut-and-dried as the above opiners would like to make it. Actually, it is... but in the other direction. Marked this thread unresolved. Jclemens (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion is for uncontroversial cases. Take it to WP:RFD. The discussion at WP:NPOVN shows that there are non-trivial arguments on both sides. EdJohnston (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Although you cannot threaten the deceased, articles and redirects can still disparage a dead person. G10 does apply. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Not only does G10 apply, it's a textbook G10. I'll say it again - "Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage ... their subject or some other entity". What other possible purpose could the page have? Since the nickname only exists to disparage [redacted] (it's just an unpleasant nickname used on a few internet blogs and other user-generated sites) then it follows that the page only exists to do the same. Black Kite 00:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The difference, Jclemens, between this case and Ali Hassan is the reliable sources that have the 'butcher' reference. If and when the term becomes widely used and reported in reliable sources there may be a case for inclusion/redirect of this term in/to the article, until then there is none whatsoever. Quite frankly it disturbs me that an admin has such a poor grasp of That's not how I see WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. Exxolon (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's not. Find me one policy or guideline, anywhere, that requires redirects have reliable sourcing, and I'll withdraw my objections. Fact is, if someone had created Saint Pancake as a POV fork with any keepable content, it would have been merged back intoRachel Corrie and the redirect left in place. Really--read WP:REDIRECT; there's simply no support for your position there. Jclemens (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That took me all of 30 seconds. WP:RS says "Wikipedia articles[1] should use reliable, third-party, published sources" - if you check the [1] footnote, it says "^ Articles include anything in the main namespace. Most other pages, such as Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, are exempt from this requirement." Since redirects ARE in the main namespace the policy applies. I have however refactored my sentence as you've requested to avoid any appearance of a personal attack. Exxolon (talk) 04:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)\

Then we have a serious disconnect between WP:REDIRECT which governs the specific case, and WP:RS, which doesn't mention redirects by name. Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

We do? I've just (quickly) scanned WP:REDIRECT and came across "Reasons for deleting - You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list): - 3. The redirect is offensive, such as "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs", unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is discussed in the article." - this would seem completely appropiate to this case - which part of WP:REDIRECT are you looking at? Exxolon (talk) 05:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a large does of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going around. The redirect mirrors a notable off-wiki disparaging name for Rachel Corrie, it's not a Wikipedia-centric phenomenon. There is really no comparison with the "Joe Bloggs is a loser" example. The Butcher of Kurdistan example is far closer to the point. Jclemens (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As one of the regular editors of the [redacted] article, we've declined to put the Pancake into the article, it comes up every now and then. Lack of RS, mostly.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, and no one in favor of keeping the redirect has argued (that I've seen) in favor of inserting it into the article. Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to expect that redirects would be specifically called out as a form of attack, though I'm sure consensus to add it could be rapidly generated if it becomes an issue. If I created an article named fucking asswipe and redirected it to a person's page, would anyone seriously argue that that wasn't an attack? It's reasonable to argue over whether Sarah Pancake is an attack or not, but if it's an attack, formatting it as a redirect doesn't provide it with some kind of magic armor plating.—Kww(talk) 03:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with your strawman, Kww, is that your example describes someone who uses a non-unique term in a specific redirect to disparage the target. As I've pointed out in the NPOV discussion, no one else is called "Saint Pancake" besides Rachel Corrie, the redirects have been averaging 12 hits a month in 2008, and the use of Saint Pancake to refer to Rachel Corrie clearly has a non-Wikipedia origin--thus the redirect reflects a disparaging name for Rachel Corrie widely used in right-wing circles, rather than a Wikipedia-specific attack on Rachel Corrie. Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if you accept that "12 hits a month" is demonstrative of actual usage, it isn't very convincing for a site as visible in search engines as Wikipedia is. If a "St Pan cake" link gets a top spot among other "St Pa ncake" links in Google by virtue of being in Wikipedia, and therefore is occasionally clicked on, that means it should stay in Wikipedia? That sounds dangerously close to indirect self-referencing.

Additionally, that premise is based on a rather faulty assumption - that all of the clicks are indicative of usage rather than someone following a discussion thread. I know I can account for a few of those clicks, and a closer look at the general "stats.grok.se" link you referenced at NPOVN shows that "usage" spikes around discussion of the redirect's validity. arimareiji (talk) 06:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting argument, but I've Googled for "Saint Pancake" and I don't see Wikipedia anywhere in the results list, so up until today, it wasn'a substantial issue. I agree, though, that this thread has probably brought more awareness of the term than the redirects ever did in their 6+ years of combined existence, which seems the height of irony. Jclemens (talk) 06:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah... what other discussions of the redirects' validity? I wasn't aware these had been discussed previously. Jclemens (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You might want to check over at the [redacted] talk page and archives, if you're asserting this hasn't repeatedly been brought up and linked to. arimareiji (talk) 07:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The redirect was discussed on that talk page, or the inclusion or exclusion of the term from that article was discussed on that talk page? The latter is common knowledge, referenced above. The first, if true, is news to me. Jclemens (talk) 08:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not it's news to you, some would-be humorist keeps using fabricated/misrepresented sources to insert such gems as "Rach el Corr ie supporters held a fundraising pancake breakfast" and "known in her official hagiography as 'St Panca ke'". So yes, the nickname does come up along with a cutely-placed redirect to it. arimareiji (talk) 09:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is this discussion here? Anyone opposed to me reinstating the redirects and listing them at WP:RfD? If we're having a debate about it, then it's obvious that WP:CSD do not apply. ANI is not a place to discuss redirects--RfD is. Jclemens (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly object. I have come up with two crystal clear quotations from Wikipedia Guidelines that preclude it's existence. The first mandates against it's creation (WP:RS says "Wikipedia articles[1] should use reliable, third-party, published sources" - if you check the [1] footnote, it says "^ Articles include anything in the main namespace. Most other pages, such as Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, are exempt from this requirement." Since redirects ARE in the main namespace the policy applies.) and the second would mandate it's deletion should it be created ("Reasons for deleting - You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list): - 3. The redirect is offensive, such as "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs", unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is discussed in the article.") - Unless the term is mentioned in sufficient reliable sources AND consenuse is established to include it in the article itself then there is absolutely NO case for having the redirect at the present time. Exxolon (talk) 06:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

To put it pithily, the name is unsupported by reliable sources, hence a CSD, both as an unlikely search term and prankish vandalism. If it ever becomes widely cited, for whatever reason, that'll be another tale. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Point - "The redirect mirrors a notable off-wiki disparaging name for <name of subject>" - I've yet to see you actually come up with any evidence that it is a NOTABLE off wiki disparging name. Exxolon (talk) 07:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

G10; a redirect is mainspace and is not protected from general WP policy. In response to your question of "Anyone opposed?", I would note that five people had already voiced explicit opposition just above the question, and two more since you've asked. arimareiji (talk) 07:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those responses. Exxolon, Gwen Gale, lack of RS is not a speedy criteria under any circumstances. Arimareiji, G10 is disputed by multiple editors (check the NPOV noticeboard) and WP:CSD is not for things that are disputed. All of those arguments properly belong in an MfD disucssion. Now, does anyone have a policy-supported reason the CSD should stand, instead of being reverted and sent to MfD? Jclemens (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Easy - G10 - "solely to disparage it's subject" - which was applied on the 2nd deletion. Exxolon (talk) 08:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, G10 is disputed, so disputed discussions (and it was disputed before Black Kite deleted it the second time) should properly go to XfD, not wheel warring to re-delete a contested CSD. Oh, wait, I just said that above. Jclemens (talk) 08:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As Gwen Gale said before your above comment (per timestamps), WP:DRV applies. "Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions." arimareiji (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If that's not sufficiently clear: "Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or to review a speedy deletion." Not "Reverting a speedy deletion is the process to be used, then discuss it." arimareiji (talk) 09:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The RD is a CSD. CSD deletions can be disputed. See WP:DRV. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Redaction required

Normally I'm loathe to refactor other peoples comments, but I strongly feel we should remove all mentions of her actual name from this discussion - we're heavily spidered and we could create a self-fufilling prophecy here. Exxolon (talk) 07:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree in principle, but not in practicality. If any reliable news organization picks up on this when there are much more pressing topics to cover, I'll eat my hat. arimareiji (talk) 07:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd strongly object as well. Rachel Corrie is dead, has been for years, and is likely to stay that way indefinitely. The term has been in use since she died, and is likely to stay that way indefinitely. There is no reason to WP:CENSOR this thread. As I said elsewhere, I think the fact that this WILL show up on Google shortly is pretty funny--the redirect sat there minding its own business for years, then someone decided it was an "attack page" and pretty soon Google will have more hits on the term. Wikipedia didn't start the use of the term, but in the attempting to excise a relatively innocuous appearance thereof, the exposure of its use has been amplified. Classic Streisand effect. Jclemens (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not up to Wikipedia editors to forestall this kind of thing. If the term sticks, it'll be echoed here. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not it's a good idea, the argument that excising the name here will lead to its being spread further doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it was actually the other way around, that excising the name from this talk page would prevent it from coming up as "hits" for search engines. But like I said, I'll eat my hat if anyone outside the Little Green Footballs blogosphere thinks this is more newsworthy than what else is going on in the world. ^_^ arimareiji (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Since it appears to be an outcome that Jclemens has been pushing for--or at the very least he believes will happen--then I'd say yes, delete all references to forestall it. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, CalendarWatcher. Finding it "ironic" doesn't mean I desired that outcome. I've reverted the changes to my comments. The redaction here is pointless censorship, since the deletion review will list both the redirects and their targets anyways. Again, I'm specifically objecting to other editors refactoring my comments. If anyone wants to put in a request for oversight here, great, but as has been pointed out above "Saint Pancake" is regularly brought up on Talk:Rachel Corrie, so it would be rather pointlesss. Jclemens (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As I did not use--and can't imagine ever using--'ironic' in whatever debased sense you're implying, I fail to see why you bring it up. I will say that I believe that yes, you do want to spread this mocking insult to a dead person used by fanatics, and given that Google relies upon linking in building up its rankings, using the phrase and inter-connecting it among different pages as much as possible increases attention to it, and that that outcome of using Wikipedia to promote it is what you would like. Clear enough? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, no, I meant that I found it ironic. You may feel free to assume bad faith all you want, but the simple fact remains that the only reason this is on the NPOV noticeboard, ANI, and now DRV is that those who've been advocating for the redirect's permanent deletion have gone forum shopping, twice, and insisted on DRV rather than taking it straight to RfD where a contested G10 should have gone initially. A proper application of process would have minimized such exposure. Jclemens (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note that WP:TALK#Others' comments provides for such removal only in cases of libel. Unless anyone is asserting libel, refactoring another editor's comments is contrary to accepted conventions of Wikipedia behavior. Please follow such conventions and continue to assume good faith, especially on politically sensitive topics like this one. Jclemens (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Not 100% true - WP:BLP allows refactoring/removal from any part of the encylcopedia, although it does not apply in this case. Exxolon (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The bit about 'libel' is pure wikilawyering: I would have thought simple human decency would have sufficed, but apparently not. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Your comment seems to overlook folks who disagree with Corrie's political stances--simply Google for evidence thereof--and unnecesarily imply that those who believe such disparagement should be accurately reflected in an NPOV encyclopedia somehow lack human decency. I'll note that while a motive has been ascribed to me several times by others, no one has bothered to ask me why I think the redirect has merit. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of folks who disagree with Corrie's political stances, in fact I'd wager the large majority of them, would also find that "humorous" nickname reprehensible. You're both overgeneralizing. If you have a good reason the redirect should be kept but haven't volunteered it because you want someone to ask, I think that's silly. But I also think that my editing of my own comments (adding spaces) was silly, and I think editing others' comments is completely undue. If this gets blown up into an RS news article because we didn't edit Jclemens' comments, I will personally drive to Olympia to apologize at her graveside. If I can find it. arimareiji (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• I cannot believe that we are seriously even debating this. Saint Pancake -> Rachel Corrie. Perfect for Encyclopedia Dramatica, breathtakinlgy crass and horribly inappropriate here. Just how do you think that kind of crap looks to the outside world? Guy (Help!) 20:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, "breathtakingly crass" and "horribly inappropriate" aren't reasons to delete anything outside of BLP around here. They ought to be, but for whatever reasons, the community wants to keep the crass and inappropriate and WP is saddled with all sorts of hit-pieces whether political, nasty redirects, or pile-on allegations and alleged but notably bandied-about conspiracies. Unless concensus on including this crap changes, a DRV of the deletion will likely succeed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Disagree, unless they can find a source more reliable than the chatter at Little Green Footballs. From past experience, check the source if they find one - I was unamused by the false sources they used to insert that Corrie supporters "held a fundraising pancake breakfast in her honor" into her main page, tee hee. x/ arimareiji (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Extensive removal of comments from Talk:Cold fusion

There have been numerous removals of comments from Talk:Cold fusion recently, plus use of strike-out (of another editor's comments) in lieu of removal. Today, User:JzG archived an active section. Because this had recently been referred to in an RfAr, I restored it. User:Tony Sidaway reverted. I then created a section briefly referring to the removal, not to reawaken discussion, but simply to point to it. It attracted some comment, then Tony removed it also, with the comment, Take this to ANI or somewhere if you care. This page is for discussing the article.

Well, Talk pages are not just for discussing the article, i.e., specific content, they are also for "the topic of how to improve the associated article, which involves process and editors. Rigidity on this can exacerbate editorial conflict. Nobody likes to be effectively told to shut up. However, I'd not have brought this here if Tony hadn't suggested it, I consider posting to AN/I about as pleasant as a tooth extraction. I did not insist on leaving that discussion in place, but because there had been reference to it, and so that the editor, if he returns -- he was new and may have had an external agenda -- would know what had happened to it, I made that small section referring to it.

And I'm leaving it at that, I'm not reverting Tony, I don't edit war, period. However, I am concerned that removal of Talk text and other restrictions on Talk seem to be frequent at Cold fusion. --Abd (talk) 06:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on the other issues you raise, I would note that even as article talk pages exist only in order to further article development and so are to be cleared of discussion unrelated to that purpose, it is not unreasonable that one should raise on a talk page a removal or archiving from that page (even if simply to offer a link to the content removed); those who are involved in the editing of an article are, after all, best situated to adjudge whether a talk page discussion was productive or whether archiving or excision was appropriate. Tony's removal of your section, then, wasn't compelled by WP:TALK and was otherwise unhelpful. 68.248.228.88 (talk) 07:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Looked briefly at the text removed, it seems to be not so much a discussion about improving the article, but more a series of recriminations regarding other editors' perceived editing rationale(s). Not sure about the actual deletion of text from a talk page though, need some illumination on that aspect... Edit Centric (talk) 07:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

My reason for supporting (and aiding) the removal was from a similar perspective. The discussion there could take place here, or on user talk pages, or in personal conduct RFCs, or mediation or arbitration, if at all. Attempting to continue an off-topic and unproductive discussion on the talk page exacerbates the interpersonal problems on the talk page. I don't take this step lightly, it has its costs, but it seems to me that those involved are either unaware that there are more appropriate venues or they do not care. I've nudged them to use external venues (such as this one) and I think that was the right thing to do. Talk:Cold fusion has been subject to chronic abuses of Wikipedia is not a forum and Wikipedia is not a battleground (see the recent arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion) and now it's time to get back to productive editing. --TS 09:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This is now really starting to piss me off. Over at WP:RFAR there is clear and unambiguous consensus from the arbitrators that Jed Rothwell's input is unhelpful (it is Rothwell's comments which were struck out, not by me). Abd appears to be engaging in a one-man crusade to stand up for the rights of the cold fusion kooks, which I am sure is not what he intends, but simply archiving a troll-infested thread from a talk page with a long history of trolling, POV-pushing and the like is not in any way contentious. It's not extensive removal ZOMG CENSORSHIP !!111!1!!!, it's archiving (to the current archive page linked from the talk page) threads dominated by inappropriate advocacy. What is needed on that article is for the decent editors - i.e. those who are not disruptive WP:SPAs - to be left in peace to get on with the business of restoring the balance that was destroyed by Pcarbonn, Jed Rothwell and a few others, free of their pernicious influence. What Abd is doing seems to me right now to be a concerted effort to prevent that happening, with a side order of massive dollops of bad faith. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, not a battleground, not an appropriate place to influence public opinion, not the place to "fix" real-world problems. It may well be that the scientific establishment is excessively skeptical about cold fusion but Wikipedia is absolutely not the place to fix that problem, and there is significant work to do in rolling back the efforts of those who have been trying to do exactly that. The last thing, absolutely the last thing, that we need right now is philosophical argumentation from the people who caused the problem, Jed Rothwell specifically and prominently included. We know what he thinks, and there is no way that a policy-compliant article could ever be acceptable to him, so we must ignore him and carry on.

I am unable to understand why it is that Abd seems so determined to have the input of Jed Rothwell (see also [163]). It would be really helpful to me to know why he wants this, as it is not in the least obvious to me; I see Rothwell's input as analogous to having Kent Hovind trying to edit the article on evolution - it's not that he supports the fringe POV, it's that he sees it as a war of good versus evil, with the consensus view being evil. It is impossible to have calm on a contentious topic with the input of such zealots, and we rightly topic ban those who are here to fight these external battles. It's a perfect case for WP:RBI so by archiving instead we are giving more than the usual consideration to Rothwell. We are trying to reflect what the world thinks, he thinks the world is wrong (as evidence things like his "DOE LIES" editorial on his website, which he asserts is not used for advocacy), so I'm afraid he can't help us achieve our goal. It really is that simple Guy (Help!) 11:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with JzG. These actions are proper and there is no problem, except those made by Jed and those he influences. Verbal chat 13:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the edits made by JzG. Talk page refactoring is an accepted and useful part of editting. Although I know it's a fine point. I don't like the removal of discussions about the editing, however. Dousing with petrol, as effective that is likely to be. Use compress boxes, move to a subpage, whatever, but making complaints about disappearing text disappear does actually feel like ZOMG1! censorship, and it requires a slightly lighter tough.
brenneman 13:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of unhelpful, and nonsense discussion postings from heinous single purpose editors. seicer | talk | contribs 14:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to emphasize that in removing the text, Guy also placed it in the archive page. --TS 14:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to note, I wasn't complaining about Guy's behavior here. Yes, he placed it in the archive. The subsequent removal (not by him) wasn't, if I'm correct, nor were some other removals. But I could be wrong, haven't checked this morning and gotta go. The matter of Talk page removal of comments is complex, and I'd not care to debate it on AN/I, I was simply following a suggestion. Maybe it was a bad suggestion! I'd agree with Brenneman, though.--Abd (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, the other removals (including one such by me) were of material that had no ghostly relationship to improving the cold fusion article, being just complaints about the archiving). At what point do we slavishly and painstakingly record every off-topic item written to a talk page, not only in the history of the page, but also in an archive that is intended only to aid those who genuinely want to improve the article. Speaking for myself I think copying any off-topic material into an archive is counter-productive. This website isn't a talking shop. --TS 16:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Right. So can we please just put Mr Rothwell aside and get on with the article? Guy (Help!) 17:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, not right. The notice that TS removed with his suggestion that I might go to AN/I was not a "complaint" about the archiving, it was a notice of the archiving. That's all. However, it seems that some editors may be disposed to see a simple notice as a "complaint." To me, it's symptomatic of the battles that raged over Cold fusion last year. , it is not only Pcarbonn who (allegedly) saw Wikipedia as a battleground. The notice I placed briefly described what had happened, it didn't accuse anyone of improper behavior, and it informed editors -- who might not understand, and I've seen admins make the error of responding to a comment in an archive -- what they could do should they wish to respond. Seemed pretty neutral to me. There was then a positive response from Olorinish, a comment from Dtobias which I considered inappropriate, Enric Naval fixed the header, I chided Dtobias, gently, to "be nice," and then TS deleted it. Above, TS points out, correctly, that JzG archived the material. He did not archive what he removed, though. These are just facts. Please don't project some imagined emotion onto them. And, JzG, this has nothing to do with Rothwell, if you want to "put Mr Rothwell aside," why do you mention him? --Abd (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(relevant removal)

Although the wording of the notice was neutral, I have to agree with TS that this sort of stuff should be brought up at ANI. After all, the removed thread was a WP:POINT violation (his confession that he was testing wikipedia). The valuable contribution that Abd wanted to save was just an unsalvageable primary-sourced WP:UNDUE text. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that thread. I'm really sure it was likely to improve the encyclopaedia. Though while we're here, I'd be grateful if someone could ask Dan Tobias to stop following me around stirring up shit in the apparent hope that some of it will one day stick, it is getting just a little bit wearing. See my talk page for example.

I am sure that with time and patience Gen ato (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) will learn our policies, but I am not inclined to think we should be wasting time on him and Rothwell jointly asserting, per that thread, that Three Wikipedia's Pillars that don't seems respected at the voice "Cold fusion" - here is his very first edit - On May 2008, cold fusion finally become a reality. Yoshiaki Arata, a senior esteemed japanese Physics Professor and his collegue Yue-Chang Zhang, made a famous demonstration in front of many journalists and researchers. And we're supposed to be taking seriously his claim that the five pillars are being undermined? WP:AGF and all that, but honestly, the article is a mature one and has a long history and many experienced editors are currently interested. We don't need WP:SPAs barging in to tell us that the world is falling around our ears, when their idea of WP:NPOV is that far off base. It's just hyperbole and nonsense, not actionable. Guy (Help!) 21:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I really wish that editors would stop assuming what I "want," as in "the valuable contribution that Abd wanted to save." The contribution, which I did not assert was valuable, was saved. It's in history and it's in the Talk archive. No, what I wanted to do was place a marker, after it was removed, that the discussion, which involved a number of editors, had been quickly archived, and that's what I did. What should be brought to AN/I? Okay, okay, you twisted my arm. I'll agree: when an editor (in this case Tony Sidaway) removes a simple notice relevant to article editorial process and the editors editing the article, not disruptive, not argumentative, from Talk, it's improper, and if another editor thinks the issue has some weight, taking it to AN/I could be appropriate. Or, better, to AN, if there is no emergency. Further, for an editor to say, "Take this to ANI or somewhere if you care" is confrontive, not cooperative. I certainly don't think we should take disputes that might be resolved with some simple discussion to AN/I, where they can be, effectively disruptive. Look, above, how JzG is now again wasting our time bringing up Rothwell and Gen ato and a bad edit of the latter. Why? It's totally moot, the edit was reverted, every established editor agreed that it should be reverted. "Not actionable?" Sure. But why, again, is the argument brought here? I simply commented on the frequent removal or rapid archiving of Talk page posts, without asserting that any one of these -- except now, perhaps, the single one by Tony Sidaway -- was improper.

I also see that Enric might be referring to the fact that when Gen ato was reverted, I placed the text in Talk so that it could be discussed. I did so as a courtesy to a new editor. I happen to think that we should welcome new editors and not accuse them of "POV-pushing." I assumed good faith, and make no apology for that. Was there something of value in that text? Perhaps, perhaps not, but I'll affirm that I don't trust JzG's judgment on that, he has a strong POV partly based on his personal history. My advice to Gen ato was that the editor pick one item from his substantial text and discuss it. Gen ato, instead, argued censorship, which was unfortunate. --Abd (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

A old matter of civility...

Can someone have a look at this case please?--Michael X the White (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do you feel the need to bring this back up from archive? It was on this board for at least two days, during which time it was pretty clear that it's a content dispute, and since this page is not part of the dispute resolution process, it doesn't belong here. What you are terming personal attacks are, on the whole, not. What you call "censorship", on the whole, isn't. What you call "deleting another user's comments" is the legitimate removal of a comment which was posted once, and then posted again verbatim 4 minutes later. It's a content dispute, so take it to dispute resolution, please. _Gb^T/c 22:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

As much as I agree that "malakia" is a rude and offensive term, and was definitely a violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, has he repeated similar behaviour since? It seems the matter was well-discussed at the time, and it's far too late for additional action now, as it would be punitive as opposed to preventative if the actions have not recurred. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 23:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of valid wikilinks to Pygmy Marmoset

Copy and Paste from Help desk :

Ok, an dynamic ip address:

• 129.120.193.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 129.120.84.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 129.120.84.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 129.120.84.117 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

has for the last couple of days removing wikilinks to Pygmy Marmoset. Not sure why, maybe they are trying to orphan the article. They take 5 minutes to remove the wikilinks, and then disappear. After a few hours, or a day they come back and do it all over again. I went and read WP:AIV, but they say there that IPs have to be active. Where exactly should I report something like this? BeckyAnne(talk) 20:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting - try the administrators' incidents noticeboard if it continues. Bencherlite^Talk 20:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have tagged all four talk pages with a shared ip notice - maybe once they see their college has been "identified" they will cease and desist, but I will keep a watch on them also and if they receive three more warnings, report them to AIV for vandalism. It's not just the Pygmy article though - there are 7 more articles common in between those four accounts, so it might be helpful to put them on your watchlist so we can more easily see the vandalism occuring from this location. ArcAngel (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

They almost never edit the Pygmy article it is always articles that wikilink to the it. BeckyAnne(talk) 22:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Now it was done by 76.78.147.216 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which according to whois, is part of the same college. BeckyAnne(talk) 00:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted BLP violations being restored by Landon1980

Resolved

 – User has agreed to cease edit warring. GlassCobra 20:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey removed blatant WP:BLP-violating troll comments here from Talk:Barack Obama, and warned the IP user appropriately. Landon1980, on what basis I have no idea, has decided to restore the material 4 times, [164], [165], [166], [167]. Posting here as this will likely need admin intervention to bring the disruption to a halt, as this user is not even slowing down for WP:3RR. Tarc (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Landon of this thread, and asked him why he chose to edit war over this as well. Tarc, it is common courtesy to notify users when you open a AN or ANI thread about them. GlassCobra 20:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Er, I did. :) Landon deleted it. Tarc (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Tarc did notify me, I reverted his comment. Landon1980 (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

After all the rude comments from Tarc in the past I have a hard time assuming good faith when dealing with him. I know for a fact he reverted me in pure spite of me. He has called me insane in the past, and edit-warred with an admin to keep his personal attack on the talk page of this same article. Landon1980 (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice bit of, um, ad hominem hysteria there. We already dealt with the spurious "insane" thing last year, discussion of which is probably still on my talk page, as I archive infrequently. As for "spite", no, I reverted you because you were restoring a nothing-to-do-with-the-article anti-Obama slur, which ran afoul of WP:BLP, as well as your removal the warning issued to the IP. Tarc (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, Tarc, I should have checked the page history. Landon, why were you edit warring over a trivial and borderline offensive comment? Assuming bad faith against Tarc aside, that's no reason for breaking 3RR, especially when an admin was the first to remove the comment. GlassCobra 20:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

At least four editors have reverted the comment. Landon1980 made an identical claim about me, that I did so to "spite" him, and is engaged in a discussion on my talk page suggesting that he seems to regard the whole thing as a battle against a cabal of Obama apologists.[168][169][170] I have no opinion on whether the editor should be warned or blocked again. He says here that he is not going to revert anymore.[171] The whole thing is unnecessary if everyone just calms down and moves on.Wikidemon (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Large family is not a living person, and calling a person charged with drug possession a criminal (in which Obama barely knows) is not a BLP violation. Try assuming good faith from time to time. Landon1980 (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Landon, please hold to your statement on Wikidemon's talk to cease edit warring over this comment. I'm marking this thread as resolved since no admin intervention is required now, and will continue this conversation on your talk page. GlassCobra 20:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears that Eugene Krabs (talk · contribs) has taken up the edit war and is dropping vandalism warnings on the talk pages of editors that have removed the comment. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

And it looks like an admin or somebody should decide whether stuff about Obama's relative in Africa constitutes a BLP violation. The original posting by the IP address was certainly a POV-push. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There's already a discussion open on WP:BLP/N. It's a legitimate and in my opinion unclear question whether repeating the (apparently true) reports of this person's arrest in his home country are a BLP violation in the first place, or are inappropriate on other policy grounds (weight, POV, notability, coatrack, NOT#NEWS). We also have no idea what the story really means and what will come of it. What is clear is that it can become a behavioral or content problem if taken too far, too fast, or too enthusiastically. This is yesterday's front page news (now a day stale, and no longer on the front pages). For anyone who is truly here to edit an encyclopedia, we can afford to take a breath, wait a week, then see what if anything comes of it.Wikidemon (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, assuming good faith it appears that Eugene Krabs, is just trying to help but new to Wikipedia and a little slow on the draw... He/she has been doing non-partisan wikipolicing elsewhere on the subject of urging people not to modify talk page comments. If it's truly a BLP issue, the comment about Obama's brother would be a rare exception to that rule. I'll be bold and mark this resolved again, in hopes that everyone gets it by now...Wikidemon (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If it is of any relevance here, my problem with the "Obama's family..." line is that it a) presumes the guilt of someone who has only been charged with a crime, and b) defames the Obama family by implying that there's bound to be criminals in there somewhere, since there's so many of em. One could even draw a racial undertone from the latter. Tarc (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly the reasons I removed it in the first place. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The latter was not part of the comment. There is no "racial undertone" in the comment of the IP. Before you tamper with the comments of other editor's you should have a good reason. Also, read WP:BLP so not to misapply the policy in the future. You have to try extremely hard to interpret that comment as an insult to the Obama's. Landon1980 (talk) 04:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This matter is done, but I hope nobody takes from this discussion the notion that it is okay to edit war to restore unproductive comments to talk pages after they have been removed on BLP grounds.Wikidemon (talk) 08:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what grounds they were removed on, that comment was not a BLP violation and you know that. Large family is not a person, and George Obama being charged with drug possession can be reliably-sourced. So which part of BLP does the comment violate exactly? The comments insulted the human race and nothing else. It suggested in such a large group of people it was no surprise one was a criminal. Is the human race now being treated as one big "living person." You need to read WP:BLP then tell me which clause the comment violates. Landon1980 (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

With comments such as these, it is best to err on the side of caution. The comment's meaning is open to interpretation, hence the ensuing discussion about it right here. I suggest we leave it at that.--Atlan (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we don't want "large families" running a muck on Wikipedia having their way with the project. I bet you are yet another person that would not remove that comment if you just stumbled onto it on a talk page. Lots of comments are open to interpretation, that is why we assume good faith. You shouldn't tamper with other editor's comments unless they actually violate a policy, the fact you could possibly twist them into a violation is not enough. The comment should have been left alone, bottom line. It was on the talk page, not the article. Calling it a BLP violation is utter nonsense. The only thing I did wrong was edit war; I should have brought it here instead.Landon1980 (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It was a BLP violation to call George Obama a "criminal" based on the news of the day reporting that he had been arrested on allegations of marijuana possession. According to BLP one should not write, and editors are right to remove on the spot, poorly sourced information that tend to disparage living people. There is no source for George Obama being a criminal. That is a claim of fact not supported by any reliable sources, which (incorrectly, it turns out) say only that he was arrested on allegations of that petty crime. It does not matter if you could interpret it to be a comment about the human race. Others read it as name-calling against the President's half brother. BLP is about the words on the page, not what the Wikipedian editor meant when he wrote them. Even if those editors were wrong -- they aren't -- it is a violation of Obama article probation to edit war with them over a matter that is not remotely likely to ever make it into the article. And even if that were not the case, it is a 3RR violation to revert them four times. None of that has anything to do with good faith. You are within your rights to bring things here next time and that is better than edit warring, but you have a serious lapse of understanding of Wikipedia policy and norms here. You would do well to listen to the other editors around here.Wikidemon (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

See this edit, which shows you that I have removed a talk page comment for BLP issues as recently as 5 days ago. You're assumption that "I am yet another person that would not remove that comment if I just stumbled onto it on a talk page", seems to be baseless and uninformed. Furthermore, WP:AGF does not trump WP:BLP.--Atlan (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought I was getting Rickrolled there! (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I sure missed that opportunity! ;-) --Atlan (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(OD)True, but seeing as the comment is not a BLP violation that is irrelevant. I would have personally removed the comment had it been in the article itself. However, just because you can twist a comment into a BLP violation is not grounds to remove it. So you are telling me that if you were just reading that talk page and saw that comment you would remove it, honestly? It would have been different had there not been news reports of an alleged criminal act. Landon1980 (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, that's open to interpretation. It's pointless to keep insisting it is not a BLP violation, when so many others in this thread disagree. I guess you just have to agree to disagree here.--Atlan (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think this edit [172](which I reversed) makes his/her intend more obvious. I know they're different IP addresses but check them out and you'll see that they match quite well.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Landon1980 (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Maltese (dog)

This page has been turned into a petty edit war over what appears to be nationalistic pride. From what I can tell, two editors, Pietru_il-Boqli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Imbris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), disagree on the origin of the term 'Maltese' as it applies to the dog. I've warned one user regarding the NPOV stuff [173], and warned the other about edit-warring [174] and that they need to seek third-party resolution.

Pietru il-Boqli then leveled a personal attack [175] against me for getting involved.

At this point, each user is constantly reverting the other on the main article. Neither has (from what I can tell) violated 3RR, but it's become long-term, annoying edit warring, without an end in sight.

Tool2Die4 (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It's your user name! the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a portion of his user name, obviously used as a pejorative in this case, and thus a personal attack. Don't do it again. (I'm not touching the nationalistic side of this argument, I have other things to do this month.) Tony Fox (arf!) 17:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ironically "Pietru" translates to "Peter", which is an old-fashioned synonym for the same thing that "tool" is a synonym for. Hence Dick Cavett's comment that "Peter O'Toole has a double-phallic name." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not ironic, though it is amusing. Some guy called Dick playing the phallic name game: that's irony. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Dick Cavett is a clever guy, so I'm sure that fact was not lost on him. The point being that your user ID is every bit the "tool" that Tool2Die4's ID is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

He sounds fascinating. No, really. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Dick Cavett was probably before your time. I'm guessing Windows 95 was also before your time. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Get a Mac :P the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You might not have heard the rumor that when Steve Jobs dies (which could be soon), all the world's Macs will cease to operate. Your next comment should be some variation on "Oh? Why is that?" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, tell me. And does this mean Mickey is dead meat too? the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The Mouse might still have a future. But the Macs will cease when their code branches to a hidden, built-in command: End of Jobs. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In the wake of worldwide redundancies, that would be pretty poignant. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You can say that again. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A quick glance at the history of the article leads me to believe that all three of you are going to end up being blocked for edit warring. Stop. Now. Please seek dispute resolution. —Travis^talk 19:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

As has been established with User:Pigsonthewing, it is considered uncivil to call someone by a portion of their user ID in an insulting way, and if it persists, it is a potentially blockable offense. Other than that, presumably this is a content dispute. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not see why my editing is called POV and the editing of Pietru il-Boqli is not called simmilary? When I looked at the article for the first time, it was all Malta this, Malta that. I have offered to my fellow user to add a name in the Maltese language, but he stopped discussing and shut every attempt at constructive communication with me. I have offered that we do not use the possibly defamatory sentence from the standard (naturally properly quoted) that states "His name does not signify that he originates from the island of Malta...". He continued not only with edit-waring of the worst kind (deleting sources, writing sentences with negative comments about sources in the article itself, ...) but also and more importantly offending almost every of my edits as being nationalistic. I do not know why wouldn't someone revert Pietru il-Boqli when it is obvious what he is doing. He is even reverting Tool2Die4 and I propose that the article would be reverted to the state in which it was last time Tool2Die4 edited. Then can we seek 3O and other methods of resolving the issue. -- Imbris (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Imbris, my objections to your seeding the article with Yugoslav propaganda are documented. Your removal of referenced information regarding St Publius and Martial, for reasons unknown, helped provoke this. If the content is to be disputed further, it will be towards an inclusive article, not one slanted to sources of your preference. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Prior to my editing the article was pure Malta POV, this is what is documented. Your attempts to strain this discussion into a nationalist vs. nationalist one is null and void. You have yet again omitted the fact that Tool2Die4 has deleted that (at the time) unsourced para. Also you are very well aware of your deletionist crusades and insults appearing in almost every edit summary. Acussing me of provoking this ANI is ridiculous, it is all your work, from the very begining you have objected every sentence, every source, denied Central Mediterranean, Italy, other name associations, changed wording of sentences I wrote to make them seem meaningless. You have then turned to matter of inclusion of facts, denied first Greek, then Roman sources, denied Roman language in times of Publius (mistakenly considered them to speak Maltese language), then you turned to omitting fact from Briggs, omitting how the Maltese were called by Italians.

Now you stand before admins complaining about me as a source deletionist, at the time that paragraph were not sourced. You speak about inclusion and your editing speaks volumes about exclusivity.

This ANI will go nowhere because you keep on offending editors and you should be disciplined. You have not documented anything of a sort that you claim - the history of the article speaks for itself!

Imbris (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Empty vessel, methinks. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Article fully protected for one week. Quit yer editwarrin' and hash it out in the appropriate venues. Any admin may remove the article protection without contacting me should s/he believe the issues have been settled. — Scientizzle 02:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Unban proposal for [email protected] / User:Robert Sieger

Re-adding this here as it was archived too soon, and without conclusion - Alison ^❤ 19:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Back last summer when this editor came up for a possible unban, I vowed that if he went six months without socking I'd open a new unban proposal on him myself. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive451#Proposed_conditional_unban_of_User:Rms125a.40hotmail.com Looks like he's held up his end of the bargain: see User:Alison/RMS log. Eliz81 has a set of conditions at User:Eliz81/RMS and has promised via e-mail that she'd support this proposal. She'll probably endorse shortly. Rms has waited on the sidelines as we've asked; let's give him another fair try. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 02:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

What got him banned in the first place? Was it behavioral or what?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

More socks than Sock Shop. There are 340 listed, and probably a lot that were missed, not flagged, or not associated. Black Kite 02:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

There are waaay more than that. RMS' socks go easily into the thousand - I, and others, just stopped logging them after a while - Alison ^❤ 05:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The links Durova provided say it all. RMS has quite a...colorful history, but he's really worked hard to hold up his end of the bargain since July. Let's give him another chance to be a member of the community, under the provisions laid out in my userspace. Though maybe this request belongs in WP:ANI? ~Eliz81^(C) 05:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops - I wasn't aware that this has started already, and I'm caught a little unawares. Let me just say that RMS promised both Eliz81 and myself that after the last unsuccessful unban request, he's stay clear of Wikipedia and his notorious cadre of sock accounts. Well, he's done exactly that and I've been checking up on him regularly using checkuser. His IP and other tech info makes him instantly spottable. In short, he's kept up his side of the bargain. I have a pmail here from Jimmy that I was CCd on stating that he'd "support [rms125a] on general principles, if [he has] not been sockpuppeting in the meantime.", when 6 months has passed. I can't believe he lasted this long without socking, but he kept up his side of the deal. BTW - I've been dealing with RMS for ... what ... over three years now, and know his ways very well indeed. I've blocked more of his socks than any other admin and indeed, was vilified on-line and in the letters page of a newspaper by Robert, back in 2006 - and yes, I'd still support his unban 100%.

Having said all that, if he's to be unbanned by the community, I'd like it to be on condition that he be placed on probation for 3-6 months under the Troubles Arbitration conditions. After a while, that can be reviewed. But yes, he's been out in the cold way too long and I believe that everyone (well, almost!) is entitled to redemption. RMS, while socking, has spent most of the year keeping out of his 'hot button' articles, and had spent a lot of time wikignoming on biographical articles, and on early movie actors, etc. Time to bring him back in out of the cold! - Alison ^❤ 05:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Eliz81's conditions are more appropriate than just Troubles Probation. I'd like to endorse that plan - Alison ^❤ 05:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support unban; if they kept to the conditions, and Durova and Alison confirm they have, then we should keep to ours. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - although the conditions (specifically #4 and #9) should be written in such a way as to allow an account name change. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• The restrictions look pretty weasel-proof but I think three months probation is too short. A review after three months may be appropriate, but the probation should be in place for at least six and preferably twelve months - a year would be normal if ArbCom sanctioned someone whose history of disruption is of this magnitude. 80.176.82.42 (talk) 12:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• I see little point in parole; a violation of the conditions is going to result in a block, likely indefinite and therefore a resumption of the ban, no matter if the editor is on parole or not. With their history this account does not need the stigma of parolee to ensure severe repercussions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Call it probation, parole, agreed conditions, whatever - if there is no violation before everyone has forgotten the specifics then I think it won't be a problem. I just think that implying a three month limit to these restrictions is unhelpful in this case. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to have a whole lot of visibility here. Mind if I move the thread to ANI? - Alison ^❤ 04:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Last time I checked email adresses were not suitable account names... - Mgm|^(talk) 12:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

RMS's account was created before the September watershed, so he's okay there. That comes up all the time on WP:UAA. If needs be, he also has an account in his real name - Alison ^❤ 14:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The only issues are that we cannot grant userrights to accounts with an @ sign and afaik, they cannot SUL. MBisanz ^talk 15:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really an issue; this was one of the accounts that got grandfathered in before the change. BTW no objection if the thread moves to ANI, Allie. Durova^Charge! 21:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Durova, I am thinking more along the lines that if he ever wants any userright like Rollback or ever wants to SUL, he'll need to be renamed, which some people will claim he is doing to hide his past. But you are correct that it does not matter if he wants to keep the account. MBisanz ^talk 23:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we're already into worrying about this stuff, does that mean he's unbanned? ^_^ Seriously, though, he also has User:Robert Sieger, which may well be the account that gets unblocked, all going well - Alison ^❤ 23:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why he was banned, what he has done since then, or if he should be unbanned, I'm just trying to head off the picky technical bickering that will ensue if the point is reached where a large number of people want to unban him and a large number of people want to prevent unbanning by arguing over details. Yes, I am jaded, but only because I've seen it so many times before. MBisanz ^talk 23:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

All bans should be publically reviewed after a certain period of time, if requested by the banned editor. Wikipedia risk being guilty of incivility if we don't because administrators can be quite rude by email. I have experience of being mistreated at by an administrator and even told threatened with gang rape by another Wikipedian. (Ryulong and Durova both posted here, Durova was nice. No comment about Ryulong, he'll probably block me if I say anything less than stellar). What would be a suitable period of time? 1 year? 18 months? This would encourage good behavior and not using sockpuppetry. Chergles (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

That's more appropriate to bring up at WP:VPP. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

With respect for Chergles's input I've created a new essay about lifting community bans. Wikipedia:Standard offer contains the standards I've practiced for over two years. Shortcut WP:SO. Durova^Charge! 04:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW - Robert emailed me to say that he's dealing with a family issue right now and won't really be able to participate (on or off-wiki) in discussions here for the moment - Alison ^❤ 15:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• No. I've gone back over this guy's record - old blocks, old RFCs, etc - and it's quite clear he's a lunatic bigot. We have enough of these on Wikipedia without letting another one from the past back into the fold. Troubles article have plenty of nutters editing them without another one being throw in. I don't care if he's been a good little boy and avoided socking for six pathetic months - ooh, well done, would you like some chocolate cake now? Leopards spots change do not. What do you think he wants to come back for? To carry on wikignoming on movie bio articles? I really don't think so. Moreschi (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I found this in my plague archives: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/[email protected]. Do we really think that any...person...capable of writing this revolting bile should be allowed near Wikipedia? Do we really? Moreschi (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Keeping him from Wikipedia isn't actually feasible, but genuine reform may be. He has refrained from socking for half a year. Okay, let's give him a try. He'll be on the short leash and there isn't likely to be any opposition to a renewed ban if problems return. There's little to lose by giving banned users an incentive to turn over a new leaf, as long as the parameters are fair and reasonable to both sides. Not too lenient, but not impossible either. Durova^Charge! 04:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support unban per Eliz81's substantive conditions although I would go along with the suggestions that a new name is used. At a guess, I think I must have unwittingly welcomed almost a dozen of RMS's sock accounts during routine work at Recent Changes. You can add quite a few welcomes later, after I became aware of the history involved and where I had a gut feeling from editing patterns that it was RMS, but there was no legitimate reason not to assume good faith. I've knocked off a couple of socks along the way :). The events that led to his banning happened before I was active on Wikipedia, so I wasn't involved, but they clearly and unambigiously fall into the category of "things-up-with-which-Wikipedia-cannot-put" if the system is to work; perhaps if I had been involved then, I probably would be reluctant to support an unban now. But the question seems to me to be: has the situation, or more accurately, has RMS moved on from 2006 and would unbanning him compromise the encyclopaedia? He has kept to his agreement not to sock. From the few interactions I have had with RMS - although granted those were with sock accounts - and from reading his edits over the course of late 2007 and early 2008, my opinion is that he has moved a long way from the RMS of 2006. And, perhaps this isn't really relevant, but the fact that he is agreeing to go through this process earns a few points from me, if only on grounds of "intestinal fortitude". FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Without going into too much detail, Robert had some personal issues back in 2006 that would certainly have caused problems, especially those outbursts that Moreschi noted above. That's all been resolved now and is in the past, and he's unlikely to go back to that behaviour. That's all I can say, really - Alison ^❤ 09:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    • And you believe him when he says this? "Oh, sorry, I couldn't help all the xenophobia and racism, I was a bit stressed at the time"? Do we have any proof of this? These conditions are incredibly generous. I could maybe support if the topic ban from Troubles articles was lifetime, but 6 months? You must be joking. Moreschi (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure that belief is an issue here; it's actions subsequent to any unbanning that are going to be the issue, and any edits on Troubles-related articles are inevitably going to scrutinized. Of course, anything along the lines of the events that got him banned are going to result in a reban, simple as that. If he makes edits that, if made by any other editor without any baggage, would be considered legitimate and constructive, then they should be treated on their merits as such; however, if there is a pattern of edits where he "plays the player, not the ball", where there is good reason to believe he is editing against another editor or editors rather than on the point, they aren't going to escape notice. There are enough neutral editors involved in the Troubles articles nowadays that someone is going to call him on them; even in six months, a year or two years from now, because of the history of the Trouble-related articles, it's highly unlikely that there won't be more than enough neutral editors who could easily - and quickly - come to a reasonable conclusion. Hey, even bleeding-heart liberals like me sometimes take comfort in knowing there's a Big Stick around the place somewhere :). People might be willing to let his past stay in the past and if things go to plan, the past can be forgotten, but he will still be subject to the rules on neutrality and personal attacks that all the rest of us have to work with. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 15:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• While I have some of the same reservations and Moreschi, if durova, alison, and eliz all think rms has gotten past the rediculous behavior; I would support a short leased unbann (following eliz's conditions). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Meh. If the people above are willing to supervise, and the user will follow the restrictions, then good luck to him. (And them.) Tony Fox (arf!) 21:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

1. support unban Willing to see how this goes. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Weak Support, with concerns - I note in that RfC above that his interests in bigotry range far and wide from Irish topics; I think that point 10 needs at least 6 and 6, not 3 and 3, and needs to be expanded to cover any political conflict in which two or more common populations are involved - Ireland, Serbia, Slovaks/Slovenes, Ukrainians, and so on. To be blunt, I'd like to see it mroe stepped = 3 months of theater and film, and 3 months of general culture and sciences and so on, with the step 10 material to kick in AFTERwards - so that it goes from generally exclusive to generally inclusive over time. I realize this complicates it, but this isn't an easy situation. If hes' truly interested in editing the project, it shouldn't be too hard to abide by, and if he's interested in combat, then it'll be over fast either way. ThuranX (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)